The role of oil price shocks in US economic activity and inflation is controversial but a key input to current economic policy. To clarify these relations, we employ a more refined measure of oil shocks based on decomposing highly accurate realized volatility estimated using intraday oil futures data. In reconciling prior results, we find that shocks driven by price increases (decreases) are associated with rising (falling) inflation while only a symmetric volatility channel affects economic activity

Kellard, Neil

Triantafyllou, Athanasios

Vlastakis, Nikolaos

English

University of Essex Research Repository

1   Essex Finance Centre Working Paper Series  Working Paper No 59: 05-2020     “Measuring Oil Price Shocks”   “Nikolaos Vlastakis, Athanasios Triantafyllou, Neil Kellard”          Essex Business School, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ Web site: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ebs/   2    Measuring Oil Price Shocks Nikolaos Vlastakisa†, Athanasios Triantafylloua,b and Neil Kellarda a Essex Business School, University of Essex, UK b SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, USA   Abstract The role of oil price shocks in US economic activity and inflation is controversial but a key input to current economic policy. To clarify these relations, we employ a more refined measure of oil shocks based on decomposing highly accurate realized volatility estimated using intraday oil futures data. In reconciling prior results, we find that shocks driven by price increases (decreases) are associated with rising (falling) inflation while only a symmetric volatility channel affects economic activity.    JEL Classification: G17, E2, E31, E32, Q43. Keywords: Oil shocks, Jumps, Realized semivariance, Economic activity, Inflation.        † Corresponding Author, Essex Business School, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex, CO4 3SQ, UK (nvlast@essex.ac.uk ); Tel: +44 (0) 1206 874591.    3  1. Introduction We examine the impact and the predictive information content of oil price shocks on US economic activity and inflation. The results of the extant literature are inconclusive; some work finding an asymmetric condition whereby oil price increases have a more recessionary impact on the economy than the positive impact of oil price decreases (e.g., Hamilton, 2011; Kilian and Vigfusson, 2013), while others (e.g., Hooker, 1996) promulgate the breaking of the oil-macroeconomy relation. Moreover, another strand of the literature indicates that oil prices are among the key drivers of inflation (Choi et al., 2018).  What might help explain the apparent inconsistencies in prior results? Previous studies often identify oil price shocks differently: as the log-difference of the nominal price of oil (Hamilton, 1983), as the net oil price increase (a monthly dummy variable which takes the value of one for positive price changes and zero otherwise – see Hamilton, 2003), or as the monthly realized volatility of daily oil price returns (Elder and Serletis, 2010). Each of these identification strategies has its own advantages, with the price-based measures able to capture any asymmetry in the oil-macroeconomy relation. Nevertheless, while isolated price shocks likely have a transient impact on the distribution of returns, shocks or jumps in volatility typically have a more persistent effect and can explain large market movements (Eraker et al., 2003; Eraker, 2004). This latter observation is reinforced by the finding that jumps in price and volatility tend to happen together (Jacod and Todorov, 2010).   To look more closely at the role of oil, in this paper we combine the identification strategies in the literature by identifying the shock as an asymmetric change in price volatility based on high-4  frequency (5-minute) oil futures data. Specifically, we decompose monthly realized volatility to the part attributable to positive and negative price changes (positive and negative semi-variance, respectively), as well as a signed jump component; hence a jump in volatility is driven by either positive or negative price changes. These asymmetric components of volatility can be directly linked to either increases or decreases in prices and therefore provide a more refined measure of oil price shocks, conflating the advantages of extant measures.  Our new results reconcile prior findings. While the oil-macroeconomy relation is shown still to operate, it does so primarily through a symmetric volatility channel to economic activity rather than via asymmetric changes. Conversely, shocks are significant predictors of inflation, with positive shocks predicting rising inflation and negative shocks predicting falling inflation.   2. Data and Methodology 2.1 Prices and volatility For a more robust identification of oil price shocks, we use high-frequency (5-minute) prices for crude oil futures and the S&P 500 index.1 Importantly, we have a long time series of data from January 1987 till December 2017. The 5-minute frequency ensures minimal microstructure noise without diminishing the accuracy of the estimator. We estimate realized variance (RV) by summing squared intraday logarithmic returns (filtered through an MA(1) process) following Andersen et al. (2001):                                                        𝑅𝑉𝑡 = ∑ 𝑟𝑖2𝑛𝑖=1                                                                          (1)  1 Intraday data are obtained from Pi Trading for the S&P index and from Tick Data for crude oil futures. 5   where 𝑟𝑖 = log⁡(𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝𝑖−1), with 𝑝 denoting the filtered price series and 𝑖 the number of intraday observations in each period. We decompose RV into its continuous and jump components by first estimating realized bi-power variation2 (BV), which captures the continuous component of RV, following Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006):                                                𝐵𝑉𝑡 = 𝜇1−2∑ |𝑟𝑖||𝑟𝑖−1|𝑛𝑖=2                                                                  (2)  where 𝜇1 = √2 𝜋⁄ . The difference between RV and BV provides an estimate of the variation due to jumps:                                                 𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃𝑂𝐼𝐿𝑡 = 𝑅𝑉𝑡 − 𝐵𝑉𝑡                                                               (3)  To examine the asymmetric effects of jumps, we use positive and negative semi-variance (i.e., the part of variance due to positive and negative price moves) to construct signed jump variation following Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2010):                                                        Δ𝐽2 = 𝑅𝑆+ − 𝑅𝑆−                                                                 (4) with                                                  𝑅𝑆+ = ∑ 𝑟𝑖2𝑛𝑖=1 𝐼{𝑟𝑖 > 0}                                                            (5)                                                  𝑅𝑆− = ∑ 𝑟𝑖2𝑛𝑖=1 𝐼{𝑟𝑖 < 0}                                                            (6)   2 Using the average of skip-0 through skip-4 bi-power variation as our estimate following Patton and Shephard (2015). 6  denoting positive and negative semi-variance, respectively, where I denotes the indicator function. We label OILRV, the monthly realized variance of crude oil from (1), OILTOTJUMP is the oil price variation due to jumps from (3), OILSIGNJUMP is the monthly oil price signed jump variation from (4), and OILPOSVAR and OILNEGVAR are the monthly positive and negative realized semi-variance from (5) and (6). We estimate the same set of measures for the stock-market i.e., SP500RV (S&P500 realized variance), SP500TOTJUMP (the jump component of SP500RV), SP500POSVAR and SP500NEGVAR (S&P500 positive and negative semi-variance) and SP500SIGNJUMP (S&P500 signed jump variation). We obtain monthly data for US Industrial Production (IPI), Fed funds rate (FFR) and US Consumer Price Index (INFL) from the FRED database.   2.2 Forecasting regression models The multivariate models including macroeconomic fundamentals, oil and stock-market volatility are given in (7) to (11):  ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1) = 𝑎 + 𝑏1𝐼𝑁𝐹𝐿𝑡−1 + 𝑏2𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑏3ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−2) + 𝑒𝑡   (7)  ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1) = 𝑎 + 𝑏1𝐼𝑁𝐹𝐿𝑡−1 + 𝑏2𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑏3ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−2) + 𝑏4𝑂𝐼𝐿𝑃𝑂𝑆𝑉𝐴𝑅𝑡−1 +𝑏5𝑂𝐼𝐿𝑁𝐸𝐺𝑉𝐴𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑏6𝑆𝑃500𝑃𝑂𝑆𝑉𝐴𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑏7𝑆𝑃500𝑁𝐸𝐺𝑉𝐴𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑒𝑡                                                               (8)  ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1) = 𝑎 + 𝑏1𝐼𝑁𝐹𝐿𝑡−1 + 𝑏2𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑏3ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−2) + 𝑏4𝑂𝐼𝐿𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃𝑡−1 +𝑏5𝑆𝑃500𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃𝑡−1 + 𝑒𝑡      (9)  7  ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1) = 𝑎 + 𝑏1𝐼𝑁𝐹𝐿𝑡−1 + 𝑏2𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑏3ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−2) + 𝑏4𝑂𝐼𝐿𝑆𝐼𝐺𝑁𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃𝑡−1 +𝑏5𝑆𝑃500𝑆𝐼𝐺𝑁𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃𝑡−1 + 𝑒𝑡   (10)  ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1) = 𝑎 + 𝑏1𝐼𝑁𝐹𝐿𝑡−1 + 𝑏2𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑡−1 + 𝑏3ln⁡(𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−1/𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡−2) + 𝑏4𝑂𝐼𝐿𝑅𝑉𝑡−1 + 𝑏5𝑆𝑃500𝑅𝑉𝑡−1 + 𝑒𝑡 (11)  We also run analogous least-squares models with INFL as the dependent.      2.3 VAR model Following and extending Kilian and Lewis (2011) who examine the endogenous interactions between oil price shocks, monetary policy responses, inflation and real output, we also estimate a 4-factor reduced-form VAR with the following ordering:                                              𝑌𝑡 = [𝐼𝑃𝐼𝑡⁡⁡𝐼𝑁𝐹𝐿𝑡⁡⁡𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑡⁡⁡⁡𝑂𝐼𝐿𝑆𝐼𝐺𝑁𝐽𝑈𝑀𝑃𝑡]  (12)  3. Econometric results  Tables 1 and 2 present the regression results of the models shown in (7) to (11) for INFL and IPI, respectively.   [Insert Tables 1 and 2]  From Table 1 we see that oil volatility changes attributed to price increases (OILPOSVAR) are positively correlated with subsequent inflation. More generally, while rising positive semi-variance is associated with rising inflation, rising negative semi-variance is associated with falling 8  inflation. Notably, while the coefficient on signed volatility jumps (OILSIGNJUMP) is significantly positive, total jumps (those irrespective of the sign) contain no predictive information content for inflation.    Table 2 does not support an analogous asymmetric relation between oil and economic activity. Specifically, asymmetric oil price shocks (OILSIGNJUMP, OILPOSVAR, OILNEGVAR) are not significant predictors of IPI. Overall, our multivariate regression analysis indicates that shocks in the oil market, driven by increases in oil prices, are associated with increasing inflation and not with drops in economic activity. On the other hand, a rise in the general level of symmetric oil and stock-market volatility and jumps predict a fall in economic activity. These results are in line with literature showing rising stock-market volatility and oil price uncertainty has a dampening effect on economic activity (Elder and Serletis, 2010).  Figure 1 below depicts the Orthogonalized Impulse Response Functions (OIRFs) of IPI and INFL to a positive one standard deviation shock to OILSIGNJUMP, estimated using the model in Equation (12).   [Insert Figure 1]  Figure 1 reveals that a positive asymmetric oil shock has a positive and significant effect on INFL (i.e., a one standard deviation innovation in OILSIGNJUMP increases inflation by almost 7 basis points one month after the initial shock, with the effect remaining positive and significant for 3 months). Conversely, the effect of the same innovation has a sluggish and insignificant effect on 9  IPI growth. In particular, IPI growth initially decreases by about 2 basis points (after 1 month) and then increases 5 basis points after 3 months.    4. Conclusions Are oil price shocks inflationary or recessionary or both? Although the extant literature is inconclusive, understanding these relations is a key input to current US economic policy. In this context, we newly identify oil price shocks by decomposing highly accurate realized variance estimated from intraday data. In reconciling prior work, our analysis shows that, whilst economic activity (as measured by industrial production) is affected via a symmetric oil price volatility channel, inflation is driven by asymmetric measures captured by semi-variance and signed jump variation.    References Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., Ebens, H. (2001). The distribution of realized stock return volatility. Journal of Financial Economics, 61(1), 43-76. Barndorff-Nielsen, O., Kinnebrock, Shephard, N. (2010). Measuring Downside Risk—Realised Semivariance, in T. Bollerslev, J. Russell, M. Watson, eds., Volatility and Time Series Econometrics: Essays in Honor of Robert F. Engle (New York: Oxford University Press). Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., Shephard, N. (2006). Econometrics of testing for jumps in financial economics using bipower variation. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 4(1), 1-30. Choi, S., Furceri, D., Loungani, P., Mishra, S., Poplawski-Ribeiro, M. (2018). Oil prices and inflation dynamics: Evidence from advanced and developing economies. Journal of International Money and Finance, 82, 71-96. 10  Elder, J., Serletis, A. (2010). Oil price uncertainty. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 42(6), 1137-1159. Eraker, B. (2004). Do stock prices and volatility jump? Reconciling evidence from spot and option prices. Journal of Finance, 59(3), 1367-1403. Eraker, B., Johannes, M., Polson, N. (2003). The impact of jumps in volatility and returns. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1269-1300. Hamilton, J. D., (1983). Oil and the macroeconomy since World War II. Journal of Political Economy, 91, 228-248. Hamilton, J. D. (2003). What is an oil shock? Journal of Econometrics, 113(2), 363-398. Hamilton, J. D., (2011). Nonlinearities and the macroeconomic effects of oil prices. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 15, 364-378.   Hooker, M. A. (1996). What happened to the oil price-macroeconomy relationship? Journal of Monetary Economics, 38(2), 195-213. Jacod, J., Todorov, V. (2010). Do price and volatility jump together? The Annals of Applied Probability, 20(4), 1425-1469. Kilian, L., Lewis, L. T. (2011). Does the Fed respond to oil price shocks?. Economic Journal, 121(555), 1047-1072. Kilian, L., Vigfusson, R. J. (2013). Do oil prices help forecast us real GDP? The role of nonlinearities and asymmetries. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 31(1), 78-93. Patton, A. J., Sheppard, K. (2015). Good volatility, bad volatility: Signed jumps and the persistence of volatility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(3), 683-697.    11  Table 1. Forecasting inflation using oil and stock-market jumps and volatility (1-month forecasting horizon).     Notes: t-statistics (reported in parentheses) are corrected for autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity using the Newey-West (1987) estimator. *, ** and *** denotes statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively.    (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Const     0.007***      0.001***   0.001***     0.001***      0.001***   (2.865) (5.567) (5.461) (3.981) (5.320) INFLATION     0.373***      0.257***   0.370***     0.329***      0.269***   (4.101) (5.249) (4.639) (5.566) (4.931) FFR     0.001***      0.015*** 0.014     0.016***      0.016***   (4.467) (3.310) (3.097) (4.473) (3.699) IPI  0.002 -0.014* -0.002 0.005 -0.011   (0.541) (-0.534) (-0.103) (0.218) (-0.409) OILRV      -0.004       (-0.213) SP500RV          -0.234***       (-3.203) OILPOSVAR        0.537***       (2.781)    SP500POSVAR   0.001       (0.060)    OILNEGVAR       -0.611***       (-3.717)    SP500NEGVAR      -0.320**        (-2.034)    OILTOTJUMP    -0.104       (-1.153)   SP500TOTJUMP      -0.197*         (-1.664)   OILSIGNJUMP          0.695***       (2.197)  SP500SIGNJUMP     0.441       (1.390)                % adj. R2  20.6 33.5 21.2 29.4 29.1 12  Table 2. Forecasting Industrial Production growth (1-month forecasting horizon).  Notes: t-statistics (reported in parentheses) are corrected for autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity using the Newey-West (1987) estimator. *, ** and *** denotes statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively.        (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Const  0.0003      0.003***    0.001* 0.003      0.003***   (0.359) (3.675) (1.898) (0.404) (3.788) INFLATION  0.429 0.245 0.398 0.423 0.248   (1.546) (1.198) (1.500) (1.552) (1.238) FFR  0.004 -0.017 -0.014 -0.002 -0.017   (0.032) (-1.580) (1.335) (-0.021) (-1.564) IPI     0.215*** 0.132*    0.167**   0.218***   0.133*   (2.755) (1.876) (2.216) (2.795) (1.915) OIL RV          -0.311***       (-4.149) SP500RV          -0.275***       (-2.942) OILPOSVAR   -0.285       (-0.910)    SP500POSVAR   -0.382       (-0.691)    OILNEGVAR   -0.169       (-0.323)    SP500NEGVAR   -0.341       (-1.007)    OILTOTJUMP       -0.579***       (-4.282)   SP500TOTJUMP    -0.103           (-0.338)   OILSIGNJUMP     0.077       (0.201)  SP500SIGNJUMP     0.681       (1.341)                % adj. R2  7.6 14.6       10.8 7.4 15.0 13  Figure 1. Orthogonalized Impulse Response Function (OIRF) of Industrial production growth and inflation to an asymmetric oil price shock.           

Measuring Oil Price Shocks

http://repository.essex.ac.uk/27498/1/59_VTK_title.pdf

Measuring Oil Price Shocks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Essex Research Repository