Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 37–44 | Cite as

Modeling Federal Funds rates: a comparison of four methodologies

  • A. G. Malliaris
  • Mary MalliarisEmail author
IJCNN 2007

Abstract

Monthly Federal Fund interest rate values, set by the Federal Open Market Committee, have been the subject of much speculation prior to the announcement of their new values each period. In this study we use four competing methodologies to model and forecast the behavior of these short term Federal Fund interest rates. These methodologies are: time series, Taylor, econometric and neural network. The time series forecasts use only past values of Federal Funds rates. The celebrated Taylor rule methodology theorizes that the Federal Fund rate values are influenced solely by deviations from a desired level of inflation and from potential output. The econometric and neural network models have inputs used by both the time series and Taylor rule. Using monthly data from 1958 to the end of 2005 we distinguish between sample and out-of-sample sets to train, evaluate, and compare the models’ effectiveness. Our results indicate that the econometric modeling performs better than the other approaches when the data are divided into two sets of pre-Greenspan and Greenspan periods. However, when the data sample is divided into three groups of low, medium and high Federal Funds, the neural network approach does best.

Keywords

Federal Funds Modeling interest rates Taylor rule Neural networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Bernanke B (2007) Opening remarks to the conference on John Taylor’s contributions to monetary theory and policy. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Dallas, October 12, 2007Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brenner RJ, Harjes RH, Kroner KF (1996) Another look at models of the short-term interest rate. J Financ Quant Anal 31:85–107. doi: 10.2307/2331388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarida R, Galí J, Gertler M (2000) Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: evidence and some theory. Q J Econ 115:147–180. doi: 10.1162/003355300554692 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernandez A, Nikotsko-Rzhevskyy A (2007) Measuring the Taylor rule’s performance. Fed Reserve Bank Dallas Econ Lett 2:1–9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guidolin M, Timmermann A (2005) Forecasts of US short-term interest rates: a flexible forecast combination approach. Working paper 2005-059A, Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Judd JP, Rudebusch GD (1998) Taylor’s rule and the fed: 1970–1997. Fed Reserve Bank San Franscisco Econ Rev 3:3–16Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Kozicki S (1999) How useful are Taylor rules for monetary policy? Fed Reserve Bank Kans City Econ Rev 84:5–33Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McNelis P (2003) Neural networks in finance. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mehra Y, Minton B (2007) A Taylor rule and the Greenspan era. Fed Reserve Bank Richmond Econ Q 93:229–250Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orphanides A (2001) Monetary policy rules based on real-time data. Am Econ Rev 91:964–985Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orphanides A (2001b) Monetary policy rules, macroeconomic stability and inflation: a view from the trenches. Working paper no. 115, European Central Bank, December, pp 1–43Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell S, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence, a modern approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Svensson L (2003) What is wrong with Taylor rules? Using judgment in monetary policy through targeting rules. J Econ Lit 41:426–477. doi: 10.1257/002205103765762734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor JB (1993) Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39:195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor JB (1998) An historical analysis of monetary policy rules. Working paper no. 6768, National Bureau of Economic Research, October, pp 1–53Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tetlow R, Ironside B (2006) Real-time model uncertainty in the united states: the Fed model from 1996–2003, European Central Bank Working paper Series, No. 610Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trippi R, Turban E (1996) Neural networks in finance and investing, Irwin Professional PublishingGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodford M (2000) The Taylor rule and optimal monetary policy. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 91:232–237Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and FinanceLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations