Computational Economics

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 649–667 | Cite as

Hybrid Perturbation-Projection Method for Solving DSGE Asset Pricing Models



This paper conduct a quantitative experiment to assess the effectiveness of a hybrid perturbation-projection (HPP) method to solve dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) asset pricing models. We employ a macro-based asset pricing model to compare HPP method and value function iteration (VFI) method based on the same reasonable calibrations. This DSGE asset pricing model in the paper incorporates nonlinearities in both household preferences and firm production technologies. Additionally, the market for debt introduces its own type of nonlinearity; leverage can force a nonlinear wedge between asset rates. In the paper, we first show how to apply the HPP method and then assess its accuracy and speed compared with the old VFI method. Accuracy of solutions is demonstrated by comparing standard deviations of the logged values of first order conditions errors of important financial assets. Speed of the solution methods is shown by comparing the computational time. By comparing the results from applying the same DSGE asset pricing model to the competing methods, we find that the HPP method is not only feasible but also robust to the extreme nonlinearities in the asset pricing model.


Perturbation Projection Value function iteration  DSGE model 

Mathematics Subject Classification

C63 D9 E32 G12 



We are grateful to Duane Graddy and Kevin Zhao for helpful comments and suggestions.


  1. Abel, A. B. (1980). Empirical investment equations: An intergrative framework. Carnegie-rochester conference series on public policy (vol. 12, pp. 39–91).Google Scholar
  2. Barberis, N., Huang, M., & Santos, T. (2001). Prospect theory and asset prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2004). Preferences with frames: A new utility specification that allows for the framing of iisks, Working paper, Yale University.Google Scholar
  4. Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2008). The handbook of the equity risk premium, the loss aversion/narrow framing approach to the equity premium puzzle (pp. 1–36). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Basu, P. (1987). An adjustment cost model of asset pricing. International Economic Review, 28, 609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boldrin, M., Christiano, L., & Fisher, J. (2001). Habit persistence, asset returns, and the business cycle. American Economic Review, 91, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldara, D., Fernández-Villaverde, J., Rubio-Ramirez, J., & Yao, W. (2012). Computing DSGE models with recursive preferences and stochastic volatility. Review of Economic Dynamics, 15, 188–206. doi: 10.1016/ Scholar
  8. Chen, Y. (2013). A prior predictive analysis of the effects of loss aversion/narrow framing in a macroeconomic model for asset pricing. B.E. Journals of Macroeconomics, 13(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danthine, J., & Donaldson, J. (2002). Labor relations and asset returns. The Review of Economic Studies, 69, 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernández-Villaverde, J., & Rubio-Ramirez, J. (2006). Solving DSGE models with perturbation methods and a change of variables. Journal of Economic Dynamic and Control, 30, 2509–2531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernández-Villaverde, J., Binsbergen, J. V., Koijen, R. S. J., & Rubio-Ramirez, J. (2010). The term structure of interest rates in a DSGE model with recursive preferences, Working Paper 1–49.Google Scholar
  12. Grüne, L., & Semmler, W. (2008). Asset pricing with loss aversion. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 32, 3253–3274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guvenen, F. (2009). A parsimonious macroeconomic model for asset pricing. Econometrica, 77, 1711–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huffman, G. W., & Wynne, M. A. (1999). The role of intratemporal adjustment costs in a multisector economy. Journal of Monetary Economics, 43, 317–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jermann, U. (1998). Asset pricing in production economies. Journal of Monetary Economics, 41, 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Judd, K. L. (1996). Approximation, perturbation, and projection solution methods in economics, handbook of computational economics (pp. 509–585). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Judd, K.L. (2002). Perturbation methods with nonlinear changes of variables, Working paper, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  18. Kydland, F. E., & Prescott, E. C. (1982). Time to build and aggregate flutuations. Econometrica, 50, 1345–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehra, R., & Prescott, E. (1985). The equity premium. Journal of Monetary Economics, 15, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruge-Murcia, F. (2012). Estimating nonlinear DSGE models by the simulated method of moments: With an application to business cycles. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 36, 914–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tauchen, G. (1990). Solving the stochastic growth model by using quadrature methods and value-function iterations. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 8(1), 49–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Finance & EconomicsMarshall UniversityHuntingtonUSA
  2. 2.Economics and Finance DepartmentMurfreesboroUSA

Personalised recommendations