Patrick Adams

@timdesilva @ProfJAParker @dthesmar @SIEPR @StanfordGSB 🥳🥳🥳

Delayed update: the job market is over, and I've defended my dissertation! Thank you to my amazing advisors @ProfJAParker, @dthesmar, Larry, Taha, and Eric. I'm very excited to return to CA, where I'll do a postdoc at @SIEPR for 2024-25 and then join @StanfordGSB as a Finance AP!

BACK TO BACK‼️ #EVERYTHING

@MissChangHe @UVA Congratulations Chang! 🥳🥳 that’s fantastic!

I am excited to share that I will be joining the University of Virginia (@UVA) as an assistant professor of Economics in the Fall of 2024! 🤩 Words cannot express how grateful I am to my advisors, family and friends, and especially my fiancé for their continous support. ❤️

@michaeldcai @oliverwkim 🫡

@PatrickAdams21 @oliverwkim My man, Pat, always coming through

Does anyone know if a Romer and Romer-style monetary policy shock series exists for the historical French Franc? Ideally from like 1960 or so. Or just of any papers even study MP shocks in Europe pre-Euro. Thanks!

@oliverwkim And a more recent paper that builds a Romer and Romer-style shock series for the Bundesbank prior to the introduction of the euro (with an interesting analysis of spillovers to other European countries with pegged/floating exchange rates against the DEM): nber.org/papers/w30485

@oliverwkim Here’s one paper that constructs a narrative monetary policy shock series for France around that period: aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…

@oliverwkim Jaroconski and Karadi (AEJ:Macro, 2020) build a high-frequency shock series for ECB policy announcements that has been used widely. I think Jarocinski’s recent JIE paper also uses an updated version of the series. marekjarocinski.github.io

Macroeconomists: what are the canonical Euro monetary policy shock series out there, akin to Romer & Romer or Nakamura & Steinsson for the US?

@sc_cath @LevyAntoine @timdesilva I was just trying to address the "firm I own shares in discovered a new tech/found oil on land it owns" example from the previous post.

@sc_cath @LevyAntoine @timdesilva Agreed! The vast majority of stockholders hold well-diversified portfolios unaffected by firm-specific CF news. (Except for perhaps the very-very-far right tail, where successful business founders seem to retain a lot of exposure to their own firm) onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/EC…

Should one include capital gains or only business earnings in income inequality measures? That’s a conceptually complicated question with a big effect on measured income inequality. Let me go through it. First, it’s important to note that capital gains have two potential causes. The first one: the expected cash flows of an asset may have increased, in which case the owner of the asset is unambiguously richer. The second one: the discount rate for the asset decreased, which means that the same future cash flows trade at a higher value because the fact that they are in the future is less discounted than before. In this case, the owner is not necessarily richer, in the sense that his lifetime purchasing power may not have increased. Why? Because when interest rates go down, the market value of asset immediately increases, but the return on these assets is lower moving forward. These two effects exactly offset each other if your intention was to keep the asset and live of its dividends. Concretely, think of house prices. If house prices in your neighborhood go up your wealth goes up, but unless you planned on selling to go somewhere where prices did not increase as much, this has no effect on your lifetime consumption. Now, in the data, there has been a lot of this type of paper gains over the last 40 years because real interest rates went down a lot over the period, inflating the present value of unchanged future cash flows. If people understand that paper gains don’t really change their lifetime wealth, they should not consume out of it. And this is what empirical research has found: the consumption of investors responds to dividends but not really capital gains. Another way to think about it. When interest rate go down, the fact that the value of traded assets go up is immediately observable by the empirical researcher… well, because they are traded so we see their prices. But the value of non-tradable cash flows, like Social Security claims and future labor earnings also goes up, which is not visible but has the same consequence on how much consumption people can afford over their lifetime. So, if you measure inequality to understand standards of living, and you decide to include capital gains in your measure, consistency requires that you also include the huge capital gains on accrued Social Security and future labor earnings, not just the stocks owned by the rich. There is no perfect solution to this problem but it’s important to keep in mind that including capital gains only on tradable securities in measures of income inequality will artificially inflates inequality with paper gains in periods of decreasing interest rates, and the opposite in periods increasing rates. Artificially in the sense that this increase in inequality does not translate in a similar increase in lifetime consumption inequality. That’s because the rich own lots of tradable securities (stocks…) while the rest own mostly non tradable assets (Social Security claims and human capital) for which these gains are unrecorded.

@LevyAntoine @sc_cath @timdesilva So I think of typical fluctuations in individual firm stock prices as representing "real" gains for owners (i.e. higher future profits/payouts), unless they happen to be accompanied by changes in variables that predict future market returns (e.g. the mkt price/dividend ratio).

@LevyAntoine @sc_cath @timdesilva Changes in discount rates instead tend to be driven by other aggregate variables (e.g. monetary policy surprises, other factors behind declining real rates), although assets are differentially exposed to those changes (e.g. value vs. growth stocks, short vs. long-maturity bonds).

@zafari_zorah @UCSDEcon @NSF Congratulations Zorah! 🥳🥳 that’s amazing!

@emmavaninwegen Also there are literally no alumni who could potentially complain about the decision!

@PatrickAdams21 Wisconsin too! Mid 19th century, amazing! Midwestern/West coast schools are mechanically younger than the east coast schools- so maybe there's some costs to switching from all-male to coed, but if the school opens 100 years later, its easier to just open as coed right off the bat

To add to this fun trend of guys posting snarky tiktoks about being rejected/waitlisted by ivy league schools, I want to make a tiktok of a girl applying fifty years ago with a perfect score on the SATs but not getting in any ivys because they explicitly barred women from entry*

@emmavaninwegen MIT was effectively all-male until at least 1964 ☹️

@emmavaninwegen Some of the other very old public universities (William & Mary, Georgia, Delaware) started admitting women in the late 1910s/early 1920s. It seems like maybe the West/Midwest had less of an issue with status quo bias? It would be interesting if someone had more data on this.

Thank you @NYSE for inviting us to ring this morning’s opening bell 🔔 #HU5KIES

@momin_rayhan @chenwilliam77 One example: dropbox.com/s/xee7ygskh0z4…

@MaximeBonelli @LBS @HECParis @HECParisPhD @HECKnowledge Congratulations Maxime!

🚨‼️🚨Very excited to share that I will join @LBS as an Assistant Professor of #Finance this summer! I am looking forward to joining this amazing group!➡️🙏Thanks to @HECParis for so many great years and all the support I received during the job market! #EconTwitter @HECParisPhD