Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 1
Breaking Down Deficits and Interest Rates:
A Comprehensive Analysis and Expansion of Hoelscher’s Theory
Daniel Willsey
Bates College Economics Department
December 8th, 2016
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 2
Breaking Down Deficits and Interest Rates: A Comprehensive Analysis and Expansion of
Hoelscher’s Theory
Introduction
Background
Economists have worked to support the theory that increases in government borrowing
are linked to increases in interest rates. A lot of these ideas revolve around the topic of
crowding out. Crowding out, defined as the stifling of private spending due to high government
expenditure, is important because it may be a large factor in the creation of deficits (R, 2015).
Past evidence contradicts this theory. When Mascaro and Meltzer did a study on interest rates,
they found that deficits did not have significant effects on interest rates in the short or long
term (Hoelscher, 1986). Additionally, Makin’s research studying short term interest rates
brought him to the conclusion that the deficit had little importance in predicting the effect.
Carrying on with this theme, further research done by economists such as Dewald, Motley,
Canto, Rapp, and Plosser all came to similar conclusions. Obviously, the evidence up to this
point strongly supports the idea that interest rates do not actually have any effect on
government deficits, despite initial theory. However, this is where Hoelscher’s research makes a
huge impact.
Hoelscher, like these other researchers, completed an analysis geared at finding the
supposed connection between long term interest rates and deficits in the period from 1953 -
1984 (Hoelscher, 1986). Unlike other economists, his approach will consider annual data and a
loanable funds framework to describe the interest rate determination process. Using this
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 3
strategy allows for government borrowing to be calculated as a direct factor in the calculation
of interest rates. As a result of this approach, Hoelscher is able to show that an analysis of
annual data represents a connection between deficits and increasing ten-year treasury bond
interest rates. Taking a step back, this specific paper will look to first replicate Hoelscher’s
process in proving this theory and then expand on his ideas. Expansion will include an analysis,
using Hoelscher’s method of not only the time period included in his study (1953 - 1984), but
also an analysis of the period from 1984 to 2013.
Following along with Hoelscher’s research has a few distinct purposes. First off,
replicating his study allows us to understand how and why he got the results that he did.
Originally, economists theorized that increases in government borrowing were a significant
contributing factor to long-term higher interest rate levels. This theory had been largely
accepted on a theoretical level. However, because this topic had been proven insignificant
numerous times in previous research, Hoelscher’s research was groundbreaking when he was
finally able to find evidence supporting it. Therefore, it makes sense to try to replicate the
results to determine whether they are valid. Additionally, replication of the research allows us
to understand why the utilization of this different technique has such different results from past
approaches.
An initial replication of the study will either yield significant or insignificant results,
testing whether Hoelscher’s analysis itself was correct. Then it is possible to see whether
Hoelscher’s results are applicable to more than just one time period. This is purposeful because
if it can be proven that Hoelscher’s techniques, when applied to different time periods are still
valid, it will be logical that his approach was correct. If it is not applicable to another time
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 4
period, there may be a flaw in his research. Such a flaw could consist of anything from a missing
variable, simultaneity bias, or even a large effect based on whatever significant world events
are occurring during the new period. By replicating his results, it is possible to gain a greater
knowledge of Hoelscher’s research and conclude whether his research is valid over longer time
periods.
Defining Variables
To follow Hoelscher’s method, the first task that needs to be completed is an analysis
and replication of the variables that he used to measure the deficit. Hoelscher uses three
variables to get different measures of the deficit. The first one is referred to as USDEF. USDEF as
defined by Hoelscher, is the national income accounts calculation of the federal deficit. This
measure is effectively trying to replicate the government's economic activity level. This variable
is measured in per capita 1972 dollars. Additionally, the variable is negatively correlated to
trends in the economic health of the United States. Our replication of this variable is as follows.
In the equation, ggsnet is equal to state and local government surplus or deficit,
gpop is the population of the united states in millions of people, and pzunew is the
consumer price index. Therefore, by taking the state and local government surplus and
deficit value and dividing it by the population of the United States, we get debt or surplus
per capita. By multiplying this number by - 1000, it is then possible to change our answer
from millions to billions. The value 41.81667 come from the CPI value in 1972. By dividing
41.81667 by the consumer price index we find the CPI value in 1972. This figure multiplied
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 5
by our per capita debt or surplus effectively gives us the government deficit levels in 1972
dollars.
The next variable that is necessary to define is what Hoelscher refers to as USDEF.
This variable is a broader measure of government deficit, including federal government
deficits as well as the state and local deficits included in the previous variable. According to
Hoelscher, this variable ends up being less volatile than USDEF and is in general a smaller
value. Our replication of the variable is as follows.
In the calculation of this variable, the only change was the addition of ggfnet which
is equal to the current federal government surplus or deficit. By adding this value to the
current state and local government surplus or deficit and keeping the rest of the variable
the same, the government deficit in 1972 dollars is calculated.
The third variable that Hoelscher discusses and defines is CFD. The CFD variable is
the third measure of the deficit that is used and is calculated by taking the depreciation in
the stock of publicly held bonds and subtracting from the money that the government is
borrowing. This calculation allows Hoelscher to calculate the change in real par values
when looking at the federal debt that is publicly held. Therefore, the CFD variable can show
that the source of government surpluses may be a result of inflation rates affecting the
value of bonds. The variable we generated to represent CFD is as follows.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 6
In the CFD variable we now use fbdp in addition to pzunew and gpop. The variable fbdp
is equivalent to the federal debt securities that are held in public hands. When describing the
variable, we can start by looking at the first set of parentheses. Like in the past two variables,
when this value is divided by the population it is converted into a per capita value. It is then
converted into the correct units by multiplying the equation by 1000. It was then multiplied by
the same conversion rate to get our answer into 1972 dollars using the consumer price index,
similar to the process previously used. This generates the equivalent of what Hoelscher refers
to as the real par value of publicly held debt. Within the first set of parentheses the subscript
“n” represents the current year. In the second set of parentheses, almost the same exact
calculation is done. However, the subscripts in this section “n-1” represents the current year
minus one. By subtracting the previous year from the current year, the difference between the
values is calculated. As a result, the change in the real par value of public debt is calculated.
Now that the three variables that calculate the value of the deficit have been formed,
the process of replicating Hoelscher’s original analysis can begin. First, the variables included in
these regressions must be defined. Hoelscher regresses his deficit calculator variables on i, the
interest rate over long periods of time; p, the expected inflation rate; rs, interest rate expected
over a short period y; the amount of change in gdp per capita; and d, standing for deficit
(Hoelscher, 1986). Expanding on Hoelchers definitions, these variables were formulated using
the data on hand to capture the same result. The variable I is reproduced using a variable called
fygt10 which stands for US treasury maturities on interest rates over ten year periods. P, like
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 7
Hoelscher’s definition, was defined as the expected inflation rate based on twelve month
forecasts. The rs variable was calculated as fygt1-p. In this case, fygt1 is equivalent to the
interest rates on US treasury cost maturities. From that, the variable p, which has been
previously defined, is subtracted. Subtracting the expected inflation rate gives us the correct
value for the expected interest rates. The calculation for the variable y is a bit more complex. It
is shown below.
In this variable, a similar procedure to the calculation of CFD is followed. However, in
this variable we now use gnyq which represents gross national income. Seen in the first set of
parentheses, gnyq divided by the general population and multiplied by 1000 as well as our
consumer price index value for 1972 has the effect of determining the per capita gross national
income in 1972 dollars. The second set of parentheses contain the same formulation of
variables as the first set apart from altered subscripts. The subscripts “n” and “n-1”, like in the
CFD variable denote the change in year from current to prior. Therefore, the first set of
parentheses represents the current year and the second set represents past year. By
subtracting this value the change in per capita gross national income is measured. The next
variable is d. As stated earlier, it represents the deficit. This variable is responsible for denoting
Hoelscher’s three different deficit variables in the analysis: USDEF, GOVDEF, and CFD.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 8
i=α0+α1p+α2rs+α3y+α4d
In his paper, Hoelscher uses the above equation to estimate the long-term interest
rates (Hoelscher, 2016). Each coefficient in the model is positive.
Methodology Behind Regressions: Cochrane Orcutt and Durbin Watson
With the variables for the first table defined, the analysis can now be executed. Rather
than using ordinary least squares, Hoelscher uses the Cochrane-Orcutt model. Due to the
nature of interest rates, a variable that exist over time, past year shocks affect current year
outputs, resulting in serial correlation. Reviewing the stata tools used to complete this
regression helps to explain the methodology (Stata Manual). The “prais” estimator is used to
tell stata to use only consistent estimators of ρ; therefore, because OLS is not consistent in this
scenario, it cannot be used. “Twostep”, is entered to stop the regression after the previous
year, fixing the problem of past shocks affecting current years. Using the command “corc”,
specifies to stata that the Cochrane-Orcutt analysis should be used. Culmination of this process
solves the problem of serial correlation in the variables and an initial inconsistent estimation
using OLS.
The Durbin-Watson statistic is used as a test to see whether ρ, a value capable of
revealing serial correlation, is equal to 0. If ρ is in fact equal to 0, it can be said that there is no
serial correlation in the model. If ρ is not equal to 0, there is serial correlation in the model
(Murray, 2006). Looking at the Durbin-Watson statistic, a value between 0 and 4, it can be
tested at the five percent significance level that ρ is equal to 0. Generally speaking, values
greater then around 1 point to a failure at rejecting the null hypothesis that ρ is 0. Therefore,
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 9
no serial correlation would be evident in the model. Numbers approaching 0 for the Durbin-
Watson statistic point towards a rejection of the null hypothesis that ρ is equal to 0 as well as
serial correlation in the model. To conclude, using the Cochrane-Orcutt model as well as the
Durbin-Watson statistic allows for Hoelscher to generate values for his regressions and test
them for serial correlation.
Results
Hoelscher’s Initial Results
After conducting the regressions, the tables generated were closely correlated to the
tables that Hoelscher came up with. However, values vary slightly due to usage of a different
data set as well as slight differentiation between our variables and the ones used by Hoelscher.
Hoelscher Table 1.1 Corc Estimates of Ten-Year Treasury Bond Yield Determinants, 1953-84
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d R2 D-W ρ
1. USDEF 1.2086 0.7455 0.7857 -0.0008 0.0081 0.9782 1.6143 0.1612(5.15) (15.96) (13.75) (-1.53) (6.85)
2. GOVDEF 1.2914 0.7615 0.7879 -0.0003 0.0074 0.982 1.7415 0.0697(5.72) (17.82) (14.52) (-0.53) (7.15)
3. CFD 1.4661 0.8697 0.8119 -0.0009 0.0069 0.9857 1.6989 0.0674(7.04) (28.15) (17.04) (-1.88) (8.39)
4. USDEF2 none 0.5245 0.6778 -0.001 0.0033 0.8118 1.5741 0.2123(6.31) (9.47) (-2.59) (2.56)
Table 1.1 is effectively showing the regression of the independent variables that
Hoelscher used for his regressions and presenting their output. To determine these values, a
Cochrane-Orcutt style regression is run to account for serial correlation. This analysis is aimed
to test whether Hoelscher’s hypothesis that deficits cause higher long term interest rates is true
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 10
(Hoelscher, 1986). Based on the results of this table, like Hoelscher, we can determine that
these results strongly support his hypothesis.
Hoelscher Table 2.1Additional Corc Estimates of Ten-Year Treasury Bond Yield Determinants, 1953-84
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d R2 D-W ρ
1. USDEF/GNP 1.0539 0.7854 0.8042 0.0029 0.4558 0.9731 1.6047 0.1492(4.1) (15.88) (12.69) (-0.63) (5.67)
2. GOVDEF/GNP 1.2028 0.7871 0.8065 0.0026 0.4214 0.9773 1.6891 0.081(4.83) (17.01) (13.43) (0.10) (6.03)
3. CFD/GNP 1.2247 0.8886 0.8278 0.0026 0.3972 0.979 1.5652 0.1505(5.28) (24.55) (14.96) (-1.13) (6.95)
Table two expands upon table one’s calculation by examining our deficit variables
(USDEF, GOVDEF, and CFD) and dividing them by gross national product.
USDEF/GNP= (−100 (ggsnet ))gnpq
GOVDEF/GNP= (−100 (ggsnet+ggfnet ))gnpq
CFD/GNP= ( fbdp¿¿ n∗100)−( fbdp¿¿n−1∗100)gnpq
¿¿
These variables are regressed on the same independent variables as in table 1.
Hoelscher provides reasoning for this analysis, describing that deficits are sometimes reported
as a percentage of GDP rather than simply on a per capita basis. Thus, dividing by gross
domestic product rescales the measures into a more relevant unit. Completing this secondary
analysis shows us similar values in terms of magnitude and direction to the ones found in table
1. Therefore, we find that deficits values are important in predicting long term interest rates
whether they are scaled by population or gross national product.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 11
Expanding Hoelscher’s Results to the 1984-2013 period
Table 1.2Corc Estimates of Ten-Year Treasury Bond Yield Determinants, 1984-2013
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d R2 D-W ρ
1. USDEF 1.0057 1.2618 0.5217 0.0002 0.001 0.8022 0.9925 0.4976(1.3) (5.25) (4.88) (0.27) (1.38)
2. GOVDEF 0.9414 1.2738 0.5327 0.0003 0.0009 0.8018 0.9982 0.4954(1.16) (5.23) (4.75) (0.3) (1.3)
3. CFD 1.0205 1.2988 0.5233 0.0003 0.0009 0.8054 1.005 0.4933(1.36) (5.31) (4.91) (0.3) (1.42)
4. USDEF none 1.2448 .4271 .0005 .0018 .7249 2.4029 -.2732(5.17) (4.63) (0.73) (2.49)
Table 2.2Additional Corc Estimates of Ten-Year Treasury Bond Yield Determinants, 1984-2013
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs Y d R2 D-W ρ
1. USDEF/GNP 0.967 1.251 0.5272 0.0031 0.1083 0.8057 0.9838 0.503(1.29) (5.32) (5.07) (0.34) (1.67)
2. GOVDEF/GNP 0.8718 1.2678 0.5426 0.0032 0.0997 0.8058 0.9902 0.5007(1.11) (5.34) (4.99) (0.38) (1.61)
3. CFD/GNP 0.9454 1.3024 0.5286 0.0032 0.0936 0.8104 1.0091 0.4916(1.27) (5.43) (5.04) (0.34) (1.61)
After an initial replication of Hoelscher’s data, we now move to an analysis of the period
of 1984-2013. These tables utilize the same independent variables and regression method used
in the original tables. Assuming Hoelscher’s techniques are valid, they should be able to be
applied to alternative time periods and have the original hypothesis maintain its standing.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 12
Analysis of Hoelscher’s Table 4: A Breakdown of Time Frames
Hoelscher Table 4.1Corc Estimate Of Ten-Year Treasury Bond Yield Determinants For Sub-periods (Original)
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d R2 D-W ρ
1. 1953-66 1.9362 0.685 0.5342 -0.0009 0.0038 0.9044 1.6145 0.1872(6.96) (4.58) (4.93) (-1.52) (2.15)
2. 1967-84 1.6385 0.6803 0.808 -0.0008 0.0077 0.9581 1.5451 0.1865(2.66) (7.1) (10.96) (-0.92) (4.83)
3. 1953-84 1.2086 0.7455 0.7857 -0.0008 0.0081 0.9782 1.6143 0.1612(5.15) (15.96) (13.75) (-1.53) (6.85)
Hoelscher’s table 4.1 is a test on the temporal stability of two subperiods within his
initial time period. Hoelscher’s reasoning behind this breakdown lies in treasury bond rates.
1966, the divider between the two periods was chosen as it represents the first-time treasury
bond rates increased to a level above five percent (Hoelscher, 1986). The following years were
characterized by a positive trend reaching a high of around 14 percent in 1981. By using this
table, it is possible to explain the different variations for bond rates between individual periods.
Hoelscher’s table is replicated below.
Table 4.2 Alternate YearsCorc Estimate Of Ten-Year Treasury Bond Yield Determinants For Sub-periods (New Time Periods)
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d R2 D-W ρ
1. 1970-80 2.5354 0.5785 0.5359 -0.0012 0.0086 0.9891 1.5043 0.1004(5.97) (9.14) (6.6) (-2.33) (6.67)
2. 1981-90 -10.1856 3.4936 -0.4675 -0.0021 0.0208 0.987 2.3795 -0.2486(-2.85) (3.91) (-0.93) (-0.129) (3.54)
3. 1970-90 1.1097 0.7703 0.8028 0.0003 0.0068 0.9446 1.6932 0.0877(1.47) (7.71) (10.25) (0.33) (3.97)
To expand on Hoelscher’s usage of table 4.1 in the 1984-2013 period, it was divided into
sub-periods. This is represented in table 4.2. These dates were chosen through an analysis of
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 13
the federal funds rate graph. The peak for the period in question comes in 1981 with a value of
19.08 (“Effective Federal Funds Rate”). Utilizing this date allows for the individual analysis of the
data ten years to either side of this value. From the graph, it is apparent that there is a upward
trend from 1971 to 1981 and a downward trend from 1981 to 1990.
Analysis of Hoelscher’s table 5
Hoelscher Table 5.1Illustration of Estimated Effects of Deficits on Long Term-Term Rate 1980-1984
Average Value Estimated Effect on I (basis point inc)
1. USDEF 249.83 201.652. GOVDEF 240.03 178.6473. CFD 117.299 81.108
Looking at the data depicted in Hoelscher’s table 5 gives us a breakdown of the average
deficit value and is represented in 1972 dollars per capita. Analysis of the estimated effect
shows the percentage change in interest rates, depicted in basis points.
Table 5.2 Illustration of Estimated Effects of Deficits on Long Term-Term Rate 2009-2013
Average Value Estimated Effect on I (basis point inc)
1. USDEF 697.45 71.9212. GOVDEF 839.569 77.1823. CFD 639.408 59.849
A reproduction of table 5 was completed to show the change in values from the first
period, (1953-1984) to the second (1984-2013). Just as before, if Hoelscher’s ideas are valid, his
original results here are expected to be correlated with those found in the more recent period.
Initial analysis of the two tables points to little correlation between the two-time periods.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 14
Table 10.1T Test
Ho: T1=T2 t CV(.95,29) DNR/RUSDEF 3.6543 2.0480 Reject
GOVDEF 3.7338 2.0480 RejectCFD 4.0320 2.0480 Reject
A two-sample t-test was run based on the null hypothesis that deficit means were equal.
It was found that it is necessary to reject this null hypothesis for all measured values of the
deficit variable. Therefore, there is a significant difference between deficit mean values for the
first and second periods.
Discussion
Discussion of Differences Between Time Periods in Table 1 and 2
Analysis of the recreations of Hoelscher’s tables 1 and 2, defined as tables 1.1 and 2.1 in
this paper, respectively, reflect the same result as was found when the original regressions
were done in Hoelscher’s work. As previously stated, the values calculated in our regressions
are similar, but not exactly the same as Hoelscher’s due to use of a different data set and
slightly different variables. A closer look at table 1.1 reveals that the R2 values are all above a
rounded value of .98 excluding the USDEF with no constant variable. These values show that
the independent variables in the regression are doing an excellent job of predicting the deficit
values. However, upon analysis of R2 values in table 1.2, a drop in values to around .80 for each
value is now seen. This significant drop shows that in this new period, there is an increased
amount of unexplained variance in the determination of the deficit. Because of this significant
drop, it is obvious that there are likely unaccounted for factors in play.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 15
Next, the replication of Hoelscher’s second table and its corresponding second period
table are considered. In these two tables, table 2.1 and 2.2, the same trend is found in the
differences between time periods. Strong R2 values in the first period at around .97, (1953-
1984) are contrasted by weaker R2 values in the second time-period of around .80 (1984-2013).
Therefore, the correlation is not as strong between deficit and interest rates in the second
period.
To test for serial correlation in the model, the Durbin-Watson statistic is considered. It is
tested by using a k-value of 4, taking into account the number of regressors and an n equal to
29 for the first period and 31 for the second period. For the first table, the rejection region for
the statistic is below .921 and the failure to reject region is between 1.511 and 4. Any value
between these numbers would be in an unknown region. Because all the values in table 1.1 are
above 1.511, we fail to reject the hypothesis that row is equal to zero, showing that there is no
serial correlation. Looking at table 1.2, the rejection region, with an n of 31 is now less than .96
to reject and greater than 1.509 to fail to reject. Unfortunately, all the values except for the
second calculation of USDEF here are between this value. In this region, it is impossible to
determine whether there is serial correlation in the model. Rejection regions remaining the
same, in table 2.1, all the Durbin-Watson statistics show that ρ is equal to 0 and there is no
serial correlation. For table 2.2, the Durbin-Watson statistic values land in the uncertainty region
for all three deficit variables; therefore, there is no evidence to support or reject the null
hypothesis that ρ is equal to 0.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 16
Discussion of Different Periods Between Tables 4.1 and 4.2
Moving on to a discussion of table 4.1 and 4.2, emphasis is placed on unravelling
differences between shorter time spans and variations in ten-year bond rates for the model.
Specifically looking at table 4.1, the first period, (1953-1966) shows the lowest R2 value at .90.
According to Hoelscher, rates were relatively stable during this period (Hoelscher, 1986). The
second period, (1966-1984) had a higher R2 at .96. Throughout this period, rates are said to be
increasing to a peak of 14% in 1981. Interestingly, the overall value for the entire period (1953-
1984) R2 value is even stronger at .98. Although all these values show strong correlations
between coefficients and deficit predictions, there is noticeable variation in coefficients (2
Hoelscher). Hoelscher explain these noting that there are not high degrees of freedom in the
model (Hoelscher, 1986). Therefore, he can conclude that the reason R2 values are the highest
for the overall period is due to overall stability in the model and a pooling of all relevant data.
Observing table 4.2, an opposite effect from table 4.1 is found. The R2 values for the
shorter periods (1970-1981 and 1981-1990) are stronger than the value for the overall period
(1970-1990). Because the data was chosen with a peak value during the year 1981, the trend in
data for the first period is increasing while the trend in the data for the second period is
decreasing (“Effective Federal Funds Rate”). Having the maximum value in the middle of the
time period means that the overall regression is trying to account for two completely different
trends, thus weakening the R2 values. For each subperiod, the regression only takes into
account a one-way trend. This makes the linear estimators more accurate, resulting in a larger
R2 value.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 17
Discussion of the Importance of Table 5.1
Continuing with the discussion of our results, table 5.1’s importance is broken down.
These tables can be considered the most important piece to proving Hoelscher’s hypothesis.
The main point of this table is to show the average deficit value for USDEF, GOVDEF, and CFD,
as well as to calculate the average value of deficit on estimated interest rates. Results found in
this table are like Hoelscher’s, proving that his process was closely replicated. Looking at the
data, there is a large positive effect on interest rates when the deficits are high, confirming
Hoelscher’s original hypothesis that increasing deficits result in higher long term interest rates.
Hoelscher states that deficits are created through the short-term debt because of huge
government spending (Hoelscher, 1986). High spending by the government needs to be
compensated for by increasing interest rates. However, interest rates are raised artificially high,
absorbing lending capacity of smaller borrowers because of cost prohibitive borrowing levels.
What has been explained here is the crowding out effect. This supports Hoelscher’s hypothesis
because independent borrowers are forced to move into shorter term markets because of the
financial burden associated with bigger investments. Because of this effect, the economy is
hindered. To restart the economy, the government is left trying to spend more money and must
gain funding in the long term by increasing interest rates.
The data in the table supports this idea. GOVDEF has a significantly higher average debt
then CFD. This means that there is far more government spending then private spending in this
scenario. In line with Hoelscher’s theory, it makes sense that if the crowding out theory holds
true, the public should have a lower deficit due to less investment.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 18
Shifting attention to table 5.2, the opposite effect is found, contradicting Hoelscher’s
predictions. Deficit means in table 5.2 are visibly larger then means reported in table 5.1.
However, when looking at estimated effect, values for each deficit measure significantly
decrease. Per Hoelscher’s hypothesis, with such an increase in overall deficit the estimated
effects on interest rates should be increasing. However, this is not the case. A closer look at the
GOVDEF and CFD variables support the opposition to this hypothesis in terms of the crowding
out effect. Although both deficit variables increase in table 5.2, percentage wise CFD is now a
much greater portion of USDEF. If crowding out was the case, private investment should not be
catching up to government spending. Small investments should have been “crowded out” by
high government spending; therefore, increasing interest rates. With the contradictory drop in
rates seen in the time change, investments now increased with easier accessibility to short term
markets.
A t-test was conducted in table 10.1 to test whether the means for each period were
significantly different from one another. It was found that this null hypothesis is rejected for all
three variables. Knowing that deficits significantly increased confirms the problem in the
estimated effects. Because these basis point values decreased rather than increased, the
opposite effect from Hoelscher’s paper is found. Increasing deficits did not cause an increase in
long term interest rates. It is now imperative to analyze possible problems with Hoelscher’s
model to determine what may have caused the reversal of this effect. To do this, omitted
variables and world events were analyzed to determine some of the variations found.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 19
Analysis and Discussion of Omitted Variables
Purpose for the selection of these three specific Variables
Based on the findings that Hoelscher’s original hypothesis is not applicable to the
second period, the question of “why” becomes relevant. To attempt to solve this problem,
thought was put into coming up with different ideas that could result in the change from
deficits being positively correlated to long term interest rates and the new found negative
correlation. Broadly speaking, these changes could be a result of effects such as world events,
simultaneity bias, or omitted variables. Narrowing down the options, three omitted variables
that were deemed most likely to have significant effects on interest rates were chosen: federal
reserve data, foreign direct investment, and the S&P 500. Data for these three different
variables was then factored in individually to our regressions to determine each of their effects.
Federal Funds Rate
Federal reserve data was the first omitted variable to be analyzed. The federal funds
rate was initially chosen as a good variable to look at because of several factors. First off,
because the FED is a measure of the overnight funds rate, it should have a direct positive
correlation to interest rates in general. Therefore, it is logical that because the rate is applicable
to current financial institutions trading large sums of money, there would be direct correlation
to increases in long term interest rates. Additionally, when looking at a graph of the federal
funds rate for the years 1953-2013, there is an obvious trendline break in the year 1981
(“Effective Federal Funds Rate”). This max point corresponds very closely with the break
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 20
between the two-time periods in question. The first period, (1953-1984) shows a distinct
upward trend while the second period, (1984-2013) shows a distinct downward trend.
Table 6 FEDFederal Reserve Data Effects on Conducted Regressions
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d FED R2 D-W ρ
USDEF 1955-84 0.956 1.063 1.073 -0.001 0.006 -0.011 0.975 1.496 0.233(3.05) (4.55) (5.04) (-1.41) (3.75) (-1.39)
USDEF 1984-2013 1.105 2.063 1.380 0.000 0.001 -0.036 0.869 1.053 0.473(1.71) (6.32) (4.7) (-0.19) (0.99) (-3.06)
GOVDEF 55-84 1.044 1.054 1.056 0.000 0.006 -0.010 0.979 1.626 0.154(3.29) (4.56) (4.94) (-0.66) (3.93) (-1.29)
GOVDEF 84-2013 1.076 2.076 1.390 0.000 0.001 -0.037 0.869 1.060 0.469(1.58) (6.34) (4.71) (-0.18) (0.88) (-3.06)
CFD 1955-1984 1.148 1.172 1.106 -0.001 0.005 -0.011 0.982 1.475 0.215(4.08) (6.85) (6.57) (-1.88) (5.09) (-1.79)
CFD 1984-2013 1.074 2.096 1.387 0.000 0.001 -0.036 0.872 1.063 0.468(1.71) (6.47) (4.75) (-0.15) (1.14) (-3.1)
USDEF, no con 55-84 - 0.8727 0.9389 -0.0008 0.0016 -0.01101 0.8442 1.5206 0.2821
(4.91) (6.93) (-2.19) (1.17) (-2.23)USDEF, no con 84-2013 - 1.7978 1.2646 0.0001 0.0007 -0.03546 0.7951 1.9817 -0.0390
(6.97) (5.2) (0.18) (0.96) (-3.65)
Table 6 depicts our new regression values factoring in the federal reserve data. To
determine the significant changes between this table and the originals, table 1.1 and 1.2, the R2
values are looked at. It was found that for the initial period, the R2 values remained at a
relatively stable value. However, for the second period, R2 values for USDEF, GOVDEF, and CFD
all increased by a significant account. It is also important to look at the coefficient on d, the
deficit variable. Larger coefficients should lead to higher t-values and thus, significant results.
Comparing original values for d and the values after the addition of FED shows that there was
either small decreases or no change in the value. These results show that the correlation
between independent variables better matched the model then without the FED variable.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 21
Federal Direct Investment
The second variable that was deemed a strong possibility for an omitted variable was
the foreign direct investment rate of the United States government. Foreign direct investment
is generally defined as the amount of money that one country invests into another. Our data
specifically is showing that the amount of money coming in from foreign countries investing in
the United States, less military spending. There is an inherent connection between foreign
investment and domestic interest rates. Foreign direct investment has gradually increased since
the 1950’s; however, starting in the late 1970’s the rate began to increase at an increasingly
positive rate (“Rest of the world; foreign direct investment in U.S.”). Over this period, the
federal deficit has also continually increased. High investment from outside countries has the
same crowding out effect that Hoelscher discusses. Smaller corporations and investors will no
longer have the capability to borrow as the interest rate rises. Taking this variable into account
represents another possible reason for the positive correlation between deficits and interest
rates.
Table 7 FDIForeign Direct Investment Effect on Conducted Regressions
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d FDI R2 D-W ρ
USDEF 61-84 1.1568 0.7385 0.7965 -0.0007 0.0081 0.000003 0.9748 1.6185 0.1579(1.8) (10.93) (10.7) (-0.92) (4.58) (0.07)
USDEF 84-2013 2.9643 1.0196 0.4196 0.0002 0.0017 -0.00002 0.9351 1.4234 0.2435(3.98) (5.42) (4.42) (0.23) (2.96) (-3.9)
GOVDEF 61-84 1.0990 0.7603 0.7888 -0.0001 0.0072 0.00002 0.9777 1.6820 0.1139(1.81) (12.31) (10.87) (-0.14) (4.88) (0.35)
GOVDEF 84-2013 2.8094 1.0486 0.4433 0.0003 0.0016 -0.00002 0.9370 1.4636 0.2297(3.82) (5.68) (4.52) (0.36) (2.97) (-3.97)
CFD 61-84 1.2386 0.8749 0.8108 -0.0007 0.0066 0.00001 0.9810 1.6621 0.0844(2.16) (18.11) (11.67) (-1.07) (5.43) (0.33)
CFD 84-2013 2.8294 1.1097 0.4175 0.0003 0.0015 -0.00002 0.9426 1.5741 0.1791(3.93) (6.23) (4.37) (0.41) (2.93) (-3.83)
USDEF, no con 55-84 - 0.5808 0.7308 -0.0008 0.0033 0.00003 0.8177 1.5733 0.2500(5.17) (8.04) (-1.44) (1.91) (0.89)
USDEF, no con 84-2013 - 1.2530 0.4191 0.0005 0.0021 -0.00001 0.7508 2.4258 -0.3785
(5.27) (4.67) (0.66) (2.86) (-1.09)
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 22
Examination of the R2 values for this table shows similar results to what was found for
the FED variable. Values for the first period were only marginally different from the original R2
value from table 1.1; however, when examining the later period, values once again show
significant increases, showing a stronger fit of our data to the regression line. When looking at
the d coefficients for FDI compared to the ones generated from Hoelscher’s original analysis, it
is found that all the values for the first period remain almost constant. However, all the
coefficients for the second period decrease except for USDEF. This change is unexpected; it
would be hypothesized that these values should all increase with the entrance of the FDI
variable into the regressions. Because the decrease is small, it is not necessarily a hindrance to
our original predictions. Further analysis later in the will help to embellish these results.
The S&P 500
The third variable chosen was the S&P 500. The S&P 500 is a list of large stock holding
companies. As a result, it was deemed likely that because this variable is a measure of the
overall health of the economy, it could be used as an explanator to some of the change that
was seen between the two-time periods in the regressions. Rationale here is that with low
deficits comes increases in overall market health. Increasing market health is directly correlated
with increasing investments into markets and thus, lower interest rates. Therefore, it was
hypothesized that increasing S&P 500 values when deficits are low should be positively linked
to interest rates.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 23
Table 8 S&P 500S&P 500 Data Effects on Conducted Regressions
Coefficient EstimatesDeficit Variable Constant P rs y d SP R2 D-W ρ
USDEF 53-84 0.7349 0.7142 0.7355 -0.0010 0.0062 0.00177 0.9788 1.5393 0.1998(2) (14.36) (11.46) (-1.82) (3.93) (1.68)
USDEF 84-2013 4.5242 0.6732 0.4881 0.0008 0.0001 -0.00030 0.9359 1.4246 0.2313(4.12) (2.72) (5.32) (1.05) (0.13) (-3.86)
GOVDEF 53-84 0.8049 0.7203 0.7303 -0.0006 0.0058 0.00185 0.9820 1.6203 0.1376(2.35) (15.07) (11.7) (-1.2) (4.42) (1.89)
GOVDEF 84-2013 4.5144 0.6745 0.4895 0.0008 0.0001 -0.00030 0.9357 1.4269 0.2325(4.05) (2.71) (5.08) (1.05) (0.14) (-3.89)
CFD 53-84 1.0891 0.8213 0.7630 -0.0011 0.0058 0.00135 0.9860 1.6648 0.0994(3.36) (18.3) (13.16) (-2.18) (5.51) (1.5)
CFD 84-2013 4.4462 0.6863 0.4972 0.0009 0.0002 -0.00029 0.9380 1.4617 0.2203(4.08) (2.74) (5.52) (1.09) (0.32) (-3.81)
USDEF, no con 55-84 - 0.5530 0.6914 -0.0010 0.0024 0.00136 0.8205 1.5783 0.2132
(6.38) (9.56) (-2.52) (1.66) (1.1)USDEF, no con 84-2013 - 1.1820 0.4404 0.0007 0.0016 -0.00006 0.7290 2.4021 -0.2867
(4.18) (4.49) (0.83) (1.94) (-0.45)
For the S&P 500 variable, it was found that although the R2 values increased, showing a
better fit of the data because of the new variable, coefficients were now significant and
negative for the S&P variables. Furthermore, the variables for d all decreased in the second
period and had strong t-values. This represents the opposite effect of what was initially
hypothesized for this variable. Therefore, a negative correlation between increasing deficits and
the S&P 500 values is apparent. The problem may be that deficits are low in the first period but
not decreasing. Rather, the value of the deficit is growing. Therefore, because the deficits are
growing, the overall economic state would be decreasing and stock markets would be doing
poorly. Thus, it is apparent that bigger deficits are correlated with declines in the stock market,
explaining the negative coefficients.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 24
Table 9Impact of R2 Values Resulting from New Variables
Omitted VariablesDates FED* FDI** S&P 500USDEF 55-84 -0.003 -0.0034 0.0006USDEF 84-2013 0.0667 0.1329 0.1337GOVDEF 55-84 -0.0031 -0.0043 0GOVDEF 84-2013 0.0672 0.1352 0.1339CFD 55-84 -0.0039 -0.0047 0.0003CFD 84-2013 0.0669 0.1372 0.1326USDEF, no con 55-84 0.0324 0.0059 0.0087USDEF, no con 84-2013 0.0702 0.0259 0.0051*FED data was not available before 1955, this change is reflected in the table**For FDI, the Years are Adjusted to 1961-1984 Due to Limited Data
To get a better sense for the effect of the addition of the three new variables, table 9
was created. It shows the different effects of the new variables on R2 values for each period.
Therefore, it is easy to tell how much better our regressions are getting at fitting the data. The
overall trend shows us that with the addition of FED and FDI in the first period, R2 values drop
by a small increment. However, a decently sized increase is seen for FED and FDI in the second
period. This effect shows that these two variables did an excellent job of pushing the model to a
better overall fitment of the data. The S&P 500 variable had the same effect; however, for each
deficit variable there was either no change or an increase in R2, once again showing that the
addition of the new variable led to better fitted values.
Discussion of New Variables and their Estimated Effect on Interest Rates
Table 5.3 With FED Estimated Effects of Deficits on Long Term-Term Rate
1980-1984 2009-2013Average Value Estimated Effect on i
(basis point inc)Average Value Estimated Effect on i
(basis point inc)1. USDEF 249.8 157.0 697.4 44.82. GOVDEF 240.0 142.0 839.6 45.43. CFD 117.3 64.2 639.4 41.5
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 25
The FED variable was taken and broken down into tables to get at the estimated effect
of the average values of each deficit variable. Just as before, evaluating table 5.3 is extremely
important. It allows us to see what the difference in estimated effect is between periods. From
the table, it is apparent that although average deficit values all increase, respective estimated
effects on interest rates also decrease. Like the initial findings between tables 5.1 and 5.2, these
results still contradict Hoelscher’s initial hypothesis that increasing deficits lead to increased
interest rates.
Table 5.4 With FDIEstimated Effects of Deficits on Long Term-Term Rate
1980-1984 2009-2013Average Value Estimated Effect on i
(basis point inc)Average Value Estimated Effect on i
(basis point inc)1. USDEF 249.8 203.6 697.4 119.82. GOVDEF 240.0 173.3 839.6 138.23. CFD 117.3 77.9 639.4 95.9
Next, the FDI variable was broken down into tables to get at the estimated effect of the
average values of each deficit variable. In this table, all results found apart from the CFD
variable, still oppose Hoelscher’s initial hypothesis.
Table 5.5 With SPEstimated Effects of Deficits on Long Term-Term Rate
1980-1984 2009-2013Average Value Estimated Effect on I
(basis point inc)Average Value Estimated Effect on I
(basis point inc)1. USDEF 249.8 154.4 697.4 5.32. GOVDEF 240.0 138.2 839.6 6.33. CFD 117.3 68.5 639.4 10.9
In table 5.5, Hoelscher’s findings are once again not supported. It is evident here, like
with the other variables that the effect they had on estimated effect of interest rates was not
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 26
substantial enough alone to alter the data to a point that would support Hoelscher’s initial
findings.
Table 5.6Change in Expected Effect on Interest Rates
Difference in 5 year Subperiods USDEF GOVDEF CFD
1. Original Analysis -1.2973 -1.0147 -0.21262. FED -1.1217 -0.9656 -0.22643. FDI -0.8384 -0.3506 0.18034. SP -1.4901 -1.3187 -0.0001
Expanding on our findings in the tables 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 is extremely important.
Although values for the second period of the analysis did change, in most cases they were not
significant enough to show that Hoelscher’s original hypothesis of a positive correlation
between increasing deficits and interest rates was true. However, table 5.6 shows a visual
representation of how interest rates were affected by the three introduced variables, the FED,
FDI, and the S&P 500.
The values were generated by subtracting the estimated effect of the second period by
the estimated effect of the first period for each deficit variable, the original regression, and
each omitted variable. Then each value was divided by 100 to convert them from basis points
into percentages. When comparing our three deficit variables, (USDEF, GOVDEF, and CFD) to
the original value, it is possible to determine what effect each variable had on interest rates.
When the omitted variable regression values get closer to 0, a trend more similar to the
direction of what Hoelscher hypothesis was is seen. When they stray farther away from 0 then
the original value, it can be concluded that the effect on interest rates is getting farther away
from what Hoelscher would have hypothesized. If the numbers became greater than 0, it could
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 27
be concluded that Hoelscher’s hypothesis was now confirmed for the second period. Using this
method, it is easy to see which direction these new variables shift the expected interest rates
from the original regressions. Here a few very interesting effects of the data are found.
Looking at the FED variable, all percentages move towards zero except for CFD. These
findings show us that the FED variable was to some extent successful at shifting the findings of
our original regression to match Hoelscher’s findings. Additionally, this coincides with what
would be expected of the FED variable. Because the FED is inversely correlated with interest
rates and its values are known to be decreasing during this period, a movement towards
increasing interest rates is expected (“Effective Federal Funds Rate”). Movement in this
direction pushes values towards what Hoelscher would have expected. When considering the
FDI variable, the findings are even more significant. Values for GOVDEF and USDEF both move
towards 0, however, our CFD even becomes a positive value. These results are expected
because of the positive correlation between FDI and interest rates. CFD, at .1803, a positive
value, coincides directly with what Hoelscher would expect. An increase in the deficit in this
case, has led to an increase in interest rate values in terms of the par value of publicly held
debt. These findings can be explained with crowding out, foreign direct investment have been
continuously increasing for the second period. This trend along with the recession in 2008, led
to a huge spike in interest rates. During this period publicly held debt massively increased as is
typical in a recession. Therefore, when the economy crashed, the only money received was
from foreign investments, this explains why high deficits for this variable are contributing to
high interest rates for the public; therefore, explaining our positive value. Last, values for the
S&P 500 for USDEF and GOVDEF moved farther away from 0 and the original analysis value.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 28
Therefore, this data coincides with the negative correlation between our increasing S&P 500
data and decreasing estimated effects of interest rates. Looking at these values shows what
amount of change was made in the second period by adding in the three omitted variables.
Conclusion
The main purpose of replicating Hoelscher’s study was to replicate his model and apply
it to a more recent period, 1984-2013. After this replication was complete, the two periods
were analyzed to determine whether Hoelscher’s hypothesis that increased deficits are
positively correlated to increased interest rates remained valid. Because it was found that this
hypothesis no longer held for the new period, ideas on how to explain this change were
formulated. It was decided that three omitted variables, the federal funds rate, foreign direct
investment, and the S&P 500, would be applied to the model to alleviate some of the change in
findings. It was found that adding foreign direct investment to the model had the greatest
effect on moving findings towards what Hoelscher would have expected. In fact, for the CFD
variable, Hoelscher’s findings were now supported in the second period. To expand on this
study, additional omitted variables could be considered as well as more world events. It was
concluded that the values generated made up for some amount of variation in the model;
however, Hoelscher’s hypothesis that higher deficits lead to increased interest rates could not
be definitively proven for the second period.
Running Head: BREAKING DOWN DEFICITS AND INTEREST RATES 29
References
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Effective Federal Funds Rate
[FEDFUNDS], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS, December 8, 2016.1
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Rest of the world; foreign direct
investment in U.S.; asset, Level [ROWFDNQ027S], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ROWFDNQ027S, December 8, 2016.
Hoelscher, G. (1986). New Evidence on Deficits and Interest Rates. Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking, 18(1), 1-15. doi:10.2307/1992316
Murray, M. P. 2006. Econometrics: A Modern Introduction. Boston: Pearson Addison Wesley,
2006. Print.
R. (2015). Crowding Out Effect. Retrieved December 09, 2016, from
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp
Stata Manual. (n.d.). Retrieved November/December, 2016, from
http://www.stata.com/manuals13/tsprais.pdf
S&P 500 - 90 Year Historical Chart. (n.d.). Retrieved December 09, 2016, from
http://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data
1 All members of this group, Chris Koziel, Rob Flynn, and I, worked extremely well together on the project. Meetings almost
always consisted of all three group members and all three members participated significantly. Working with Rob and Chris was an
excellent experience. Their inputs and work ethic over the past few weeks have significantly contributed to the writings of this
paper. Additionally, a special thank you would like to be given to Professor Michael P. Murray for his assistance with this project.