Pitfalls in Financial Model Building: Reply and Some Further Extensions
回应Clinton对资产调整模型一致性的反例，推导出调整系数矩阵列和恒定的条件，并讨论其经济含义。
Kevin Clinton has provided an interesting counterexample to the verbal argument that the omission of cross-adjustment coefficients necessarily misspecifies the system of asset adjustment proposed by William Brainard and James Tobin.I However, Clinton's specification is not a counterexample to any of the formal propositions developed in my paper. As Clinton observes in a footnote, I dealt with two alternative sets of sufficient conditions for consistency of that system. He has presented a third alternative. All three of these alternatives are special cases of the complete set of necessary and sufficient conditions for consistency. I did not develop these latter conditions in my paper since, at the time I wrote it, I did not recognize their economic interpretation. This interpretation can now be provided. I therefore welcome the opportunity to develop the complete set of conditions. I will derive as one of these conditions the proposition that all columns of the adjustment coefficient matrix, A, have the same sum (i.e., Ei aij is constant for all j). This is a proposition which Clinton needs in order to rearrange his equation (4) into his equation (5), and which he simply assumes. More important, however, will be our discussion of the meaning of the conditions. We begin with equation (11') of mv 1971 paper in this Review: