## _wp0990

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp0990](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0990.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0990.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0990.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction — context and motivation
- Long-term investors aim to maintain purchasing power and achieve real returns consistent with objectives.
- Renewed focus on inflation hedging motivated by:
  - The global rise in inflation until the emergence of the financial crisis in 2007.
  - The abrupt decline in inflation following the crisis due to wider output gaps.
  - The possibility that inflation could resume if policymakers stabilize output and stave off deflation.
  - Policy tools used through the crisis (massive injections of liquidity and quantitative easing) that leave significant risks of renewed inflation.
- Implication: inflation hedging should remain an important component of long-run investment policy.
- Empirical focus: measure inflation-hedging properties of asset classes over different horizons in a diversified portfolio context, expanding earlier literature by modeling short- and long-run dynamics jointly.

### Asset classes analyzed and empirical methods
- Asset classes: Cash, Bonds, Equities, Commodities.
- Two empirical methods:
  - Regressions of 12-month returns against inflation: r_A,t = α + β π_A,t + γ (π_A,t - π_A,t-12) + u_t (interpretation: under perfect inflation foresight and no money illusion β = 1 and γ = 0).
  - Multivariate vector error-correction model (VECM) and impulse responses to assess short- and long-run impact of inflation shocks.
- Data features:
  - Headline consumer price indices in each currency; base currencies: U.S. dollars and SDRs.
  - Two 60-40 portfolios (equities 60%, government bonds 40%), rebalanced monthly (one U.S. dollar portfolio; one SDR-weighted portfolio).
  - Overlapping observations used; Newey-West (1987) standard errors to correct for serial correlation.
  - Two sample periods: maximum available per asset and Mar-1973 to Nov-2008 (post-Bretton Woods). Quandt-Andrews breakpoint tests applied.

### Short-run (12-month) results — empirical findings
- General: changes in the rate of inflation, and sometimes the level, affect nominal returns across asset classes; results more conclusive post-1973.
- Cash:
  - Not an effective hedge against ex post inflation over 12 months.
  - Coefficients: level of inflation < 1; change in inflation coefficient negative and statistically significant for U.S. dollar and SDR.
  - Table 2 (Maximum sample):
    - U.S. 3-month T-bills Level = 0.39 ***, 12-month change = -0.24 * (start Jan-28, n=971).
    - SDR 3-month interest rate Level = 0.27 *, 12-month change = -0.65 ** (Dec-71, n=444).
  - Cash hedging influenced by monetary policy regime; post-1973 results driven partly by 1980–82 period.
- Bonds and equities:
  - Both negatively affected by increases in inflation, particularly since 1973.
  - For a 1 percentage point increase in inflation over one year:
    - Broad U.S. Treasury benchmark: nominal annual return declines by about 1⅓ percentage points.
    - SDR-weighted long-term government bonds: decline over 2½ percentage points.
    - Large-cap U.S. equity: fall of 2⅔ percentage points.
    - SDR-weighted equity benchmark: fall of 3½ percentage points.
  - Table 2 (Maximum sample highlights):
    - U.S. Treasuries (all maturities): Level = -0.10, 12-month = -1.33 *** (Dec-73, n=420).
    - U.S. Treasuries (10+ year maturities): Level = -0.12, 12-month = -0.38 * (Jan-28, n=971).
    - U.S. Corporate bonds: Level = -0.74 **, 12-month = -1.81 *** (Dec-70, n=456).
    - SDR-weighted government bonds (all maturities): Level = 1.57 **, 12-month = -2.36 *** (May-87, n=259).
    - U.S. large cap. equities: Level = 0.07, 12-month = -0.03 (Jan-28, n=971).
    - SDR-weighted equities: Level = -0.35, 12-month = -3.50 *** (Dec-71, n=444).
- Alternatives and commodities:
  - Commodities provide an effective hedge over 12-month horizon.
  - A 1 percentage point increase in annual U.S. inflation leads to increases of between 3.8 percent and almost 10 percent among commodity measures.
  - Table 2 (Maximum sample highlights):
    - CRB index Level = 0.42, 12-month = 3.41 *** (Dec-60, n=576).
    - GSCI index Level = 7.71, 12-month = 9.87 ** (Jan-96, n=155).
    - Gold spot Level = 2.78 *, 12-month = 6.36 *** (Jan-69, n=479).
  - FTSE NAREIT (real estate/REITs) behaves similarly to equities: Level = -0.16, 12-month = -3.84 *** (Jan-73, n=431).
- Portfolios:
  - 60-40 portfolios generally show statistically insignificant and smaller inflation coefficients than equities/bonds.
  - U.S. dollar 60-40 portfolio (Maximum sample): Level = 0.00, 12-month = -0.16 (Jan-28, n=971).
  - SDR 60-40 portfolio: Level = -0.31, 12-month = -1.35 (May-87, n=259).

### Evidence of time variation and structural breaks
- Quandt-Andrews breakpoint tests reject model stability at the 99 percent confidence level for every asset class.
- Breakpoint dates vary widely and often influenced by sample length.
- Selected breakpoint examples (Table 3 highlights):
  - Cash: U.S. 3-month T-bills breakpoint Jun-81 probability 0.0000; first sample Level = 0.91 ***, 12-month = -0.24; second sample Level = 1.36 ***, 12-month = -0.80 ***.
  - Bonds: U.S. Treasuries (all maturities) breakpoint Feb-87 probability 0.0000; first sample Level = -1.20 ***, 12-month = -0.66; second sample Level = 1.38 **, 12-month = -1.75 ***.
  - Alternatives: GSCI index breakpoint Jan-01 probability 0.0000; first sample Level = 46.32 ***, 12-month = -7.17; second sample Level = -7.48 *, 12-month = 17.28 ***.
- Interpretation: inflation sensitivity is unstable over time; cash breakpoints cluster around early 1980s monetary policy changes; U.S. bond sensitivity increased since late 1980s; global bonds and equities show late breakpoints with limited observations.

### Long-run assessment — VAR/VEC framework and data
- Objective: assess inflation-hedging properties over long horizons using VAR and VEC representations to identify cointegration and dynamics.
- Endogenous vector Z (5 x 1) includes bills, bonds, equities, commodities, CPI (primarily U.S. data for long history).
- Data characteristics:
  - Variables non-stationary in log-index form; first differences stationary (unit root tests).
  - Long-run sample: Aug-1956 to Oct-2008, obs. = 621 for bills, bonds, equities, commodities, CPI (first difference of log index * 100 used).
- Lag selection: optimal lag length of 7 months by Aikaike information criterion; VAR residuals exhibited serial correlation with only 2 lags.
- Johansen cointegration tests find strong evidence of long-run relationships; results based on maximum likelihood VEC estimation.

### Long-run impulse responses and elasticities — key dynamic findings
- Identification: Cholesky ordering used cash → bonds → equities → commodities → inflation; robustness checks show little difference over long term for alternative orderings.
- Shock: one standard deviation shock to monthly change in inflation ≈ 0.2 percentage points applied.
- Elasticity definition: η_it = (Δlog z_it) / (Δlog π_it). An elasticity of 1 indicates a perfect hedge preserving real returns.
- Inflation shocks persistence:
  - After 1 year, cumulative increase in price level nearly three times initial shock.
  - After 5 years, cumulative increase about five times initial shock.
  - Over 20 years, initial shock raises price level by about 1.4 ppts; one standard error range between 1.0 and 1.8 ppts.
- Cash:
  - Cash returns increase in response to inflation shock but gradually and less than full compensation.
  - After 1 year, cumulative effect on cash returns < 0.1 ppt, implying real cumulative return about 0.5 ppt lower due to inflation shock.
  - After 5 years, real decline in cash returns remains about 0.5 ppt, then slowly recovers thereafter.
  - Long-run multiplier of T-bill returns to an inflation shock ≈ 0.8.
- Bonds:
  - Long-term Treasury bonds worst performing asset immediately after shock: after 1 year total return index declines by 0.9 ppt, implying reduction in real returns of about 1.4 ppts.
  - Peak real return losses about nearly 2 ppts after ~3 years, then gradual recovery as higher running yields dominate.
  - Long-run elasticity of bonds to inflation shock ≈ 0.1.
- Equities:
  - Equity returns decline in months following inflation shock and do not show meaningful recovery thereafter in the model.
  - After 1 year, equity returns about 0.3 ppt lower (0.9 ppt in real terms) due to shock; decline bottoms at about 3 years with a 1.6 ppt loss (3.0 ppts in real terms).
  - Long-run inflation elasticity on equities about -0.2.
  - Standard error bounds for equities wide; at 20-year horizon width ≈ 2 ppts.
- Commodities:
  - Best performing asset class over short term: one year following shock, commodity prices increase by 0.4 ppt (short-term effective hedge).
  - Elasticity for commodities peaks at about 0.7 after 12–15 months and in the long-run converges to about -0.2.
  - After about 2 years commodity prices begin to decline and continue falling for a number of years; long-run protection erodes.

### Channels explaining long-run commodity declines after an inflation shock
- Real interest rate channel:
  - Real interest rates and commodity prices tend to be inversely correlated; rising real rates increase discount rates for future extraction, increase current supply, raise carry costs of inventories, and can shift speculators into treasury bills (Frankel (2008) mechanism).
- Output channel:
  - Evidence suggests output declines following a positive inflation shock if real long-term yields rise; a business cycle downturn reduces pro-cyclical demand for some commodities while supply response is sluggish.
- Empirical nuance:
  - Cashin, McDermott, and Scott (1999): no evidence for comovement across unrelated commodities; procyclicality of equally-weighted CRB index may be driven by a smaller number of output-sensitive sectors.

### Summary of results (asset-class responses to unexpected inflation)
- Short-term (12 months / 1–18 months):
  - Bonds and equities have been poor hedges against ex post inflation.
  - Commodities (including gold) have performed well when inflation has risen; spot price increases almost match inflation in the short term.
  - Cash not a reliable one-year hedge; sensitivity depends on monetary policy regime.
- Medium- to long-term:
  - Over 12–18 months following an inflation shock: commodities best, bonds worst.
  - Beyond this period: bond returns, helped by higher yields and more stable prices, begin to outperform inflation; commodity spot prices begin to fall in nominal terms; equities suffer short-term losses and subsequently fail to recover over the longer term.
  - Long-run elasticities: cash ≈ 0.8, bonds ≈ 0.1, equities ≈ -0.2, commodities → long-run ≈ -0.2.
- Symmetry and deflation:
  - Gaussian assumptions imply symmetry, but sample lacks deflation examples (except Japan contribution to SDR-weighted variables); dynamics of unexpected deflation remain open.

### Investment implications and tactical strategies
- Strategic asset allocation:
  - Difficult for long-term strategic allocation using traditional asset classes to fully protect against unexpected inflation.
  - Investors with strong non-consensus inflation views can materially affect outcomes by tilting allocations.
- Tactical asset allocation:
  - Tactical tilts can enhance inflation protection: tilt towards commodities and away from bonds following a positive inflation shock.
  - Hedging cycle: when commodities’ hedging properties begin to diminish (after about 12–18 months), switch back toward bonds at the expense of commodities.
- Equities:
  - Investors not taking tactical positions should hold equities for a very long-term horizon to let inflation cycles average out.
  - Investors able to tilt could underweight equities in anticipation of higher inflation, but other assets (commodities) show stronger and more consistent reactions.
- Inflation derivatives and overlays:
  - Inflation swaps, swaptions and inflation options allow transferring inflation risk or expressing views on future inflation levels.
  - Caps and floors on inflation indices and choice of inflation reference broaden hedging options.
  - CPI-based futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (introduced in 2004) have seen limited investor interest; over-the-counter vehicles have emerged for specific investor requirements.

### Key statistics and preserved numeric summaries
- Commodity elasticity timeline:
  - Peaks at about 0.7 after 12–15 months.
  - Long-run converges to about -0.2.
- Impulse response magnitudes:
  - One standard deviation monthly inflation shock ≈ 0.2 percentage points.
  - After 1 year, cumulative price level increase nearly three times initial shock.
  - After 5 years, cumulative increase about five times initial shock.
  - Over 20 years, initial shock raises price level by about 1.4 ppts; one standard error range between 1.0 and 1.8 ppts.
- Representative short-run regression coefficients (selected, preserved exactly):
  - U.S. 3-month T-bills Level = 0.39 ***, 12-month change = -0.24 * (start Jan-28, n=971).
  - SDR 3-month interest rate Level = 0.27 *, 12-month change = -0.65 ** (Dec-71, n=444).
  - U.S. Treasuries (all maturities): Level = -0.10, 12-month = -1.33 *** (Dec-73, n=420).
  - SDR-weighted equities: Level = -0.35, 12-month = -3.50 *** (Dec-71, n=444).
  - CRB index Level = 0.42, 12-month = 3.41 *** (Dec-60, n=576).
  - GSCI index Level = 7.71, 12-month = 9.87 ** (Jan-96, n=155).
  - Gold spot Level = 2.78 *, 12-month = 6.36 *** (Jan-69, n=479).
- Table 4 textual summaries (preserved):
  - Cash: Long-term elasticity = 0.8; persistent real losses after shock about 0.5 ppt for several years.
  - Nominal bonds: Long-term elasticity = 0.1; peak real losses nearly 2 ppts after ~3 years.
  - Equities: Long-term elasticity = -0.2; 1-year real loss ~0.9 ppt, 3-year real loss ~3.0 ppts.
  - Commodities: Short-term spot increases almost match inflation; intermediate decline; long-term elasticity = -0.2.

*Source: _wp0990 (authors’ estimates and analysis as presented in the supplied content).*

### References..............................................................................................................

### References

### I. INTRODUCTION — context and motivation
- Long-term investors seek to maintain the purchasing power of their assets and achieve real returns consistent with investment objectives.
- There is an active debate about which asset types provide the most effective hedge against inflation.
- Renewed focus on inflation hedging is motivated by:
  - The global rise in inflation up until the emergence of the financial crisis in 2007.
  - The abrupt decline in inflation following the crisis due to wider output gaps.
  - The possibility that inflation could resume its upward path if policymakers stabilize output and stave off deflation.
  - The policy tools employed through the crisis so far, particularly massive injections of liquidity and quantitative easing, which leave significant risks of renewed inflation.
- Implication: inflation hedging should remain an important component of long-run investment policy.

### Figure 1 — Long-term Consumer Price Inflation, 1950–2008 (annual percent)
- Visual depicts CPI inflation (percent per annum) for:
  - United States
  - SDR composite 1/
- X-axis: Years 1950–2008 (tick labels include 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005)
- Y-axis: CPI inflation (percent per annum), range shown from -4 to 16
- Sources: IMF International Financial Statistics, authors’ estimates.
- Note 1/: Use of the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) as a proxy:
  - To weight a global portfolio invested in assets of mature markets.
  - To calculate aggregate national inflation rates across these markets.
  - Weighting details:
    - From January 1970 to June 1978: the currency units for the U.S. dollar, Deutsche mark, Japanese yen, French franc, and pound sterling from the inception of the SDR in July 1974 through June 1978, and the actual exchange rates are used to weight the SDR composite.
    - From July 1978 through December 2000: the currency units for these five currencies, reflecting the SDR valuation basket at that time, are used.
    - From January 2001 through September 2008: the euro replaces the Deutsche mark and the French franc.

### Inflation-hedging instruments and empirical focus
- Inflation-linked bonds and derivatives exist but:
  - Have limited supply and liquidity across various markets.
  - Lead many investors to rely on indirect hedging properties of traditional asset classes.
- This paper measures inflation-hedging properties over different time horizons in the context of a diversified portfolio.
- Key findings on these properties:
  - They experience large variations over time.
  - The paper elucidates short- and long-run dynamic relationships between asset classes and inflation, where inflation is defined as the rate of change in headline consumer prices.
  - The approach expands on earlier literature which tended to focus on asset classes in isolation using single-equation estimations.

### Asset classes analyzed and methodologies
- Asset classes examined:
  - Cash
  - Bonds
  - Equities
  - Commodities
- Two distinct empirical methods employed:
  - Regressions of 12-month returns against inflation (reflecting the frequency long-term investors review and report performance).
  - Estimation of a multivariate vector error-correction model (VECM) and calculation of impulse responses to assess short- and long-run dynamic impact of inflation shocks.

### Structure of the paper (as stated)
- The paper proceeds with:
  - Section II reviews the relevant theoretical and empirical literature.

*Source: _wp0990 - References*

### Section III presents the model that assesses the inflation-hedging properties over a 12-month

### _wp0990 - Section III presents the model that assesses the inflation-hedging properties over a 12-month

### Literature review: theories and empirical findings
- Fisher hypothesis: nominal rate i equals real rate r plus expected inflation E(π) plus an inflation uncertainty premium θ(σπ), approximated as i = E(π) + r + θ(σπ). Footnote: log-linear approximation of (1+i) = (1+r)*(1+π).
- Critiques and extensions:
  - Mundell (1963) and Tobin (1965): nominal rates change by less than one-to-one with expected inflation; rising inflation can lower real interest rates via increased capital intensity.
  - Taylor (1993): active monetary policy implies a positive relationship between real interest rates and expected inflation.
- Asset-class theories on inflation hedging:
  - Cash: under pure Fisher, short-term debt would be a perfect hedge absent inflationary shocks.
  - Bonds: nominal coupon-paying bonds should be negatively related to expected inflation; inflation-linked bonds index coupon/principal to inflation and provide fixed long-term real yield but have drawbacks (index mismatch, indexation lags, measurement biases).
  - Equities: conventional view—equities claim on dividends of real assets and thus hedge inflation in long run. Competing hypotheses explaining negative equity–inflation correlations: tax effects; inflation illusion; proxy hypothesis; equity risk premium.
  - Alternatives:
    - Real estate: theory suggests effective hedge; empirical evidence mixed with lags and heterogeneity (REITs behave like equities; income-producing indices correlate positively with inflation).
    - Commodities: strong evidence of effective short-run protection; correlations with inflation tend to rise with horizon for some series; gold shows positive long-run relationship with U.S. inflation in some studies.
  - Diversified portfolios: commodities and cash provide significant protection against global inflation risk in some studies; currency unhedged international diversification may hedge local inflation risk.

### Short-run (12-month) hedging model and approach
- Model (equation 2): twelve-month total return on asset class r_A,t related to contemporaneous 12-month inflation π_A,t and the change in that inflation over prior 12 months:
  - r_A,t = α + β π_A,t + γ (π_A,t - π_A,t-12) + u_t
- Interpretation under perfect inflation foresight and no money illusion: β = 1 and γ = 0.
- Use of ex post inflation in regressions: interested in actual effects of inflation on returns regardless of expectation status.

### Data (short-run model)
- Benchmark total return indices used; stitched indices when necessary to maximize observations.
- Headline consumer price indices used for inflation in each currency.
- Two base currencies: U.S. dollars and Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). SDR defined as a basket of euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and U.S. dollar; SDR-based series are basket-weighted averages across component currencies.
- Two 60-40 portfolios constructed (equities 60%, government bonds 40%), rebalanced monthly; one U.S. dollar portfolio and one SDR-weighted portfolio.
- Table 1 (summary statistics, Jan-1927 to Nov-2008) included sample means, maxima, minima, standard deviations, skewness, start and end dates for series (all data end in November 2008; 12-month percent changes used).

### Estimation strategy (short-run)
- Overlapping observations used (annual percent change for every month) to maximize observations.
- Newey-West (1987) standard errors used to correct for serial correlation from overlapping data.
- Two sample periods estimated: maximum available data for each asset class, and Mar-1973 to Nov-2008 (post-Bretton Woods).
- Quandt-Andrews breakpoint test applied over post-Bretton Woods sample to detect structural breaks; when breakpoints found, models re-estimated for sub-samples.

### Short-run (12-month) results — key findings (preserve exact coefficients and interpretations)
- General: changes in the rate of inflation, and sometimes the level, affect nominal returns across asset classes; more conclusive results post-1973.
- Cash:
  - Cash has not been an effective hedge against ex post inflation over 12 months.
  - Coefficients: level of inflation < 1; change in inflation coefficient negative and statistically significant for U.S. dollar and SDR.
  - Table 2 (Maximum sample): U.S. 3-month T-bills Level = 0.39 ***, 12-month change = -0.24 * (start Jan-28, n=971). SDR 3-month interest rate Level = 0.27 *, 12-month change = -0.65 ** (Dec-71, n=444).
  - Cash hedging influenced by monetary policy regime; results since 1973 driven partly by 1980–82 period.
- Bonds and equities:
  - Both negatively affected by increases in inflation, particularly since 1973.
  - For a 1 percentage point increase in inflation over one year:
    - Broad U.S. Treasury benchmark: nominal annual return declines by about 1⅓ percentage points.
    - SDR-weighted long-term government bonds: decline over 2½ percentage points.
    - Large-cap U.S. equity: fall of 2⅔ percentage points.
    - SDR-weighted equity benchmark: fall of 3½ percentage points.
  - Table 2 (Maximum sample highlights):
    - U.S. Treasuries (all maturities): Level = -0.10, 12-month = -1.33 *** (Dec-73, n=420).
    - U.S. Treasuries (10+ year maturities): Level = -0.12, 12-month = -0.38 * (Jan-28, n=971).
    - U.S. Corporate bonds: Level = -0.74 **, 12-month = -1.81 *** (Dec-70, n=456).
    - SDR-weighted government bonds (all maturities): Level = 1.57 **, 12-month = -2.36 *** (May-87, n=259).
    - U.S. large cap. equities: Level = 0.07, 12-month = -0.03 (Jan-28, n=971).
    - SDR-weighted equities: Level = -0.35, 12-month = -3.50 *** (Dec-71, n=444).
- Alternatives and commodities:
  - Commodities provide an effective hedge over 12-month horizon.
  - A 1 percentage point increase in annual U.S. inflation leads to increases of between 3.8 percent and almost 10 percent among commodity measures.
  - Table 2 (Maximum sample highlights):
    - CRB index Level = 0.42, 12-month = 3.41 *** (Dec-60, n=576).
    - GSCI index Level = 7.71, 12-month = 9.87 ** (Jan-96, n=155).
    - Gold spot Level = 2.78 *, 12-month = 6.36 *** (Jan-69, n=479).
  - FTSE NAREIT index behaves similarly to equities: Level = -0.16, 12-month = -3.84 *** (Jan-73, n=431).
- Portfolios:
  - 60-40 portfolios mostly show statistically insignificant and smaller inflation coefficients than equities/bonds.
  - U.S. dollar 60-40 portfolio (Maximum sample): Level = 0.00, 12-month = -0.16 (Jan-28, n=971).
  - SDR 60-40 portfolio: Level = -0.31, 12-month = -1.35 (May-87, n=259).

### Evidence of changing inflation sensitivities (breakpoints)
- Quandt-Andrews breakpoint tests reject model stability (no breakpoints) at the 99 percent confidence level for every asset class.
- Breakpoint dates vary widely and often influenced by sample length.
- Examples from Table 3 (selected entries):
  - Cash: U.S. 3-month T-bills breakpoint Jun-81 probability 0.0000; first sample Level = 0.91 ***, 12-month = -0.24; second sample Level = 1.36 ***, 12-month = -0.80 ***.
  - Bonds: U.S. Treasuries (all maturities) breakpoint Feb-87 probability 0.0000; first sample Level = -1.20 ***, 12-month = -0.66; second sample Level = 1.38 **, 12-month = -1.75 ***.
  - Alternatives: GSCI index breakpoint Jan-01 probability 0.0000; first sample Level = 46.32 ***, 12-month = -7.17; second sample Level = -7.48 *, 12-month = 17.28 ***.
- Interpretation: inflation sensitivity unstable over time; cash breakpoints cluster around early 1980s monetary policy changes; U.S. bond sensitivity increased since late 1980s; for global bonds and equities breakpoints occur late with limited observations.

### Long-run assessment: VAR/VEC framework and data
- Purpose: assess inflation-hedging properties over long horizons using a vector autoregression (VAR) and vector error-correction (VEC) representation to identify cointegration and dynamics.
- Model (equation 3 VAR; equation 4 VEC form) with endogenous vector Z (5 x 1).
- Long-run data used primarily from United States for longer history; commodities proxied by Reuters-CRB CCI index (spot-price proxy).
- Data characteristics:
  - Variables non-stationary in log-index form; first differences stationary (unit root tests; Table A2).
  - Long-run model variables summary (Aug-1956 to Oct-2008): obs. = 621 for bills, bonds, equities, commodities, CPI; means and standard deviations reported in Table 3 (using first difference of log index * 100).
- Lag selection: optimal lag length of 7 months by Aikaike information criterion; VAR residuals exhibited serial correlation with only 2 lags, so longer lag used.
- Johansen cointegration tests find strong evidence of long-run relationships for a wide range of specifications; results based on maximum likelihood VEC estimation.

### Long-run results: impulse responses and elasticities
- Identification and shock:
  - Ordering used for Cholesky decomposition: cash → bonds → equities → commodities → inflation.
  - Robustness: alternative orderings (including allowing commodities to contemporaneously affect inflation) made little difference over long term.
  - One standard deviation shock to monthly change in inflation ≈ 0.2 percentage points applied.
- Elasticity definition (equation 5): η_it = (Δlog z_it) / (Δlog π_it). An elasticity of 1 indicates a perfect hedge preserving real returns.
- Key dynamic findings (Figures 2 and 3 summarized in prose with exact magnitudes preserved where given):
  - Inflation shocks persist:
    - After 1 year, cumulative increase in price level nearly three times initial shock.
    - After 5 years, cumulative increase about five times initial shock.
    - Over 20 years, initial shock raises price level by about 1.4 ppts; one standard error range between 1.0 and 1.8 ppts.
  - Cash:
    - Cash returns increase in response to inflation shock but gradually and less than full compensation.
    - After 1 year, cumulative effect on cash returns < 0.1 ppt, implying real cumulative return about 0.5 ppt lower due to inflation shock.
    - After 5 years, real decline in cash returns remains about 0.5 ppt, then slowly recovers thereafter.
    - Long-run multiplier of T-bill returns to an inflation shock ≈ 0.8.
    - Cash returns largely determined by monetary policy and real interest rate targeted by policymakers.
  - Bonds:
    - Long-term Treasury bonds worst performing asset class immediately after shock; after 1 year total return index declines by 0.9 ppt, implying reduction in real returns of about 1.4 ppts.
    - Peak real return losses about nearly 2 ppts after ~3 years, then gradual recovery as higher running yields dominate.
    - Long-run elasticity of bonds to inflation shock ≈ 0.1.
    - Rising inflation risk premia contribute to higher long-term real yields over time.
  - Equities:
    - Equity returns decline in months following inflation shock and do not show meaningful recovery thereafter in the model.
    - After 1 year, equity returns about 0.3 ppt lower (0.9 ppt in real terms) due to shock; decline bottoms at about 3 years with a 1.6 ppt loss (3.0 ppts in real terms).
    - Long-run inflation elasticity on equities about -0.2.
    - Standard error bounds for equities wide; at 20-year horizon width ≈ 2 ppts.
    - Results consistent with literature that equities do not reliably provide inflation protection when inflation is rising.
  - Commodities:
    - Best performing asset class over short term; one year following shock, commodity prices increase by 0.4 ppt (short-term effective hedge).
    - Protection erodes over time; long-term commodity price response falls gradually.

### Investment implications and interpretation (as presented)
- Short-run (12-month) perspective:
  - Commodities and gold: provide effective protection against rising inflation over one-year horizons.
  - Cash: not a reliable one-year hedge; sensitivity depends on monetary policy regime.
  - Bonds and equities: typically adversely affected by rising inflation over one-year horizons; 60-40 portfolios did not provide a hedge and were less negatively affected than individual equities or bonds.
- Long-run perspective:
  - Cash: partial hedge over very long horizons with long-run multiplier ≈ 0.8; real losses persist for years after shock.
  - Bonds: suffer short-term losses then gradually recover; small long-run elasticity ≈ 0.1 implies limited long-run inflation compensation via prices plus running yields.
  - Equities: experience persistent losses with long-run elasticity ≈ -0.2 in response to an inflation shock; no meaningful recovery in model impulse responses.
  - Commodities: effective in short term; long-run protection erodes.
- Practical considerations:
  - Inflation hedging properties are time-varying and dependent on monetary policy regimes, structural breaks, and asset-class composition.
  - Investors with strong non-consensus inflation views could potentially enhance returns by tilting portfolios toward or away from equities conditional on inflation expectations.
  - Limitations: model uses ex post inflation in short-run regressions; VAR identification assumptions (ordering) and interpretation of “unexpected inflation” depend on the model’s information set; results do not test causality.

*Source: Authors’ estimates and analysis as presented in the supplied content.*

### 0.2 ppt. After about 2 years however, commodity prices begin to decline and continue falling

### _wp0990 - 0.2 ppt. After about 2 years however, commodity prices begin to decline and continue falling

### Elasticities and dynamic responses of commodities to unexpected inflation
- The elasticity for commodities peaks at about 0.7 after 12–15 months and in the long-run converges to about -0.2.
- After about 2 years, commodity prices begin to decline and continue falling for a number of years.
- From the 12–18 month period following an inflation shock, commodities are the best performing asset class in the short run; beyond this period spot commodity prices begin to fall in nominal terms and exhibit long-run real spot price losses with elasticity of -0.2.

### Channels and explanations for long-run commodity price declines after an inflation shock
- Real interest rate channel:
  - Real interest rates and commodity prices tend to be inversely correlated; if real interest rates gradually rise in response to an inflation shock, commodity prices could decline with a lag.
  - Frankel (2008) argues higher real interest rates cause commodity prices to fall via: increasing the discount rate for future extraction and increasing current supply; raising the carry cost of inventories; and encouraging speculators to shift out of commodity contracts and into treasury bills.
- Output channel:
  - Recent evidence suggests output declines following a positive inflation shock, particularly if real long-term yields rise (Fair (2002) and Giordani (2003)).
  - If higher inflation triggers a business cycle downturn, pro-cyclical demand for some commodities and a sluggish supply response should lead to lower prices.
- Empirical nuance:
  - Cashin, McDermott, and Scott (1999) find no evidence for comovement across unrelated commodities; procyclicality of the equally-weighted CRB price index may be driven by a smaller number of closely-related, output-sensitive sectors such as industrial metals.

### Summary of results (asset-class responses to unexpected inflation)
- Short-term (12 months / 1–18 months) findings:
  - Bonds and equities have been poor hedges against ex post inflation.
  - Commodities have performed well when inflation has risen; spot price increases almost match inflation in the short term.
- Medium- to long-term dynamics:
  - Over a 12–18 month period following an inflation shock, commodities (best) and bonds (worst) correspond to short-run findings.
  - Beyond this period, relative returns change: bond returns, helped by higher yields and more stable prices, begin to outperform inflation; commodity prices begin to fall in nominal terms; equities suffer short-term losses and subsequently fail to recover over the longer term.
- On symmetry and deflation:
  - Gaussian assumptions suggest responses to inflation or deflation shocks should be symmetrical, but the sample lacks examples of deflation (except Japan's contribution to SDR-weighted variables), leaving dynamics of unexpected deflation as an open research area.

### Investment implications and tactical strategies
- Strategic asset allocation:
  - It is difficult for a long-term strategic asset allocation to protect a portfolio against unexpected inflation using traditional asset classes.
  - For investors with confidence in inflation path views, implications are major—especially for “non-consensus” views expecting inflation surprises.
- Tactical asset allocation:
  - Tactical tilts can enhance inflation protection: tilt towards commodities and away from bonds in the aftermath of a positive inflation shock.
  - At some point the hedging properties of commodities begin to diminish; implement a switch back towards bonds at the expense of commodities when appropriate.
- Equities:
  - For investors who do not take tactical positions, holding equities should be based on a very long-term horizon to let inflation cycles average out.
  - Investors able to tilt portfolios could underweight equities in anticipation of higher inflation, but other assets show stronger and more consistent reactions.
- Inflation derivatives and overlays:
  - Inflation swaps, swaptions and inflation options have gathered interest in Europe and the U.S.; they allow transferring inflation risk or expressing views on future inflation levels.
  - Caps and floors on inflation indices and choice of inflation reference (e.g., wage index vs consumer price index) broaden hedging options.
  - CPI-based futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (introduced in 2004) have met timid investor interest; over-the-counter vehicles have emerged to meet specific investor requirements.

### Key statistics and tabular summaries (preserved values)
- Commodity elasticity timeline:
  - Peaks at about 0.7 after 12–15 months.
  - Long-run converges to about -0.2.
- Table 4 highlights (textual preservation of cell summaries):
  - Cash:
    - Short term (1-18 months): Interest rates respond gradually, leading to real losses.
    - Intermediate term (18 months to 5 years): Interest rates begin to climb, recovering some of the early losses.
    - Long-term (5 years +): Partial inflation hedge, elasticity of 0.8.
    - Historical long-run performance: Modestly positive real returns.
  - Nominal bonds:
    - Short term: Bond yields rise, causing price declines and real return losses.
    - Intermediate term: Higher current yields begin to offset price declines, leading to some recovery.
    - Long-term: Real losses, with elasticity of 0.1.
    - Historical long-run performance: Real returns in excess of cash, but lower than equities.
  - Equities:
    - Short term: Real return losses, but less than for bonds.
    - Intermediate term: Stabilizing real returns, but no meaningful recovery.
    - Long-term: Real losses with elasticity of -0.2.
    - Historical long-run performance: Real returns in excess of bonds.
  - Commodities:
    - Short term: Spot price increases, almost matching inflation.
    - Intermediate term: Spot prices begin to gradually decline.
    - Long-term: Real spot price losses, with elasticity of -0.2.
    - Historical long-run performance: Insufficient total return data for commodity futures.

*Source: _wp0990 - 0.2 ppt. After about 2 years however, commodity prices begin to decline and continue falling*

### REFERENCES

### _wp0990 - REFERENCES

### Asset returns, inflation, and stocks
- Bodie, Zvie, 1976, “Common Stocks as a Hedge Against Inflation,” Journal of Finance Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 459–470.
- Boudoukh, Jacob, and Matthew Richardson, 1993, “Stock Returns and Inflation: A Long-Horizon Approach”, American Economic Review, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 1346–1355.
- Ely, David P. and Kenneth J. Robinson, 1997, “Are Stocks a Hedge Against Inflation? International Evidence Using a Long-Run Approach,” Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 141–167.
- Engsted, Tom and Carsten Tanggaard, 2002, “The Relation between Asset Returns and Inflation at Short and Long Horizons”, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions, and Money, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 101–118.
- Fama, Eugene F., 1975, “Short-Term Interest Rates as Precitors of Inflation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 269–282.
- Fama, Eugene F., 1976, “Inflation Uncertainty and Expected Returns on Treasury Bills”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 427–448.
- Fama, Eugene F., 1981, “Stock Returns, Real Activity, Inflation and Money,” American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 545–565.
- Fama, Eugene F., 1982, “Inflation, Output and Money”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 201–231.
- Fama, Eugene F. and G. William Schwert, 1977, “Asset Returns and Inflation,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 115–146.
- Graham, Fred C., 1996, “Inflation, Real Stock Returns, and Monetary Policy,” Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 29–35.
- Kaul, Gautam, 1987, “Stock Returns and Inflation—The Role of the Monetary Sector,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 253–276.
- Lothian, James R. and Cornelia McCarthy, 2001, “Equity Returns and Inflation: The Puzzlingly Long Lags”, Research in Banking and Finance, Vol. 2, pp. 149–166.
- Luintel, Kul B. and Krishna Paudyal, 2006, “Are Common Stocks a Hedge Against Inflation?”, Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1–19.
- Malkiel, Burton G., 1979, “The Capital Formation Problem in the United States,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 291–306.
- Modigliani, Franco, and Richard A. Cohn, 1979, “Inflation, Rational Valuation and the Market,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 24–44.
- Marshall, David. A., 1992, “Inflation and Asset Returns in a Monetary Economy,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 1315–1342.
- Pindyck, Robert S., 1984, “Risk, Inflation, and the Stock Market,” American Economic Review, Vol.74, No.3, pp. 335–351.
- Pilotte, Eugene A., 2003, “Capital Gains, Dividend Yields, and Expected Inflation,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 447–466
- Schwert, G William, 1990, “Stock Returns and Real Activity: A Century of Evidence,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 1237–1257.
- Spyrou, Spyros I., 2004, “Are Stocks a Good Hedge Against Inflation? Evidence from Emerging Markets”, Applied Economics, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 41–48.
- Hasbrouck Joel, 1984, “Stock Returns, Inflation, and Economic Activity: The Survey Evidence”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 1293–1310.

### Commodities, real assets, and real estate as inflation hedges
- Adams, Zeno, Roland Füss, and Dieter Kaiser, 2008, “Macroeconomic Determinants of Commodity Futures Returns,” in Handbook of Commodity Investment, ed. Frank J. Fabozzi, Roland Füss, and Dieter Kaiser, (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc).
- Bond, Michael T., and Michael J Seiler, 1998, “Real Estate Returns and Inflation: An Added Variable Approach”, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 327–338.
- Erb, Claude B., and Campbell R. Harvey, 2006, “The Strategic and Tactical Value of Commodity Futures,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 69–97.
- Frankel, Jeffrey, 2008, “The Effect of Monetary Policy on Real Commodity Prices,” in Asset Prices and Monetary Policy, John Campbell, ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
- Gorton, Gary, and Geert K. Rouwenhorst, 2006, “Facts and Fantasies about Commodity Futures,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 62, No.2, pp. 47–68.
- Greer, Robert J., 2000, “The Nature of Commodity Index Returns,” Journal of Alternative Investments, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 45–52.
- Kat, Harry M. and Roel C. A. Oomen, 2007, “What Every Investor Should Know About Commodities, Part II: Multivariate Return Analysis,” Journal of Investment Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 16–40.
- Labys, W.C., A. Achouch, and M. Terraza, 1999, “Metal Prices and the Business Cycle,” Resources Policy, No. 25, pp. 229–238.
- Greer, Robert J., 2000, “The Nature of Commodity Index Returns,” Journal of Alternative Investments, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 45–52.
- Gyourko, Joseph, and Peter Linneman, 1988, “Owner-Occupied Homes, Income-Producing Real Estate and REIT as Inflation Hedges,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 347–372.
- Hoesli, Martin, Brian D. MacGregor, George Matysiak, and Nanda Nanthakumaran, 1997, “The Short-Term Inflation-Hedging Characteristics of UK Real Estate,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 59–76.
- Hoesli, Martin, Colin Lizieri, and Bryan MacGregor, 2006, “The Inflation-hedging Characteristics of US and UK Investments: A Multi-Factor Error Correction Approach,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 183–206 (also in Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series, No. 6–4).
- Rubens, Jack H., Michael T. Bond, and James R. Webb, 1989, “The Inflation-Hedging Effectiveness of Real Estate,” Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 45–55.
- Worthington, Andrew C., and Mosayeb Pahlavani, 2007, “Gold investment as an inflationary hedge: cointegration evidence with allowance for endogenous structural breaks,” Applied Financial Economics Letters, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 259–262.

### Inflation-protected instruments and inflation risk
- Dudley, William, 1996, “Treasury Inflation-Protection Securities: A Useful Tool, but Not a Cure-All”, Goldman Sachs Research (New York: Goldman Sachs & Co.).
- Shen, Pu, 1998, “Features and Risks of Treasury Inflation Protection Securities,” Economic Review: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 23–38.
- Kothari, S.P. and Jay A. Shanken, 2004, “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54–70.
- Koppenhaver, G.D., and Cheng F. Lee, 1987, “Alternative Instruments for Hedging Inflation Risk in the Banking Industry,” Journal of Futures Markets, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 619–636.
- Strongin, Steve, and Melanie Petsch, 1997, “Protecting a Portfolio against Inflation Risk,” Investment Policy, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 63–82.

### Monetary policy, inflation modeling, and macroeconomic links
- Annicchiarico, Barbara, and Alessandro Piergallini , 2006, “Inflation Shocks and Interest Rate Rules,” Economics Bulletin, 2006, Vol. 5, No. 19, pp. 1–7.
- Cottarelli, Carlo, and Curzio Giannini, 1997, “Credibility Without Rules,” International Monetary Fund Occasional Paper, No. 154.
- Danthine, Jean-Pierre, and John B. Donaldson, 1986, “Inflation and Asset Prices in an Exchange Economy,” Econometrica, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 585–606.
- Evans, Martin D. D., 1998, “Real Rates, Expected Inflation, and Inflation Risk Premia,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 187–218.
- Evans, Martin D. D. and Karen K. Lewis, 1995, “Do Expected Shifts in Inflation Affect Estimates of the Long-Run Fisher Relation?,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 50, No.1, pp. 225–253.
- Evans, Martin D. D. and Paul Wachtel, 1993, “Inflation Regimes and the Sources of Inflation Uncertainty”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 25, No. 3, Part 2, pp. 475–511.
- Fair, Ray, 2002, “On Modeling the Effects of Inflation Shocks,” Contributions to Macroeconomics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1045–1045.
- Giordani, Paolo, 2003, “On Modeling the Effects of Inflation Shocks: Comments and Some Further Evidence,” Contributions to Macroeconomics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1068–1068.
- Levin, Andrew, and John B. Taylor, 2008, “Falling Behind the Curve: A Positive Analysis of Stop-Start Monetary Policies and the Great Inflation,” manuscript from the NBER Conference on The Great Inflation.
- Mishkin, Frederic S., 1992, “Is the Fisher Effect for Real?” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 195–215.
- Mundell, Robert A., 1963, “Inflation and Real Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 280–283.
- Tobin, James, 1965, “Money and Economic Growth,”, Econometrica, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 671–684.
- Taylor, John B., 1993, “Discretion Versus Policy Rules in Practice,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 195–214.
- Fama, Eugene F., 1975–1982 (see above) — multiple contributions linking interest rates, inflation, and asset returns.

### Econometric methods and technical tools cited
- Andrews, Donald W. K., 1991, “Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation,” Econometrica, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 817–858.
- Campbell, John Y., Andrew W. Lo, and Craig A. MacKinlay, 1996, The Econometrics of Financial Markets, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).
- Hansen, Lars Peter, and Robert J. Hodrick, 1980, “Forward Exchange Rates as Optimal Predictors of Future Spot Rates: An Econometric Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 829–853.
- Johansen, Søren, 1991, “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models,” Econometrica, Vol. 59, No. 6, pp. 1551–1580.
- Johansen, Søren, 1995, Likelihood-based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models, (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
- Newey, Whitney K., and Kenneth D. West, 1987, “A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix, Econometrica, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 703–708.
- Richardson, Matthew, and Tom Smith, 1991, “Tests of Financial Models in the Presence of Overlapping Observations,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 227–254.
- Fair, Ray, 2002, and Giordani, Paolo, 2003 (see above) — methodological discussions on modeling inflation shocks.
- Ibbotson, Roger G., and Rex A. Sinquefield, 1976, “Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation: Year-by-Year Historical Returns (1926–1974),” Journal of Business, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 11–47.
- Ibbotson, Roger G. and Rex A. Sinquefield, 1976, “Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation: Simulations of the Future”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 313–338.
- Ibbotson, 2008, Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation Classic Yearbook (Chicago: Morningstar).

*References list from _wp0990 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp0990.pdf_