Hi Johannes !

I am reading your replication code of JQ_2012. I want to compute the mode myself. so I changed mode_compute to 9 and delete the mode_file option. however errors reports:

Error using print_info (line 45)

Blanchard Kahn conditions are not satisfied:

indeterminacy

why is that?

So I want to ask how you find the mode at the beginning, how can I change the code to find the mode?

thanks very much !

What did you change in the code?

thanks for your reply!

I only changed some option in estimation command. first, I delete the mode_file=JQ_2012_NK_mode, and then I changed the mode_compute to 9 instead of 0 to start the mode finding.

I guess the problem is about the prior mean as the initial value of estimation,right?

Yes, that may be the problem. Try providing different starting values for the parameters.

thanks!

I also want to know how do you set the starting value or how you get the right mode when you do this research. can you tell me some about it? that would be very helpful, thanks again!

I add the code with

check;

steady;

the dynare reports

There are 14 eigenvalue(s) larger than 1 in modulus

for 14 forward-looking variable(s)

The rank condition is verified.

why the estimation still have the BK condition problem?

Try adding

```
estimated_params_init(use_calibration);
end;
```

thanks for your reply

I notice that the calibrated values are the wrong mode computed by JQ . the result seems not right

prior mean mode s.d. prior pstdev

siggma 1.500 1.2655 0.2397 norm 0.3700

epsilon 2.000 2.4167 0.6661 norm 0.7500

h 0.500 0.4561 0.0814 beta 0.3000

omega 0.500 0.8237 0.0532 beta 0.3000

phi 0.100 18.0471 6.9525 invg 0.3000

varrho 0.100 0.2170 0.1295 invg 0.3000

psi 0.500 0.7392 0.1090 beta 0.1500

kappa 0.200 0.6222 0.2160 invg 0.1000

eta_bar 1.200 1.7748 0.0564 beta 0.1000

upsilon_bar 1.200 1.1556 0.0998 beta 0.1000

rho_z 0.500 0.9045 0.0290 beta 0.2000

rho_zeta 0.500 0.8965 0.0771 beta 0.2000

rho_gamma 0.500 0.9399 0.0225 beta 0.2000

rho_eta 0.500 0.8744 0.0473 beta 0.2000

rho_upsilon 0.500 0.1642 0.0922 beta 0.2000

rho_G 0.500 0.9762 0.0120 beta 0.2000

rho_varsigma 0.500 0.2597 0.0752 beta 0.2000

rho_xi 0.500 0.9893 0.0069 beta 0.2000

rho_gz 0.500 0.8582 0.1049 beta 0.2000

rho_R 0.750 0.8294 0.0303 beta 0.1000

nu_1 1.500 2.1431 0.1643 norm 0.2500

nu_2 0.120 0.0255 0.0432 norm 0.0500

nu_3 0.120 0.2171 0.0287 norm 0.0500

standard deviation of shocks

prior mean mode s.d. prior pstdev

eps_z 0.001 0.0047 0.0003 invg 0.0500

eps_zeta 0.001 0.0126 0.0036 invg 0.0500

eps_gamma 0.001 0.0193 0.0039 invg 0.0500

eps_eta 0.001 0.0179 0.0041 invg 0.0500

eps_upsilon 0.001 0.7067 0.3552 invg 0.0500

eps_G 0.001 0.0160 0.0012 invg 0.0500

eps_varsigma 0.001 0.0013 0.0001 invg 0.0500

eps_xi 0.001 0.0149 0.0014 invg 0.0500

so can you tell me what the initial value you used to compute the mode, thanks!

I used the ones of JQ, but run a long mode-finding with `mode_compute=9`

, getting the mode-file I uploaded

Hi thanks for your patience!

I do as you said, using the JQ mode as initial value.and mode_compute=9, after a long time finding but get different results

what do you think might be the reasons? if I try a few times, can I get better results?

Mode-finding is tricky. For that model, I ran mode-finding from starting several randomly drawn points and picked the point with the highest posterior density.