Syntax Error in Model Block

Dynare is giving me this error but my variables and model blocks are complete, i.e, totally the same number but this error is still popping up. The two shocks (epsAS and epsRS) were expressed in the model block.

“ERROR: epsAS epsRS not used in model block. To bypass this error, use the nostrict option. This may lead to crashes or unexpected behavior”.

Any advise please.


Hi Chizzyman,

we would need to see your .mod file to help you.

Hi, you mean I should post my codes here? I am asking because I am new on the forum.

Yes, you can upload your .mod file here and we can then take a look and hopefully help you with your problem.

The above message means that the two shocks epsAS, epsRS you defined as varexo do not appear in the model-block. If you want to nevertheless run the model, you need to invoke dynare using

dynare name_of_the_mod_file nostrict

Okay. Thank you. In my model block, epsA and epsR are stated. I think I will just upload the preambles, parameters and model blocks for you to see if you do not mind. Thanks

Okay. epsAS and epsRS are captured in the model block. Let me upload the preambles, parameters and model block for your to see if you do not mind. Thanks

There are many issues with the file, many related to the spelling/naming:

ERROR: junk9.mod: line 25, col 5: Unknown symbol: k
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 30, col 41: Unknown symbol: k
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 31, col 4: Unknown symbol: g
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 32, col 4: Unknown symbol: g
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 32, col 6: Unknown symbol: i
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 34, cols 5-9: Unknown symbol: eps_A
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 34, cols 21-28: Unknown symbol: epsA
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 35, cols 5-9: Unknown symbol: eps_R
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 35, cols 21-28: Unknown symbol: epsR
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 39, cols 1-7: Unknown symbol: initval
ERROR: junk9.mod: line 47, col 12: Unknown symbol: k

Okay. Starting from the beginning.

Thanks. I appreciate

Don’t post text, post the file.

code_101.mod (1.3 KB)

You have an opening comment /* that is never closed by */
On top of that, your file is littered with mistakes like missing brackets, wrong equations etc. If fixed some of the problems, but many remain. How can


make sense?

code_101.mod (1.2 KB)

code_101.mod (1.4 KB)

I have been able to rectify most of the problems but this is still coming up.

Warning: Matrix is singular to working precision.

In trust_region>dogleg (line 198)
In trust_region (line 115)
In dynare_solve (line 255)
In evaluate_steady_state (line 221)
In steady_ (line 55)
In steady (line 80)
In code_101.driver (line 304)
In dynare (line 293)

Residuals of the static equations:
Equation number 1 : 0.41079 : 1
Equation number 2 : 0.95239 : 2
Equation number 3 : 0 : lambda
Equation number 4 : 0 : 4
Equation number 5 : 0.4046 : y
Equation number 6 : -1.3786 : w
Equation number 7 : 0.22055 : r
Equation number 8 : -0.0577 : k
Equation number 9 : -0.18553 : kg
Equation number 10 : -0.0031151 : 10
Equation number 11 : 0 : gc
Equation number 12 : 0 : gi
Equation number 13 : -0.2581 : gt
Equation number 14 : 0.0067 : A
Equation number 15 : 0.009135 : RR
Equation number 16 : 0.07068 : 16

Error using print_info (line 32)
Impossible to find the steady state (the sum of square residuals of the static equations is 3.2982). Either the model doesn’t have a steady state, there are an infinity of steady states, or the guess values are too far from the solution.

gi = gi^y*y;

still does not make sense.

I started all over again running the code one-by-one and I think I have seen where the problem lies however, the IRFs output does not seem to make sense. Please can you look at it, what do you think?
july.mod (968 Bytes)

Thank you for your kind response.

Where is the problem. At order=1 the IRFs look ok.

Thank you for your kind response.
I just changed it to “order=1” but the IRFs still looking rough and spurious. See attached.
Please what would your advice be?

Thank you, I have done it neatly.

A shock in technology produces a negative IRFs in consumption, I think it is contrary to intuition. What do you think?