Smoothed GMM for quantile models∗
Luciano de Castro†

Antonio F. Galvao‡

David M. Kaplan§

Xin Liu¶

arXiv:1707.03436v2 [math.ST] 27 Feb 2018

February 28, 2018

Abstract
This paper develops theory for feasible estimators of finite-dimensional parameters
identified by general conditional quantile restrictions, under much weaker assumptions
than previously seen in the literature. This includes instrumental variables nonlinear
quantile regression as a special case. More specifically, we consider a set of unconditional moments implied by the conditional quantile restrictions, providing conditions
for local identification. Since estimators based on the sample moments are generally impossible to compute numerically in practice, we study feasible estimators based
on smoothed sample moments. We propose a method of moments estimator for exactly identified models, as well as a generalized method of moments estimator for
over-identified models. We establish consistency and asymptotic normality of both estimators under general conditions that allow for weakly dependent data and nonlinear
structural models. Simulations illustrate the finite-sample properties of the methods.
Our in-depth empirical application concerns the consumption Euler equation derived
from quantile utility maximization. Advantages of the quantile Euler equation include
robustness to fat tails, decoupling of risk attitude from the elasticity of intertemporal substitution, and log-linearization without any approximation error. For the four
countries we examine, the quantile estimates of discount factor and elasticity of intertemporal substitution are economically reasonable for a range of quantiles above
the median, even when two-stage least squares estimates are not reasonable.
Keywords: instrumental variables, nonlinear quantile regression, quantile utility maximization.
JEL classification codes: C31, C32, C36
∗

The authors would like to express their appreciation to Ron Gallant, Duke Kao, Carlos Lamarche,
Xiaodong Liu, Carlos Martins-Filho, Eric Renault, Pedro Sant’Anna, and other seminar and conference
participants at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Pennsylvania State University, University
of Iowa, Brown University, University of Connecticut, University of Colorado (Boulder), 2017 Midwest
Econometrics Group, and the 2017 North American Summer Meeting of the Econometric Society, for helpful
comments, references, and discussions. Code is provided for all methods, simulations, and applications.
†
Department of Economics, University of Iowa. E-mail: decastro.luciano@gmail.com
‡
Department of Economics, University of Arizona. E-mail: agalvao@email.arizona.edu
§
Department of Economics, University of Missouri. E-mail: kaplandm@missouri.edu
¶
Department of Economics, University of Missouri. E-mail: xl6f6@mail.missouri.edu

1

Introduction

Since the seminal work of Koenker and Bassett (1978), quantile regression (QR) has attracted
considerable interest in statistics and econometrics. QR estimates conditional quantile functions that provide insight into heterogeneous effects of policy variables. This is especially
valuable for program evaluation studies, where these methods help analyze how treatments
or social programs affect the outcome’s distribution. Nevertheless, endogeneity has been a
pervasive concern in economics due to simultaneous causality, omitted variables, measurement error, self-selection, and estimation of equilibrium conditions, among other causes.
Extending the standard QR, Chernozhukov and Hansen (2005, 2006, 2008) present results
on identification, estimation, and inference for an instrumental variables QR (IVQR) model
that allows for endogenous regressors.1 However, computational difficulties have limited
practical estimators to linear models with iid data (discussed below).
Under weaker conditions than prior IVQR papers, we develop theory around feasible
smoothed estimators.2 We consider a set of unconditional moments implied by a general
parametric conditional quantile restriction and study exactly identified and over-identified
models. Under misspecification of the conditional model, our results still hold for the pseudotrue parameter solving the unconditional moments, complementing the results in Angrist,
Chernozhukov, and Fernández-Val (2006) for QR. For identification, we provide sufficient
conditions for local identification based on these moments. For estimation, since using
unsmoothed sample moments is generally intractable, we study smoothed estimators that
compute quickly and may have improved precision (Kaplan and Sun, 2017). Specifically, we
develop smoothed method of moments (MM) and smoothed generalized method of moments
(GMM) quantile estimators for exactly identified and over-identified models, respectively.3
Unlike prior IVQR estimation papers, we allow for weakly dependent data and nonlinear
1

We refer to Chernozhukov, Hansen, and Wüthrich (2017) for an overview of IVQR. They discuss alternative, complementary QR models with endogeneity in Section 1.2.5, specifically the triangular system
and local quantile treatment effect (LQTE) model. Even in the LQTE model, the IVQR estimator has a
meaningful interpretation; see Wüthrich (2016).
2
The methods developed in this paper are also related to those for semiparametric and nonparametric
models. Identification, estimation, and inference of general (non-smooth) conditional moment restriction
models have received much attention in the econometrics literature, as in Newey and McFadden (1994,
§7), Chen, Linton, and van Keilegom (2003), Chen and Pouzo (2009, 2012), and Chen and Liao (2015), for
example. However, theoretical results are only for unsmoothed estimators that are often not computationally
feasible in practice.
3
QR and IVQR have been discussed as GMM by Buchinsky (1998, §III.A) and Chernozhukov et al. (2017,
§1.3.1), among others.

1

structural models when establishing the large sample properties of the estimators, namely,
consistency and asymptotic normality.
Our in-depth empirical study estimates a quantile Euler equation using aggregate time
series data. This equation is derived from a quantile utility maximization model. This model
is an interesting alternative to the standard expected utility model because it is robust to fat
tails, allows heterogeneity through the quantiles, decouples the elasticity of intertemporal
substitution from risk attitude, and results in an Euler equation that does not suffer from any
approximation error when log-linearized.4 Quantile preferences were first studied by Manski
(1988) and were axiomatized by Chambers (2009) and Rostek (2010). De Castro and Galvao
(2017) use quantile preferences in a dynamic economic setting and provide a comprehensive
analysis of a dynamic rational quantile model. They derive the policy function (Euler equation) as a nonlinear conditional quantile restriction. Consequently, we may use smoothed
GMM to estimate the structural parameters, including the elasticity of intertemporal substitution (EIS). Numerous papers have estimated the EIS, e.g., Hansen and Singleton (1983),
Hall (1988), Campbell and Mankiw (1989), Ogaki and Reinhart (1998), and Yogo (2004).
For the four countries we study, the smoothed quantile estimates of the discount factor and
EIS are economically reasonable for a range of quantiles above the median, including cases
where the 2SLS estimates are not reasonable.
For IVQR estimation of the model in Chernozhukov and Hansen (2005), the literature
lacks results for feasible estimators allowing nonlinear structural models and dependent
data.5 The following are iid sampling assumptions: Condition (i) on p. 310 in Chernozhukov
and Hong (2003), Assumption 2.R1 in Chernozhukov and Hansen (2006), and Assumption
1 in Kaplan and Sun (2017). A nonlinear structural model is allowed by the computationally demanding6 Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimator in Chernozhukov and Hong (2003,
Ex. 3, p. 297ff.), but linear-in-parameters models are required in (3.4) in Chernozhukov and
Hansen (2006) and Assumption 1 in Kaplan and Sun (2017). Additionally, Chernozhukov
and Hansen (2006) note, “The computational advantages of our estimator rapidly diminish
as the number of endogenous variables increases” (p. 501). Even if only one observed variable
is endogenous, this restriction limits the use of interactions and transformations (like poly4

Heavy tails in consumption data have been documented recently by Toda and Walsh (2015, 2017).
For nonlinear QR (no IV), see Powell (1994, §2.2), Oberhofer and Haupt (2016), and references therein.
6
Chernozhukov et al. (2017) comment, “This approach bypasses the need to optimize a non-convex and
non-smooth criterion at the cost of needing to design a sampler that adequately explores the quasi-posterior
in a reasonable amount of computation time.”
5

2

nomial terms). The results from Chernozhukov and Hansen (2006) have been extended in
unpublished work by Su and Yang (2011) to non-iid data for use with a correctly specified linear spatial autoregressive model, treating regressors and instruments as nonstochastic. Chen
and Lee (2017) propose an estimator for linear-in-parameters IVQR models using mixed integer quadratic programming, but computation is very slow: with only four parameters and
n = 100 observations, their Table 1 shows average computation times for IV median regression exceeding five minutes. Wüthrich (2017) proposes an estimator without assuming
linearity but only for a binary treatment (and iid data). From a Bayesian perspective, Lancaster and Jun (2010) allow nonlinear models but only iid data (and require computation
over a grid of coefficient values or else by Markov Chain Monte Carlo). We relax both iid
sampling and linearity in our formal results, while maintaining the computational simplicity,
speed, and scalability of the method in Kaplan and Sun (2017), and adding the efficiency of
two-step GMM.
Historically, smoothing IVQR moment conditions was proposed first in unpublished notes
by MaCurdy and Hong (1999), mentioned later in (also unpublished) MaCurdy and Timmins
(2001, §2.4) and the handbook chapter by MaCurdy (2007, §5). Whang (2006) and Otsu
(2008) use moment smoothing for empirical likelihood QR. The related idea of smoothing
non-differentiable objective functions goes back to Amemiya (1982, §3), if not earlier, and
has been used for QR by Horowitz (1998), Galvao and Kato (2016), and Fernandes, Guerre,
and Horta (2017), among others.
Section 2 presents the model and discusses identification. Section 3 develops the smoothed
MM and GMM estimators, whose asymptotic properties are provided in Section 4. Section 5
contains simulation results. In Section 6 we illustrate the new approach empirically. Section 7
suggests directions for future research. The appendix collects all proofs.
We conclude this introduction with some remarks about the notation. Random variables
and vectors are uppercase (Y , X, etc.), while non-random values are lowercase (y, x); for
vector/matrix multiplication, all vectors are treated as column vectors. Also, 1{·} is the
indicator function, E(·) expectation, Qτ (·) the τ -quantile, P(·) probability, and N(µ, σ 2 ) the
normal distribution. For vectors, k·k is the Euclidean norm. Acronyms used include those for
central limit theorem (CLT), continuous mapping theorem (CMT), elasticity of intertemporal
substitution (EIS), generalized method of moments (GMM), mean value theorem (MVT),
probability density function (PDF), uniform law of large numbers (ULLN), and weak law of

3

large numbers (WLLN).

2

Model and identification

We consider the following nonlinear conditional quantile model

Qτ [Λ Yi , Xi , β0τ | Zi ] = 0,

(2.1)

where Yi ∈ Y ⊆ RdY is the endogenous variable vector, Zi ∈ Z ⊆ RdZ is the full instrument
vector that contains Xi ∈ X ⊆ RdX as a subset, Λ(·) is the “residual function” that is known
up to the finite-dimensional parameter of interest β0τ ∈ B ⊆ Rdβ , and τ ∈ (0, 1) is the
quantile index. The model in (2.1) can be represented by conditional moment restrictions as
 


0 = E 1 Λ Yi , Xi , β0τ ≤ 0 − τ | Zi ,

(2.2)

where 1{·} is the indicator function.
To estimate β0τ , we use unconditional moments implied by (2.2):
  


0 = E Zi 1 Λ Yi , Xi , β0τ ≤ 0 − τ .

(2.3)


>
Kaplan and Sun (2017) consider a special case of (2.3) with Λ Y, X, β = Y1 −Y−1
β1 −X > β2 ,
where Y1 is the outcome and Y−1 = (Y2 , . . . , YdY ) are endogenous regressors. We take Zi as
given; see Kaplan and Sun (2017, §2.1, pp. 108–110) for discussion of optimal instruments.
Our asymptotic results assume only (2.3), so they are robust to misspecification of the
structural model in (2.3), treating β0τ as the pseudo-true parameter satisfying (2.3).
Given (2.3), β0τ is “locally identified” if there exists a neighborhood of β0τ within which
only β0τ satisfies (2.3). This holds if the partial derivative matrix of the right-hand side of
(2.3) with respect to the β argument is full rank; see, e.g., Chen, Chernozhukov, Lee, and
Newey (2014, p. 787). This full rank condition is formally stated below in Assumption A9(ii).
The following proposition states the local identification result.
Proposition 2.1. Given (2.3) and (the full rank) Assumption A9(ii), β0τ is locally identified.
Global identification is notoriously more difficult to establish, although Chernozhukov
and Hansen (2005, Thm. 2 and App. C) provide some results for IVQR.
To fix ideas, we discuss two examples of structural models in the form of (2.1). The first
example is a random coefficient model as in Chernozhukov and Hansen (2005, 2006). Let
4

D be an endogenous “treatment” (like education), U ∼ Unif(0, 1) an unobserved variable

(like ability), X exogenous regressors, and Ỹd = q d, x, β0 (U ) potential outcomes (like
wage), where q(·) is known and β0 (U ) is a random coefficient vector depending on U . Let
β0τ = β0 (τ ), Y = (ỸD , D), and Λ(Y, X, β) = ỸD − q(D, X, β). Under their Assumptions A1–
A5, Theorem 1 in Chernozhukov and Hansen (2005) yields a conditional quantile restriction
like in (2.1):



τ = P Λ Y, X, β0τ ≤ 0 | Z .
Another example of a structural model applies to our empirical application in Section 6.
Under certain assumptions, if individuals maximize the τ -quantile of utility instead of expected utility, then the resulting consumption Euler equation can be written in the form
Qτ [β0τ (1 + rt+1 )U 0 (Ct+1 )/U 0 (Ct ) | Ωt ] = 1,
where β is the discount factor, rt is real interest rate, Ct is consumption, U (·) is the utility
function, Ωt is the information set, and Qτ [Wt | Ωt ] denotes the conditional τ -quantile of Wt
given Ωt . With isoelastic utility and instruments Zt chosen from Ωt , we obtain (2.1):
Qτ [β0τ (1 + rt+1 )(Ct+1 /Ct )−γ0τ − 1 | Zt ] = 0.

3

The smoothed MM and GMM estimators

This section presents smoothed estimators based on the moment conditions in (2.3). The
smoothed MM and smoothed GMM estimators are designed for exactly identified and overidentified models, respectively. We now introduce notation, followed by the estimators.
Let the population map M : B × T 7→ RdZ be
M (β, τ ) ≡ E[giu (β, τ )],

(3.1)

giu (β, τ ) ≡ g u (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ ) ≡ Zi [1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} − τ ],

(3.2)

where superscript “u” denotes “unsmoothed.” The population moment condition (2.3) is
0 = M (β0τ , τ ).

(3.3)

Without smoothing, the corresponding sample moments simply replace population expectation E(·) with sample expectation Ê(·), i.e., the sample average. Analogous to the
5

population map M (·) in (3.1), the unsmoothed sample map is
n

M̂nu (β, τ )

1X u
≡ Ê[g (Y, X, Z, β, τ )] ≡
g (β, τ ).
n i=1 i
u

(3.4)

The well-known computational difficulty (e.g., Chernozhukov and Hong, 2003, Fig. 1(a)
and Ex. 3, p. 297) of minimizing a GMM criterion based on M̂nu (β, τ ) comes from the
discontinuous indicator function 1{·} inside giu (β, τ ). To address this difficulty, we smooth
the indicator function.
With smoothing (no “u” superscript), the sample analogs of (3.1) and (3.2) are



gni (β, τ ) ≡ gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ ) ≡ Zi I˜ −Λ(Yi , Xi , β)/hn − τ ,
n
1X
M̂n (β, τ ) ≡
gni (β, τ ),
n i=1

(3.5)

˜ is a smoothed version of the indicator function
where hn is a bandwidth (sequence) and I(·)
˜ in Figure 1 has been used by Horowitz (1998), Whang (2006), and
1{· ≥ 0}. The I(·)
Kaplan and Sun (2017), who use the fact that its derivative is a fourth-order kernel to
establish higher-order improvements in the linear iid setting. The double subscript on gni
is a reminder that we have a triangular array setup because gni depends on the bandwidth

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

sequence hn in addition to (Yi , Xi , Zi ).

−1.0

−0.5

0.0
0.5
1.0


˜ = 1{−1 ≤ u ≤ 1} 0.5 + 105 u − 5 u3 + 7 u5 − 3 u7 + 1{u > 1}.
Figure 1: 1{u ≥ 0} and I(u)
64
3
5
7

6

3.1

Method of moments (exact identification)

With exact identification (dZ = dβ ), our estimator solves the smoothed sample moment
conditions7
M̂n (β̂MM , τ ) = 0.

(3.6)

Numerically, as long as the bandwidth is not too near zero and Λ(·) is differentiable in β, (3.6)
is easy to solve since the Jacobian exists. Further, it is easy to check whether the estimate
indeed satisfies (3.6). In contrast, with over-identification, it is impossible to know if the
numerical solution is the global (not just local) minimum of the GMM criterion function.8
Consequently, combining moments and using (3.6) provides a reliable initial value for the
GMM minimization.

3.2

“One-step” GMM (over-identification)

With over-identification (dZ > dβ ), (3.6) has no solution. Thus, a natural GMM estimator
is the “one-step” estimator proposed in Newey and McFadden (1994, p. 2151) that takes one
Newton–Raphson-type step from an initial consistent (but not efficient) estimator. Newey
and McFadden (1994, Thm. 3.5, p. 2151) show that this is sufficient for asymptotic efficiency,
although they assume g(·) is smooth and fixed. We use the one-step estimator only for
intermediate computation, focusing on the more common two-step estimator (in Section 3.3)
for asymptotic theory.
Let

n

1X
Ḡ =
∇ > gni (β̄, τ ),
n i=1 β

(3.7)

where ∇β > denotes the partial derivative with respect to β > , and β̄ is an initial estimator
consistent for β0τ . With iid data, let
n

1X
Ω̄ =
gni (β̄, τ )gni (β̄, τ )>
n i=1

(3.8)

be an estimator of Ω = E[gni (β0τ , τ )gni (β0τ , τ )> ]. As in (3.11) of Newey and McFadden
(1994), the one-step estimator is
>

−1

−1

>

β̂1s = β̄ − (Ḡ Ω̄ Ḡ) Ḡ Ω̄

−1

n
X
i=1

7
8

The right-hand side of (3.6) can be relaxed to op (n−1/2 ).
See footnote 5 in Chernozhukov and Hong (2003).

7

gni (β̄, τ )/n.

(3.9)

For β̄, we use (3.6). For Ω̄ with dependent data, (3.8) is replaced by a long-run variance
estimator as in Newey and West (1987) and Andrews (1991b), which we use in our code.
However, this lacks formal justification; see Section 4.3.

3.3

Two-step GMM estimator (over-identification)

We also consider the two-step GMM estimator to achieve asymptotic efficiency in overidentified models (dZ > dβ ).9 Let Ŵ be a symmetric, positive definite weighting matrix. The
smoothed GMM estimator minimizes a weighted quadratic norm of the smoothed sample
moment vector:
"
β̂GMM = arg min
β∈B

n
X

#>
gni (β, τ )

"
Ŵ

i=1

n
X

#
gni (β, τ ) = arg min M̂n (β, τ )> Ŵ M̂n (β, τ ). (3.10)
β∈B

i=1

The usual optimal weighting matrix is an estimator of the inverse long-run variance of the
p

sample moments:10 Ŵ ∗ = Ω̄−1 →
− Ω−1 , where Ω̄ depends on an initial estimate β̄ as in
Section 3.2. The resulting efficient two-step GMM estimator is
β̂2s = arg min M̂n (β, τ )> Ω̄−1 M̂n (β, τ ).

(3.11)

β∈B

Computing (3.11) is difficult because the function may be non-convex. To find the global
minimum, we use the simulated annealing algorithm from the GenSA package in R (Xiang,
Gubian, Suomela, and Hoeng, 2013), which is suited to such problems. Despite its strengths,
simulated annealing cannot reliably solve (3.11) without an initial value reasonably close to
the solution. Thankfully, such an initial value is provided by (3.6) or (3.9).
After computing (3.11), one could run simulated annealing again with the unsmoothed
objective function. For linear iid IVQR, Kaplan and Sun (2017) suggest that smoothing
improves (pointwise in τ ) mean squared error but may reduce estimated heterogeneity (across
τ ), so the benefit of such a final step is ambiguous.

4

Large sample properties

We now establish consistency and asymptotic normality of both the smoothed MM and
GMM estimators.
9

This is not always true with time series under fixed-smoothing asymptotics (Hwang and Sun, 2015).
There are other approaches to achieve efficiency without explicitly estimating the long-run variance, like
the (Bayesian) exponentially tilted empirical likelihood of Schennach (2007, Thm. 3) and Schennach (2005,
p. 36), on which Lancaster and Jun (2010) is based.
10

8

4.1

Assumptions

Different subsets of the following assumptions are used for different results.
Assumption A1. For each observation i among n in the sample, endogenous vector Yi ∈
Y ⊆ RdY and instrument vector Zi ∈ Z ⊆ RdZ ; a subset of Zi is Xi ∈ X ⊆ RdX , with
dX ≤ dZ . The sequence {Yi , Zi } is strictly stationary and weakly dependent.
Assumption A2. The function Λ : Y × X × B 7→ R is known and has (at least) one continuous derivative in its B argument for all y ∈ Y and x ∈ X .
Assumption A3. The parameter space B ∈ Rdβ is compact; dβ ≤ dZ . Given τ ∈ (0, 1), the
population parameter β0τ is in the interior of B and uniquely satisfies the moment condition




0 = E Zi 1 Λ Yi , Xi , β0τ ≤ 0 − τ .

(4.1)


Assumption A4. The matrix E Zi Zi> is positive definite (and finite).
˜ satisfies I(u)
˜
˜
Assumption A5. The function I(·)
= 0 for u ≤ −1, I(u)
= 1 for u ≥ 1,
˜
and −1 ≤ I(u)
≤ 2 for −1 < u < 1. The derivative I˜0 (·) is a symmetric, bounded kernel
R1
R1
function of order r ≥ 2, so −1 I˜0 (u) du = 1, −1 uk I˜0 (u) du = 0 for k = 1, . . . , r − 1, and
R1 r 0
R1
R1
|u I˜ (u)| du < ∞ but −1 ur I˜0 (u) du 6= 0, and −1 |ur+1 I˜0 (u)| du < ∞.
−1
Assumption A6. The bandwidth sequence hn satisfies hn = o(n−1/(2r) ).
Assumption A7. Given any β ∈ B and almost all Zi = z (i.e., up to a set of zero probability), the conditional distribution of Λ(Yi , Xi , β) given Zi = z is continuous in a neighborhood
of zero.
Assumption A8. For a fixed τ ∈ (0, 1), using the definition in (3.5),
supkM̂n (β, τ ) − E[M̂n (β, τ )]k = op (1).

(4.2)

β∈B



Assumption A9. Let Λi ≡ Λ Yi , Xi , β0τ and Di ≡ ∇β Λ Yi , Xi , β0τ , using the notation
∇β Λ(y, x, β0 ) ≡

∂
Λ(y, x, β)
∂β

,

(4.3)

β=β0

for the dβ × 1 partial derivative vector. Let fΛ|Z (· | z) denote the conditional PDF of Λi given
Zi = z, and let fΛ|Z,D (· | z, d) denote the conditional PDF of Λi given Zi = z and Di = d.
9

(i) For almost all z and d, fΛ|Z (· | z) and fΛ|Z,D (· | z, d) are at least r times continuously
differentiable in a neighborhood of zero, where the value of r is from A5. For almost all
z ∈ Z and u in a neighborhood of zero, there exists a dominating function C(·) such that


(r)
|fΛ|Z (u | z)| ≤ C(z) and E C(Z)|Z| < ∞. (ii) The matrix
G≡



∂
E Zi 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0}
>
∂β


= − E Zi Di> fΛ|Z,D (0 | Zi , Di )

(4.4)

β=β0τ

has rank dβ .
Assumption A10. A pointwise CLT applies:
√ 
d
n M̂n (β0τ , τ ) − E[M̂n (β0τ , τ )] →
− N(0, Στ ).
(k)

Assumption A11. Let Zi

(4.5)

denote the kth element of Zi , and similarly β (k) . Let Gkj denote

the row k, column j element of G (from A9). Assume
n
 (k) ∂
1 X ˜0
I −Λ(Yi , Xi , β̃k )/hn Zi
−
Λ(Yi , Xi , β)
nhn i=1
∂β (j)

p

β=β̃τ,k

→
− Gkj .

(4.6)

for each k = 1, . . . , dβ and j = 1, . . . , dβ , where each β̃k lies between β0τ and β̂MM (defined
in A3 and (3.6), respectively).
p

Assumption A12. For the weighting matrix, Ŵ →
− W , and both are symmetric, positive
definite matrices.
For transparency, A1 includes sampling assumptions that help establish the high-level assumptions A8, A10, and A11, which may require additional restrictions on dependence (mixing conditions); see Appendix B. Assumption A2 is stronger than a nonparametric model
but more general than a linear-in-parameters model. Assumption A3 assumes global identification, following the GMM tradition going back to Hansen (1982, Thm. 2.1(iii), p. 1035)
due to “the difficulty of specifying primitive identification conditions for GMM” (Newey
and McFadden, 1994, p. 2120), although Chernozhukov and Hansen (2005) have some such
results for IVQR. Assumption A4 matches Assumption 2(ii) in Kaplan and Sun (2017); it is
relatively weak, imposing only a finite second moment on Zi (and, unlike 2SLS, no moment
restrictions on Yi . Assumption A5 is essentially Assumption 4(i,ii) of Kaplan and Sun (2017).
Assumption A6 ensures that the asymptotic effect of smoothing is negligible; it is relatively weak given r = 4 (as in Figure 1), and given the optimal n−1/(2r−1) rate for hn
10

from Kaplan and Sun (2017) for linear IVQR with iid data. With weakly dependent data,
other bandwidth restrictions are needed to establish A11; see Appendix B.3 for details.
Appendix C.2 contains suggestions for practical bandwidth selection.
Assumption A7 can be checked easily in most cases. For example, if Λ(Yi , Xi , β) =
Ỹi − (Di , Xi> )β and Z > = (X > , Z̃), then A7 is satisfied if the outcome Y has a continuous
distribution conditional on almost all (X > , Z̃) = (x> , z̃). Assumption A8 generally requires
some restriction on dependence and moments, but it is much weaker than the iid sampling
assumption of Chernozhukov and Hansen (2006, Assumption 2.R1) or Kaplan and Sun (2017,
Assumption 1). Assumption A9 is used for the asymptotic normality result; it generalizes
parts of Assumptions 3 and 7 in Kaplan and Sun (2017) to our nonlinear model. The full rank
of G is also sufficient for local (but not global) identification (e.g., Chen et al., 2014, p. 787).
The CLT in A10 is a high-level assumption, similar to condition (iv) in Theorem 7.2 of Newey
and McFadden (1994), for example; like A8, it requires some restriction on dependence and
moments but does not require iid sampling. Examples of more primitive sufficient conditions
for A8 and A10 are given later in Appendix B. Assumption A11 is actually a generalization
of the consistency of Powell’s estimator for the asymptotic covariance matrix of the usual
quantile regression estimator, as detailed in Section 4.3. Assumption A11 embodies the
stochastic equicontinuity that is often separately assumed, as in Theorem 7.2(v) in Newey
and McFadden (1994); it also involves interrelated restrictions of dependence, moments, and
the bandwidth rate, as described in Appendix B.3.
Assumption A12 is standard for GMM. For two-step GMM, it is satisfied given a consistent estimator of the (inverse) asymptotic covariance matrix; see discussion in Section 4.3.
Finally, note the lack of a conditional quantile restriction. Only the unconditional moments in A3 are assumed to be satisfied by the (pseudo) true parameter. Thus, all our results
hold even under misspecification (of a conditional model).

4.2

Consistency

To establish consistency, we use Theorem 5.9 in van der Vaart (1998), showing the two
required conditions are satisfied here. One condition is an identification condition. The
other requires uniform (in β ∈ B) convergence in probability of the sample maps M̂n (β, τ ) to
the population map M (β, τ ). No iid sampling assumption is required; the second assumption
may be established under weak dependence.

11

A detailed example of primitive conditions for the high-level uniform weak law of large
numbers assumed in Assumption A8 is given in Appendix B.1.
In addition to A8, we must show that the sequence of (non-random) maps E[M̂n (β, τ )]
converges to the desired population map M (β, τ ), as in Lemma 4.1.
Lemma 4.1. Under Assumptions A1–A7, for a fixed τ , using definitions in (3.1) and (3.5),
sup E[M̂n (β, τ )] − M (β, τ ) = o(1).

(4.7)

β∈B

Lemma 4.1 is intuitive. Without smoothing, M (·) = E[M̂nu (·)] for all n. With smoothing,
we should expect this to hold asymptotically if the smoothing is asymptotically negligible.
The next result establishes consistency.
Theorem 4.2. Under Assumptions A1–A8 for smoothed MM, and additionally A12 for
smoothed GMM, the estimators from (3.6) and (3.10) are consistent:
β̂MM − β0τ = op (1),

4.3

β̂GMM − β0τ = op (1).

(4.8)

Asymptotic normality

To establish asymptotic normality, smoothing facilitates the usual approach of expanding
the sample moments around β0τ because the smoothed sample moments are differentiable.
That is, we may take a mean value expansion of the first-order condition, rearrange, and
take limits.
The following lemma aids the proof of Theorem 4.4. It relies on A10 and a proof that
√
the asymptotic “bias” is negligible, i.e., n E[M̂n (β0τ , τ )] → 0.
Lemma 4.3. Under Assumptions A1–A6, A9, and A10,
√

d

nM̂n (β0τ , τ ) →
− N(0, Στ ),

Στ = lim Var n−1/2
n→∞

n
X

!
gni (β0τ , τ ) .

(4.9)

i=1


With iid data and the conditional quantile restriction P Λ(Yi , Xi , β0τ ) ≤ 0 | Zi = τ , then
Στ = τ (1 − τ ) E(Zi Zi> ).
The asymptotic normality of our estimators can now be stated. We also show their
asymptotically linear (influence function) representations.

12

Theorem 4.4. Under Assumptions A1–A11 for smoothed MM, and additionally A12 for
smoothed GMM, for the estimators from (3.6) and (3.10),
√

n

1 X
n(β̂MM − β0τ ) = −G √
gni (β0τ , τ ) + op (1),
n i=1


√
>
d
−1
,
G)
n(β̂MM − β0τ ) →
− N 0, (G Σ−1
τ
−1

n
√
1 X
>
−1 >
n(β̂GMM − β0τ ) = −{G W G} G W √
gni (β0τ , τ ) + op (1),
n i=1

√
d
n(β̂GMM − β0τ ) →
− N 0, (G> W G)−1 G> W Στ W G(G> W G)−1 ,

where G is from (4.4), W is from A12, and Στ is from (4.9).
p

− W = Σ−1
is asymptotically
As usual, choosing a weighting matrix such that Ŵ →
τ
>

−1
efficient in the sense that the resulting asymptotic covariance matrix (G Σ−1
minus
τ G)

the above GMM covariance matrix is negative semidefinite. This is the sense in which the
two-step estimator in (3.11) is efficient.
Theorem 4.4 can also be used to construct Wald tests in the usual way. The result
and its proof are also helpful for constructing “distance metric” hypothesis tests and overidentification tests. We detail these in a separate paper on inference (in progress).
A consistent long-run variance estimator for quantile models is currently lacking in the
literature, as lamented in other quantile papers. For example, Kato (2012, p. 268) notes
that results in Andrews (1991b) do not apply because they assume smoothness; specifically,
Assumptions B(iii) and C(ii) are violated for unsmoothed quantile models. Similarly, Assumptions 4 and 5 in Newey and West (1987) are violated, as is Assumption 4 in de Jong
and Davidson (2000). Our smoothing yields differentiability, but also a triangular array,
violating (2.2) in Andrews (1991b), for example. However, de Jong and Davidson (2000)
allow triangular arrays and generally have very weak conditions. In future work, we hope to
verify their Assumption 4 for our smoothed quantile GMM setting.

5

Monte Carlo simulations

This section reports Monte Carlo simulation results to illustrate the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods. Replication code is available on the third author’s website.11
11

It is written in R (R Core Team, 2013) and uses packages from Borchers (2015) and Xiang et al. (2013).

13

The following DGPs/models are used; details are in Appendix C.1 and the code. DGP 1
has a binary treatment, binary IV, and iid sampling, as with a randomized treatment offer
but self-selection into treatment, and the treatment effect increases with the quantile index
τ . DGPs 2 and 3 are time series regressions with measurement error and either Gaussian
(DGP 2) or Cauchy (DGP 3) errors in the outcome equation, but no slope heterogeneity.
The first three models are exactly identified, so the smoothed MM and GMM estimators are
identical; we compare these with the usual QR and IV estimators. DGP 4 is for estimating a
log-linearized quantile Euler equation using time series data, as in our empirical application;
the model is over-identified, so we can compare MM with different GMM estimators.
To quantify precision, instead of root mean squared error (RMSE), we report “robust
RMSE.” This replaces bias with median bias and replaces standard deviation with interquartile range (divided by 1.349); it equals RMSE if the sampling distribution is normal. The
primary reason to use the “robust” version is that sometimes the usual IV estimator does not
even possess a first moment in finite samples, let alone finite variance (e.g., Kinal, 1980).12
Table 1 shows the precision of our smoothed estimator from (3.6) (“S(G)MM”) with a
very small bandwidth h = 0.0001 (for simplicity), as well as the usual quantile regression
(“QR”) estimator (ignoring endogeneity) and the usual (mean) IV estimator.
Table 1 shows that for all DGPs, the smoothed estimator’s robust RMSE declines toward
zero as n increases. In contrast, the QR estimator’s robust RMSE never goes to zero due to
endogeneity, and the IV estimator’s robust RMSE fails to go to zero in DGP 1 where there
is heterogeneity across quantiles. This reflects the theoretical result that only our estimator
is consistent for γτ when there is endogeneity and heterogeneity.
Table 1 also shows important finite-sample differences not captured by first-order asymptotics. With n = 20, for DGP 2 or 3, the lowest robust RMSE is actually that of QR: despite
its (median) bias being the largest due to ignoring the endogeneity, its dispersion is so much
smaller than the other estimators’ dispersions that its overall robust RMSE is the smallest.
This advantage persists to n = 50, but eventually n is large enough for the (median) bias
to dominate. In DGPs 2 and 3 that lack slope heterogeneity, the IV estimator is the most
efficient when errors are Gaussian (and n is large enough), but not with Cauchy errors,
reflecting the greater efficiency of the median (over the mean) when errors are heavy-tailed.
Table 2 compares simulated robust RMSE of three smoothed estimators (all with h = 0.1)
12

If one really cares about finite-sample RMSE per se, then OLS should be preferred to IV in the cases
where the IV RMSE is infinite but the OLS RMSE is finite.

14

Table 1: Simulated precision of estimators of γτ .
Robust RMSE
DGP

τ

1

0.25

0.50

2

0.25

0.50

3

0.25

0.50

Median Bias

n

S(G)MM

QR

IV

S(G)MM

QR

IV

20
50
200
500
20
50
200
500
20
50
200
500
20
50
200
500
20
50
200
500
20
50
200
500

26.51
19.10
10.94
8.61
19.20
13.87
8.13
5.11
1.34
0.86
0.42
0.26
1.29
0.83
0.40
0.26
2.72
1.68
0.79
0.47
2.10
1.36
0.63
0.35

31.81
27.99
25.74
25.33
22.14
21.16
20.50
20.16
0.59
0.55
0.52
0.50
0.58
0.54
0.51
0.50
0.75
0.59
0.54
0.51
0.67
0.56
0.52
0.51

41.71
40.53
40.17
40.12
18.69
16.47
15.38
15.21
1.34
0.73
0.31
0.20
1.34
0.73
0.31
0.20
3.91
3.17
2.48
2.33
3.91
3.17
2.48
2.33

18.00
11.64
4.09
1.54
9.04
4.92
1.19
0.52
−0.37
−0.09
−0.01
0.00
−0.37
−0.09
0.02
0.02
−0.42
−0.02
−0.02
0.00
−0.49
−0.15
0.01
0.00

27.87
26.22
25.22
25.07
17.48
18.86
19.99
19.96
−0.52
−0.53
−0.51
−0.50
−0.51
−0.51
−0.50
−0.50
−0.55
−0.51
−0.51
−0.50
−0.53
−0.51
−0.50
−0.50

40.30
39.93
40.03
40.07
15.30
14.93
15.03
15.07
−0.24
−0.03
0.02
0.02
−0.24
−0.03
0.02
0.02
−0.20
0.19
−0.02
0.06
−0.20
0.19
−0.02
0.06

1000 replications. “S(G)MM” is the estimator in (3.6) and (3.10) (equivalent here due
to exact identification); “QR” is quantile regression (no IV); “IV” is the usual (mean) IV
estimator.

of log-linearized quantile Euler equations, specifically the EIS parameter. Compared to the
GMM estimator with identity weighting matrix, the two-step GMM estimator is always more
efficient. The biggest such advantage is with the smallest sample size, n = 50; this seems
surprising since the two-step GMM’s estimated weighting matrix has the largest variance in
that case. Two-step GMM is not always better (or always worse) than the MM estimator
that takes the linear projection of the (lone) endogenous regressor onto the vector of (five)
instruments to be the second excluded instrument (in addition to the constant). Two-step
GMM has a smaller robust RMSE in some cases, even half that of MM with τ = 0.25

15

and n = 500, but in other cases MM has smaller robust RMSE, especially when n = 50.
Perhaps the additional variance of the two-step estimator due to its use of a long-run variance
estimator (for the weighting matrix) makes it less efficient in these cases, a phenomenon
explored in non-quantile GMM by Hwang and Sun (2015). Alternatively, perhaps future
work can improve the long-run variance estimator’s precision, in turn improving the twostep estimator’s precision.
Table 2: Simulated precision of smoothed estimators of EIS.
Robust RMSE

Median Bias

GMM
DGP
4
4
4
4
4
4

τ

GMM

n

MM

(2s)

(ID)

MM

(2s)

(ID)

0.25 50
0.25 200
0.25 500
0.50 50
0.50 200
0.50 500

0.180
0.129
0.097
0.153
0.099
0.066

0.285
0.097
0.047
0.258
0.124
0.079

0.315
0.107
0.047
0.300
0.144
0.089

0.057
0.055
0.054
0.024
0.013
0.017
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.055
0.023
0.025
0.025
0.004 −0.008
0.014 −0.003 −0.007

1000 replications. “MM” is the estimator in (3.6); “GMM(2s)” is the estimator in (3.11);
“GMM(ID)” is the estimator in (3.10) with identity weighting matrix.

6

Application: quantile Euler equation

This section illustrates the usefulness of the proposed methods through an empirical example:
the estimation of a quantile Euler equation. We apply the proposed methodology to an
economic model of intertemporal allocation of consumption and estimate the elasticity of
intertemporal substitution (EIS). The EIS is a parameter of central importance in macroeconomics and finance. We refer to Campbell (2003), Cochrane (2005), and Ljungqvist and
Sargent (2012), and the references therein, for a comprehensive overview.
There is a large empirical literature that attempts to estimate the EIS; among others,
Hansen and Singleton (1983), Hall (1988), Campbell and Mankiw (1989), Campbell and
Viceira (1999), Campbell (2003), and Yogo (2004). The majority of the literature relies on
the traditional expected utility framework. The purpose of this application is to estimate
and make inference on the EIS for selected developed countries in Campbell’s (2003) data set
using the quantile utility maximization model. The quantile model has useful advantages,
16

such as robustness, ability to capture heterogeneity, and separation the notion of risk attitude
from the intertemporal substitution.
Section 6.1 describes in detail the model that leads to the quantile Euler equation, establishing parallels with the standard expected utility Euler equation. Section 6.2 describes
the estimation procedure, and Section 6.3 discusses log-linearization for the quantile model.
Section 6.4 discusses an interpretation of the parameters in question. In Section 6.5 we
review the data, and finally Section 6.6 presents the empirical results.

6.1

Description of the economic model

De Castro and Galvao (2017) employ a variation of the standard economy model of Lucas
(1978). The economic agents decide on the intertemporal consumption and savings (assets to
hold) over an infinity horizon economy, subject to a linear budget constraint. The decision
generates an intertemporal policy function, which is used to estimate the parameters of
interest for a given utility function. Their work is related to that of Giovannetti (2013), who
works with a similar model but restricts the analysis to two periods, whereas de Castro and
Galvao (2017) consider an infinite horizon.
The specific model is as follows. Let Ct denote the amount of consumption good that
the individual consumes in period t. At the beginning of period t, the consumer has xt units
of the risky asset, which pays dividend dt . The price of the consumption good is normalized
to one, while the price of the risky asset in period t is p(dt ). Then, the consumer decides
its consumption Ct and how many units of the risky asset xt+1 to save for the next period,
subject to the budget constraint
Ct + p(dt )xt+1 ≤ [dt + p(dt )]xt ,

(6.1)

Ct , xt+1 ≥ 0.

(6.2)

and positivity restriction

In equilibrium, we have that x∗t = 1, ∀t, k.
So far, the model is exactly the same as the standard Lucas’ model, but the objective
function will differ. In the standard model, the consumer maximizes
"∞
#
X
t
E
β U (Ct ) Ω0 ,
t=0

17

(6.3)

subject to (6.1) and (6.2), where β ∈ (0, 1) is the discount factor, U : R+ 7→ R is the utility
function, and Ω0 is the information set at time t = 0. For the expected utility choice problem,
dynamic consistency and the principle of optimality for (6.3) imply that at time s ≥ 1, the
consumer chooses {Ct , xt }t≥s to maximize
"∞
X
E
β t−s U (Ct )

#
Ωs ,

(6.4)

t=s

subject to (6.1) and (6.2). The connection between problems (6.3) and (6.4) is made explicit
by the linearity of the expectation operator and the law of iterated expectations:
"∞
#
X
E
β t U (Ct ) Ω0
t=0



h


= U (C0 ) + E βU (C1 ) + E β 2 U (C2 ) + E β 3 U (C3 ) + · · · | Ω2

Ω1

i


Ω0 .

(6.5)

De Castro and Galvao (2017) replace the operator E in (6.5) with Qτ , such that the
consumer maximizes the following quantile objective function


h
i
 3

2
Ω1
Ω0
U (C0 ) + Qτ βτ U (C1 ) + Qτ βτ U (C2 ) + Qτ βτ U (C3 ) + · · · | Ω2
 h

i


2
3
= Qτ Qτ Qτ U (C0 ) + βτ U (C1 ) + βτ U (C2 ) + βτ U (C3 ) + · · · | Ω2
Ω0
Ω1
"∞
#
X
≡ Q∞
βτt U (Ct ) ,
τ

(6.6)

t=0

again subject to (6.1) and (6.2), where βτ ∈ (0, 1) is the discount factor for the quantile τ .
Unfortunately, linearity and the law of iterated expectations do not hold for the τ -quantile
operator, Qτ . Thus, in order to preserve dynamic consistency and the principle of optimality,
we need to maintain the structure developed in (6.6). De Castro and Galvao (2017) show that
the limit above exists and is well defined. Moreover, they show that the quantile preferences
are dynamically consistent, the principle of optimality holds, and the corresponding dynamic
problem yields a value function, via a fixed-point argument. They further provide conditions
so that the value function is differentiable and concave.
When comparing the expected and quantile utility models, we note that the structure in
the right-hand side of (6.5) reflects the following associated value function,


v(xt , dt ) = max U [dt + p(dt )]xt − p(dt )xt+1 + β E[v(xt+1 , dt+1 ) | Ωt ] .
xt+1 ≥0

18

(6.7)

The value function for the quantile problem is the same as (6.7) but with Qτ replacing E:

v(xt , dt ) = max U [dt + p(dt )]xt − p(dt )xt+1 ) + βτ Qτ [v(xt+1 , dt+1 ) | Ωt ] .
(6.8)
xt+1 ≥0

In addition, de Castro and Galvao (2017) derive the corresponding Euler equation, using
the fact that in equilibrium, the holdings are xt = 1 for all t:
− p(dt )U 0 (Ct ) + βτ Qτ [U 0 (Ct+1 )(dt+1 + p(dt+1 )) | Ωt ] = 0.

(6.9)

Defining the asset’s return by
1 + rt+1 ≡

dt+1 + p(dt+1 )
,
p(dt )

the Euler equation in (6.9) simplifies to

U 0 (Ct+1 )
Qτ βτ (1 + rt+1 ) 0
U (Ct )


Ωt = 1.

(6.10)

After parameterizing the utility function, (6.10) is a conditional quantile restriction in the
form of (2.1), as in our econometric model.
The quantile Euler equation in (6.10) looks similar to the standard Euler equation from
expected utility maximization,

U 0 (Ct+1 )
E β(1 + rt+1 ) 0
U (Ct )


Ωt = 1.

(6.11)

The expressions inside the conditional quantile and conditional expectation are identical.
For obtaining the mentioned results, de Castro and Galvao (2017) assume the following.
Assumption A13.

(i) The dividends assume values in Z ⊆ R, which is a bounded inter-

val, and X = [0, x̄] for some x̄ > 1;
(ii) {dt } is a Markov process with PDF f : Z × Z 7→ R+ , which is continuous, symmetric
(f (a, b) = f (b, a)), f (dt , dt+1 ) > 0 for all (dt , dt+1 ) ∈ Z × Z, and satisfies the property
that if h : Z 7→ R is weakly increasing and z ≤ z 0 , then
Z
Z
h(α)f (α | z) dα ≤
h(α)f (α | z 0 ) dα;
Z

(iii) U : R+ 7→ R is given by U (c) =

(6.12)

Z
1 1−γ
c ,
1−γ

for γ > 0;

(iv) z 7→ z + p(z) is C 1 and non-decreasing, with

d
z[ln(z
dz

+ p(z))] ≥ γ.

Assumptions A13(i)–(iii) are standard in economic applications. In Assumption A13(iv),
it is natural to expect that the price p(z) is non-decreasing with the dividend z, and z + p(z)
being non-decreasing is an even weaker requirement.
19

6.2

Estimation

We follow a large body of the literature (e.g., Campbell, 2003) and use isoelastic utility,
U (Ct ) =

1
C 1−γ ,
1−γ t

γ > 0.

(6.13)

The ratio of marginal utilities is
U 0 (Ct+1 )
=
U 0 (Ct )



Ct+1
Ct

−γ
.

(6.14)

From (6.10) and (6.14), the Euler equation is thus


Qτ βτ (1 + rt+1 )(Ct+1 /Ct )−γτ − 1 | Ωt = 0.

(6.15)

The quantile Euler equation in (6.15) is a conditional quantile restriction with finite-dimensional
parameter vector (βτ , γτ ), as in (2.1), so we may use smoothed GMM estimation.

6.3

Log-linearization

One benefit of the quantile Euler equation is that it may be log-linearized with no approximation error, unlike the standard Euler equation. One may rewrite (6.15) as
Qτ [t+1 | Ωt ] = 1,

t+1 ≡ β(1 + rt+1 )(Ct+1 /Ct )−γ .

(6.16)

For general random variable W , Qτ [ln(W )] = ln(Qτ [W ]) (“equivariance”) since ln(·) is
strictly increasing and continuous. In contrast, E[ln(W )] ≤ ln(E[W ]) by Jensen’s inequality.
Continuing from (6.16),
ln(t+1 ) = ln(β) + ln(1 + rt+1 ) − γ ln(Ct+1 /Ct ),
ln(Ct+1 /Ct ) = γ −1 ln(β) + γ −1 ln(1 + rt+1 ) − γ −1 ln(t+1 ).

(6.17)

If γ > 0, then since Qτ (W ) = − Q1−τ (−W ) (and 0 = −0),
0 = ln(1) = Qτ [ln(t+1 ) | Ωt ] = Q1−τ [−γ −1 ln(t+1 ) | Ωt ]
= Q1−τ [ln(Ct+1 /Ct ) − γ −1 ln(β) − γ −1 ln(1 + rt+1 ) | Ωt ].
Thus, ln(β)/γ and 1/γ are the intercept and slope (respectively) of the 1 − τ IV quantile
regression of ln(Ct+1 /Ct ) on a constant and ln(1 + rt+1 ), with instruments from Ωt .
20

Similarly, in the sample, the gni should be equivalent for nonlinear and log-linear estimation since ˆt+1 ≤ 1 ⇐⇒ ln(ˆt+1 ) ≤ 0. Thus, the corresponding estimators should be
identical. In our application, this is generally true (matching 2+ significant figures), although sometimes there are differences due to the numerical methods, especially simulated
annealing, since the log-linear minimization is done in a transformed parameter space. Additionally, the nonlinear and log-linear estimators do not match when the latter is negative
(implying misspecification) since the above arguments assume γ > 0.

6.4

Interpretation

The parameters of interest in (6.15) are βτ and γτ . The former is the usual discount factor.
The parameter 1/γτ is the standard measure of EIS implicit in the CRRA utility function in
(6.13). The EIS is a measure of responsiveness of the consumption growth rate to the real
interest rate. As in Hall (1988), in a model with uncertainty, the interpretation is similar,
and a high value of EIS means that when the real interest rate is expected to be high, the
consumer will actively defer consumption to the later period.
The interpretation of 1/γτ as the EIS remains valid for the quantile maximization model.13
Most directly, this can be seen in equation (6.17), where 1/γ is the derivative of ln(Ct+1 /Ct )
with respect to ln(1 + rt+1 ), holding t+1 constant.

6.5

Data

We use data originally from Campbell (2003) and provided by Yogo (2004).14 It consists of
aggregate level quarterly data for the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Australia
(AUS), and Sweden (SWE). The sample period for the US is 1947Q3–1998Q4, UK is 1970Q3–
1999Q1, Australia is 1970Q3–1998Q4, and Sweden is 1970Q3–1999Q2. Consumption is
measured at the beginning of the period, consisting of nondurables plus services for the US
and total consumption for the other countries, in real, per capita terms. The real interest rate
deflates a proxy for the nominal short-term rate by the consumer price index. Instruments
are lags of log real consumption growth, nominal interest rate, inflation, and a log dividendprice ratio for equities. For a complete description of the data, see Campbell (2003).
13

Hall’s (1988) argument that γ fundamentally represents the EIS rather than risk aversion applies here,

too.
14

https://sites.google.com/site/motohiroyogo/research/EIS_Data.zip

21

6.6

Results

Other than using quantiles, our estimation follows Table 2 of Yogo (2004, p. 805). Yogo
(2004) uses 2SLS to estimate the (structural) log-linearized model ln(Ct+1 /Ct ) = δ0 +δ1 ln(1+
rt+1 )+ut+1 , where rt+1 is the real interest rate, instrumenting for ln(1+rt+1 ) with twice lagged
measures of nominal interest rate, inflation, consumption growth, and log dividend-price
ratio, where δ1 = 1/γ is the EIS and δ0 = ln(β)/γ. Yogo (2004) emphasizes that these are
strong instruments that predict the real interest rate well, although formally characterizing
“strong” for IVQR remains an open question.15
Tables 3 and 4 show the quantile Euler equation estimates for βτ and γτ (respectively), using the results from Section 6.3, with the smoothed MM estimator in (3.6) and the smoothed
two-step GMM estimator in (3.11), for the deciles τ = 0.1, . . . , 0.9. For two-step GMM, the
long-run variance estimator follows Andrews (1991b) with a quadratic spectral kernel. For
both estimators, the plug-in bandwidth from Kaplan and Sun (2017) was used. For comparison, 2SLS estimates are in each table’s bottom row.
Table 3: Smoothed MM and GMM estimates of βτ , log-linear model.
US

UK

AUS

SWE

τ

β̂MM

β̂GMM

β̂MM

β̂GMM

β̂MM

β̂GMM

β̂MM

β̂GMM

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0.92
0.90
0.85
0.11
1.14
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.99

0.92
0.92
1.13
1.04
1.02
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00

0.00
1.86
1.16
1.07
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96

0.12
0.75
0.82
0.87
1.03
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.97

0.88
0.88
0.82
2.38
1.13
1.02
1.00
0.98
0.96

0.91
0.87
0.75
1.35
1.09
1.03
1.00
0.99
0.98

0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.94
0.97
0.97
0.97

0.94
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.80
1.07
0.97
0.97
0.96

2SLS

1.08

1.03

1.11

0.27

Tables 3 and 4 generally show economically unrealistic estimates at lower τ but plausible
estimates at larger τ . For τ ≤ 0.4, some of the βτ estimates are unrealistically far from
one, and many of the γτ estimates are negative. For τ ≥ 0.5, in contrast, most of the
15

In contrast, when trying to estimate the EIS by 2SLS of ln(1 + rt+1 ) on ln(Ct+1 /Ct ), or replacing the
real interest rate with a real stock index return, the instruments are weak because it is difficult to predict
consumption growth or stock returns.

22

Table 4: Smoothed MM and GMM estimates of γτ , log-linear model.
US
τ

γ̂MM

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

−7.2
−11.5
−20.0
−342.5
26.5
10.9
6.6
4.9
4.9

2SLS

UK
γ̂GMM

16.7

−7.1
−8.0
16.5
6.9
4.5
3.7
3.4
3.2
3.1

γ̂MM

AUS
γ̂GMM

−744.0 −114.1
43.1 −19.0
13.5 −15.7
8.3 −14.1
7.3
5.3
6.6
4.1
5.9
3.7
5.3
3.7
5.0
4.0
6.0

SWE

γ̂MM

γ̂GMM

γ̂MM

γ̂GMM

−6.9
−9.0
−17.0
98.9
20.7
7.3
5.9
5.0
4.4

−5.5
−9.1
−24.6
33.9
14.8
8.0
5.1
3.7
0.0

−3.4
−4.0
−5.5
−8.7
−38.7
−151.0
13.9
5.3
3.3

−3.7
−4.4
−6.1
−10.2
−89.5
301.5
13.6
6.4
4.8

22.1

-544.4

βτ estimates are close to one, and most γτ estimates seem plausible. For τ ∈ {0.7, 0.8} in
particular, looking across all four countries and both MM and GMM estimates, the estimates
are all contained within the ranges β̂τ ∈ [0.97, 1.02] and γ̂τ ∈ [3.2, 13.9].
The differences between MM and two-step GMM estimates are often relatively small,
especially when the estimates are reasonable. However, the table shows some economically
significant differences, such as for the US (even with τ ≥ 0.6).
The differences between the quantile and 2SLS estimates can be economically significant.
This includes the case of Sweden, where the 2SLS estimates are entirely unrealistic: β̂2SLS =
0.27 and γ̂2SLS = −544.4. Although smaller τ produce unrealistic estimates, the Sweden
quantile estimates for τ = 0.7 and τ = 0.8 have β̂τ = 0.97 and γ̂τ in the range [5.3, 13.9],
all perfectly reasonable.16 For the other countries, the τ = 0.5 estimates are most similar to
2SLS, but τ ≥ 0.7 leads to more realistic β̂τ and smaller γ̂τ .
In all, this empirical application illustrates that the quantile utility maximization model
and new smoothed estimators serve as important tools to study economic behavior.
16

Further, among the other seven countries whose data Yogo (2004) examined (Netherlands, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Switzerland), all seven had negative 2SLS estimates γ̂2SLS < 0, but five of
the seven had positive γ̂τ > 0 with τ = 0.9 (and plausible β̂τ ).

23

7

Conclusion

For finite-dimensional parameters defined by general quantile-type restrictions, we have developed smoothed MM and GMM estimation and asymptotic theory, for exactly and overidentified models, respectively, allowing for weakly dependent data and nonlinear models.
This includes nonlinear IV quantile regression and quantile Euler equations as special cases,
and our theory is robust to misspecification of the structural models.
The empirical results suggest that quantile utility maximization combined with our
smoothed estimation can provide a useful, economically meaningful alternative to estimation
based on expected utility. A bonus feature is the ability to log-linearize the quantile Euler
equation without any approximation error, unlike the standard Euler equation. Future work
may apply our methods to household panel data or carefully consider how to determine τ .
There is more to explore econometrically, too: quantile GMM inference (in progress),
IVQR averaging estimators (in progress), optimal bandwidth choice, non/semiparametric
models, fixed-smoothing asymptotic approximations, higher-order bootstrap refinements,
formally establishing A11 when Di depends on β0τ , and results uniform in τ , among other
topics.

A

Proofs

Proof of Proposition 2.1. See Appendix A.1 of Chen et al. (2014).
˜ − 1{·}] ≤ |Z| (i.e., |Z| is a dominating function)
Proof of Lemma 4.1. Noting that Z[I(·)
and applying the dominated convergence theorem (since Z has finite expectation by A4),
since hn → 0 by A6,
lim sup E[M̂n (β, τ )] − E[Z(1{Λ(Y, X, β) ≤ 0} − τ )]
  


−Λ(Y,
X,
β)
= lim max E Z I˜
− 1{Λ(Y, X, β) ≤ 0}
hn →0 β∈B
hn
  


∗
−Λ(Y,
X,
β
)
n
∗
= lim E Z I˜
− 1{Λ(Y, X, βn ) ≤ 0}
hn →0
hn

 


−Λ(Y, X, βn∗ )
∗
˜
= E lim Z I
− 1{Λ(Y, X, βn ) ≤ 0}
hn →0
hn
=0

hn →0 β∈B

24

(A.1)

as long as there is no probability mass at Λ(Y, X, β) = 0 for any β ∈ B and almost all Z,
which is indeed true by Assumption A7. The notation βn∗ denotes the value attaining the
maximum, which exists since B is compact by A3.
Proof of Theorem 4.2. We first prove consistency of the smoothed method of moments estimator. We then prove consistency of the smoothed GMM estimator.
MM Consistency. To prove consistency of β̂MM , we show that the conditions of Theorem
5.9 in van der Vaart (1998) are satisfied. Alternatively, one could apply Theorem 2.1 in
Newey and McFadden (1994, p. 2121), where β̂ maximizes Q̂n (β) ≡ −kM̂n (β, τ )k with
Q̂n (β̂) = 0.
Combining results from A8 and Lemma 4.1 and the triangle inequality,
sup M̂n (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )
β∈B





= sup M̂n (β, τ ) − E M̂n (β, τ ) + E M̂n (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )
β∈B
=op (1) by Lemma 4.1

=op (1) by A8

z
}|
{ z
}|
{




≤ sup M̂n (β, τ ) − E M̂n (β, τ ) + sup E M̂n (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )
β∈B

β∈B

= op (1) + op (1) = op (1).

(A.2)

This satisfies the first condition of Theorem 5.9 in van der Vaart (1998, p. 46), or (combined
with the continuity of k·k) condition (iv) in Theorem 2.1 of Newey and McFadden (1994).
For the second condition of Theorem 5.9 in van der Vaart (1998), since B is a compact
subset of Euclidean space, so is the set
{β : kβ − β0τ k ≥ , β ∈ B}
for any  > 0. Writing out
M (β, τ ) = E{Zi [1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} − τ ]}
= E(E{Zi [1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} − τ ] | Zi })
 


= E Zi P Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0 | Zi − τ ,
we see that the function M (β, τ ) is continuous in β given A2 and A7. Note that A2 alone
is not sufficient: it implies limδ→0 Λ(Yi , Xi , β + δ) → Λ(Yi , Xi , β) (for any realization ω ∈ Ω
25

in the implicit underlying probability space), but 1{· ≤ 0} is not a continuous function.
Specifically, it is discontinuous at zero, so the continuous mapping theorem only guarantees
convergence (for ω ∈ Ω) where Λ(Yi , Xi , β) 6= 0. Assumption A7 assumes this is a zero
probability event (conditional on almost all Zi ), so 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β + δ) ≤ 0} still converges
almost surely to 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} as δ → 0 (i.e., the set of ω ∈ Ω for which it does not
converge has measure zero). Altogether, by A2 and A7, the bounded convergence theorem,
and the continuous mapping theorem, writing Λi ≡ Λ(Yi , Xi , β),
lim P Λ(Yi , Xi , β + δ) ≤ 0 | Zi



δ→0

= lim E 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β + δ) ≤ 0} | Zi



= E lim 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β + δ) ≤ 0} | Zi



δ→0

δ→0

=1 a.s., by A7

}|
{
z
= E 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} | Zi , Λi 6= 0 P(Λi 6= 0 | Zi )
=0 a.s., by A7

}|
{
z
+ E lim 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β + δ) ≤ 0} | Zi , Λi = 0 P(Λi = 0 | Zi )
δ→0

= E 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} | Zi
almost surely.
Since a continuous function on a compact set attains a minimum, letting β ∗ denote the
minimizer,
inf

kM (β, τ )k =

β:kβ−β0τ k≥

min

kM (β, τ )k = kM (β ∗ , τ )k > 0

β:kβ−β0τ k≥

(A.3)

by A3, which says that for any β 6= β0τ , M (β, τ ) 6= 0, so kM (β ∗ , τ )k > 0 (since k·k is a
norm). Alternatively, for the conditions in Theorem 2.1 of Newey and McFadden (1994), (i)
and (ii) are directly assumed in our A3, and (iii) is satisfied by the continuity of M (·, τ ) (as
shown above).
Consistency of β̂MM follows by Theorem 5.9 in van der Vaart (1998) or Theorem 2.1 in
Newey and McFadden (1994).
GMM Consistency. To prove the consistency of β̂GMM , we show that the two conditions
of Theorem 5.7 in van der Vaart (1998) are satisfied. The first condition of Theorem 5.7 in
van der Vaart (1998) requires
p

sup|M̂n (β, τ )> Ŵ M̂n (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )> W M (β, τ )| →
− 0.
β∈B

26

(A.4)

From (A.2), supβ∈B kM̂n (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )k = op (1). From A12, Ŵ = W + op (1), which does
not depend on β.
Let k·k denote the Frobenius matrix norm kAk = kA> k =

p
tr(AA> ), which is the

Euclidean norm if A is a vector. Given this norm, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality states
that for any matrices A and B, kABk ≤ kAkkBk.
We now use the triangle inequality, Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, uniform convergence in
probability of M̂n (β, τ ), and convergence in probability of Ŵ , to show the required condition
in (A.4):
sup M̂n (β, τ )> Ŵ M̂n (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )> W M (β, τ )
β∈B

= sup (M (β, τ ) + (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )))> (W + (Ŵ − W ))
β∈B

× (M (β, τ ) + (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )))
− M (β, τ )> W M (β, τ )
= sup M (β, τ )> (Ŵ − W )M (β, τ ) + M (β, τ )> W (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))
β∈B

+ (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> W M (β, τ ) + M (β, τ )> (Ŵ − W )(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))
+ (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> W (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))
+ (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> (Ŵ − W )M (β, τ )
+ (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> (Ŵ − W )(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))
≤ sup|M (β, τ )> (Ŵ − W )M (β, τ )| + sup|M (β, τ )> W (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))|
β∈B

β∈B
>

+ sup|(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )) W M (β, τ )| + sup|M (β, τ )> (Ŵ − W )(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))|
β∈B

β∈B
>

+ sup|(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )) W (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))|
β∈B

+ sup|(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> (Ŵ − W )M (β, τ )|
β∈B

+ sup|(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> (Ŵ − W )(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))|
β∈B

= supkM (β, τ )> (Ŵ − W )M (β, τ )k + supkM (β, τ )> W (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

β∈B

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> W M (β, τ )k
β∈B

+ supkM (β, τ )> (Ŵ − W )(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> W (M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

27

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> (Ŵ − W )M (β, τ )k
β∈B

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> (Ŵ − W )(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B
by Cauchy–Schwarz inequality

z
}|
{
>
≤ sup kM (β, τ ) kk(Ŵ − W )kkM (β, τ )k + supkM (β, τ )> kkW kk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

β∈B

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> kkW kkM (β, τ )k
β∈B

+ supkM (β, τ )> kk(Ŵ − W )kk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> kkW kk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> kk(Ŵ − W )kkM (β, τ )k
β∈B

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))> kk(Ŵ − W )kk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B
=O(1)

z
}|
{
≤ supkM (β, τ )> kk(Ŵ − W )k supkM (β, τ )k
β∈B

β∈B

+ supkM (β, τ )> kkW k supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

β∈B
=O(1)

z }| {
+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )) k kW k supkM (β, τ )k
>

β∈B

β∈B
>

+ supkM (β, τ ) kk(Ŵ − W )k supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

β∈B
>

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )) kkW k supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

β∈B
>

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )) kk(Ŵ − W )k supkM (β, τ )k
β∈B

β∈B
>

+ supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ )) kk(Ŵ − W )k supk(M̂ (β, τ ) − M (β, τ ))k
β∈B

β∈B

= op (1) + op (1) + op (1) + op (1) + op (1) + op (1) + op (1) = op (1).
Above, we know kW k = O(1) since W is fixed, and we know supβ∈B kM (β, τ )k = O(1) since
M (β, τ ) is continuous in β and B is a compact set.
The second condition of Theorem 5.7 in van der Vaart (1998) is that β0τ satisfies the
well-separated minimum property. Since M (β, τ )> W M (β, τ ) is continuous in β and {β :
kβ − β0τ k ≥ , β ∈ B} is a compact set, let β ∗ denote the minimizer: for any  > 0,
inf

β:kβ−β0τ k≥

M (β, τ )> W M (β, τ ) = M (β ∗ , τ )> W M (β ∗ , τ ).

28

(A.5)

By A3, M (β, τ ) 6= 0 for any β 6= β0τ , so M (β ∗ , τ ) 6= 0. Since W is positive definite (A12),
M (β ∗ , τ )> W M (β ∗ , τ ) > 0.
Thus, for any  > 0,
inf

β:kβ−β0τ k≥

M (β, τ )> W M (β, τ ) > 0 = M (β0τ , τ )> W M (β0τ , τ ).

(A.6)

Consistency of β̂GMM follows by Theorem 5.7 in van der Vaart (1998).
Proof of Lemma 4.3. Decomposing into a mean-zero term and a “bias” term,
d

want to show op (1)
→
− N(0,Στ ) by A10
z√ 
}|
{ z√
}|
{
√
nM̂n (β0τ , τ ) = n M̂n (β0τ , τ ) − E[M̂n (β0τ , τ )] + n E[M̂n (β0τ , τ )] .

With iid data, Kaplan and Sun (2017, Thm. 1) show Στ = τ (1 − τ ) E(Zi Zi> ). The remainder
of the proof shows that the second term is indeed op (1), actually o(1).
Let Λi ≡ Λ(Yi , Xi , β0τ ), with marginal PDF fΛ (·) and conditional PDF fΛ|Z (· | z) given
Zi = z. Given strict stationarity of the data, using the definitions in (3.5), assuming the
support of Λi given Zi = z is the interval [ΛL (z), ΛH (z)] with ΛL (z) ≤ −hn ≤ hn ≤ ΛH (z),
#
" n
1X
gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β0τ , τ ) = E[gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β0τ , τ )]
E[M̂n (β0τ , τ )] = E
n i=1
n
o
˜
= E Zi [I(−Λ
/h
)
−
τ
]
i
n
n
o
˜
= E Zi E[I(−Λi /hn ) − τ | Zi ]
integrate by parts


= E Zi

z
Z

ΛH (Zi )

}|

{

˜
[I(−L/h
n ) − τ ] dFΛ|Z (L | Zi )

ΛL (Zi )
=−τ : use A5 and ΛH (Zi ) ≥ hn

}|
 z

˜
= E Zi I(−L/h
n ) − τ FΛ|Z (L | Zi )

{

ΛH (Zi )
ΛL (Zi )

=0 for L6∈[−hn ,hn ]

Z

ΛH (Zi )

−


z }| {
0
−1
˜
FΛ|Z (L | Zi ) I (−L/hn ) (−hn ) dL

ΛL (Zi )
change of variables to v=−L/hn

z
 
Z
−1
= E Zi −τ + hn

hn

}|

{

FΛ|Z (L | Zi )I˜0 (−L/hn ) dL

−hn

29


 
Z 1
0
FΛ|Z (−hn v | Zi )I˜ (v) dv
= E Zi −τ +
−1
( "
!
#)
Z 1 X
r
k k
(−h
)
v
n
(k)
= E Zi −τ +
FΛ|Z (0 | Zi )
I˜0 (v) dv
k!
−1 k=0
h̃∈[0,hn ] (from MVT)



Z

1

+ E Zi
−1


}|
{
z
(−hn )r+1 v r+1 ˜0
(r)
fΛ|Z (−h̃v | Zi )
I (v) dv
(r + 1)!
=0 for 1 ≤ k ≤ r − 1 by A5

 
r
X
(−hn )k
(k)
= E Zi −τ +
FΛ|Z (0 | Zi )
k!
k=0

z
Z

}|

1

{

k ˜0



v I (v) dv
−1

O(1) by A5 and A9

z

}|
{
 Z 1z

}|
{
(r)
r+1
r+1 ˜0
+ O(hn ) E Zi
fΛ|Z (−h̃v | Zi ) v I (v) dv
−1
 

Z
(−hn )r 1 r ˜0
(r−1)
= E Zi −τ + FΛ|Z (0 | Zi ) + fΛ|Z (0 | Zi )
v I (v) dv
+ O(hr+1
n )
r!
−1
bounded by A9

r is even

z }| {Z
 h
i
1
(−hn )r
(r−1)
r ˜0
v I (v) dv E Zi fΛ|Z (0 | Zi ) + O(hr+1
= E{Zi [−τ + E(1{Λi ≤ 0} | Zi )]} +
n )
r!
−1
=E[Zi (1{Λi ≤0}−τ )]=0 by A3
 h
i
z
}|
{ hr Z 1
(r−1)
n
r ˜0
= E{E[Zi (1{Λi ≤ 0} − τ ) | Zi ]} +
v I (v) dv E Zi fΛ|Z (0 | Zi ) + O(hr+1 )
r! −1
 h

i
r Z 1
h
(r−1)
r
= n
v r I˜0 (v) dv E Zi fΛ|Z (0 | Zi ) + O(hr+1
n ) = O(hn ).
r! −1
√
Thus, the result follows if nhrn = o(1), i.e., hn = o(n−1/(2r) ) as in A6.

Proof of Theorem 4.4. We first establish the asymptotic normality of the smoothed MM
estimator. We then prove the asymptotic normality of the smoothed GMM estimator.
MM asymptotic normality. Recall from (3.6) that 0 = M̂n (β̂MM , τ ). Define
∇β > M̂n (β0τ , τ ) ≡

∂
M̂n (β, τ )
∂β >

.

(A.7)

β=β0τ
(k)

(k)

Let M̂n (β, τ ) refer to the kth element in the vector M̂n (β, τ ), so ∇β > M̂n (β0τ , τ ) is a row
(k)

vector and ∇β M̂n (β0τ , τ ) is a column vector. Define

>
(dβ )
(1)
Ṁn (τ ) ≡ ∇β M̂n (β̃(1) , τ ), . . . , ∇β M̂n (β̃(dβ ) , τ ) ,
30

(A.8)

a dβ × dβ matrix with its first row equal to that of ∇β > M̂n (β̃(1) , τ ), its second row equal
to that of ∇β > M̂n (β̃(2) , τ ), etc., where each vector β̃(k) lies on the line segment between β0τ
and β̂MM . Due to smoothing, we can take a derivative (for any n) to obtain a mean value
expansion, and then rearrange:
0 = M̂n (β0τ , τ ) + Ṁn (τ )(β̂MM − β0τ ),
√
√
n(β̂MM − β0τ ) = −[Ṁn (τ )]−1 nM̂n (β0τ , τ ).

(A.9)
(A.10)

p

From A11, after plugging in definitions, Ṁn (τ ) →
− G; applying the continuous mapping
p

theorem, −[Ṁn (τ )]−1 →
− −G−1 . Using A10, the rest of the right-hand side of (A.10) has
an asymptotic normal distribution. Equation (A.10) also implies the asymptotically linear
(influence function) representation
n
n
√
1 X
1 X −1
n(β̂MM − β0τ ) = √
[−Ṁn (τ )]−1 gni (β0τ , τ ) = − √
G gni (β0τ , τ ) + op (1). (A.11)
n i=1
n i=1

Next, apply the continuous mapping theorem (CMT), using the nonsingularity of G
p

p

assumed in A9 and the result Ṁn (τ ) →
− G in A11 to obtain [Ṁn (τ )]−1 →
− G−1 . Using the
CMT again, combine this with the results in (A.10) and Lemma 4.3:
use A11 and CMT

√

use Lemma 4.3

}|
{
z }| { z√
−1
n(β̂MM − β0τ ) = − [Ṁn (τ )]
nM̂n (β0τ , τ )

d
d
→
− −G−1 N(0, Στ ) = N 0, G−1 Στ [G> ]−1 .

GMM asymptotic normality. For GMM, the approach is similar, but starting from the
first-order condition for the mean value expansion. From the definition of β̂GMM in (3.10),
we have the first-order condition
h
i>
∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ ) Ŵ M̂n (β̂GMM , τ ) = 0.

(A.12)

We reuse the notation from (A.7) and (A.8), but now β̃(k) lies between β0τ and β̂GMM . By
the mean value theorem,
M̂n (β̂GMM , τ ) = M̂n (β0τ , τ ) + Ṁn (τ )(β̂GMM − β0τ ).

(A.13)

Pre-multiplying (A.13) by [∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ )]> Ŵ and using (A.12) for the first equality,
0 = [∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ )]> Ŵ M̂n (β̂GMM , τ )
= [∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ )]> Ŵ M̂n (β0τ , τ ) + [∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ )]> Ŵ Ṁn (τ )(β̂GMM − β0τ ).
31

Multiplying by

√
n and rearranging,

√
n(β̂GMM − β0τ )
=Op (1)
}|
{
z
h
i> √

−1
= − [∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ )]> Ŵ Ṁn (τ )
∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ ) Ŵ nM̂n (β0τ , τ )
√
= −{G> W G}−1 G> W nM̂n (β0τ , τ ) + op (1),

(A.14)
(A.15)

where Ŵ = W + op (1) by A12, and Ṁn (τ ) = G + op (1) and ∇β > M̂n (β̂GMM , τ ) = G + op (1)
√
d
− N(0, Στ ). Applying the continuous mapping
by A11. From Lemma 4.3, nM̂n (β0τ , τ ) →
theorem yields the stated result.

B

Primitive conditions for high-level assumptions

The following subsections discuss primitive conditions for the high-level Assumptions A8,
A10, and A11.

B.1

Assumption A8

Assumption A8 is a high-level ULLN-type assumption. Intuitively, it holds under weak
enough dependence and a moment restriction on Zi . Howver, it is not trivial since most
ULLNs assume a constant function g(·) instead of a function indexed by n. We provide an
example of sufficient lower-level assumptions in Lemma B.1.
Lemma B.1. Let Assumptions A1–A5 and A7 hold. Additionally, assume the following. (i)

B, d(·) is a metric space. (ii) Defining open balls B(β, ρ) ≡ {β̃ ∈ B : d(β, β̃) < ρ},
n
o
gn∗ (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ) ≡ sup gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β̃, τ ) : β̃ ∈ B(β, ρ) ,
n
o
(B.1)
g∗n (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ) ≡ inf gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β̃, τ ) : β̃ ∈ B(β, ρ)
are random variables for all i, β ∈ B, and sufficiently small ρ (which may depend on β),
where the sup and inf are taken separately for each element of the vector. (iii) A pointwise
WLLN holds for the random vectors in (B.1), for each β ∈ B. (iv) The data are strictly
stationary. Then, for a fixed τ ∈ (0, 1), using the definition in (3.5),
sup M̂n (β, τ ) − E[M̂n (β, τ )] = op (1).
β∈B

Proof. We show that the theorem in Andrews (1987) applies. The theorem concerns a
uniform law of large numbers (ULLN) for a sample average of functions of the data. By
32

Comment 6 in Andrews (1987), both the data and the functions may be indexed by both i
and n. In our case, the function gn (·) is not indexed by i but must be indexed by n since it
depends on the sequence of bandwidths, hn . We continue to index the observations only by
i but note that triangular arrays are permitted by Andrews (1987). Since Andrews (1987)
presumes a scalar-valued function, we write gn (·); since the dimension of gn (·) is fixed and
finite, uniformity extends immediately to the vector.
Assumption A1 in Andrews (1987) is simply that B is compact, which is in our A3. (More
recent work shows that “compact” can be replaced by “totally bounded” under a metric; see
Andrews (1992) and Pötscher and Prucha (1994).)
Assumption A2(a) in Andrews (1987) is a technical measurability assumption; this is
assumption (ii) in the statement of Lemma B.1.
Assumption A2(b) in Andrews (1987) is assumption (iii) in the statement of the lemma.
There are many WLLNs for weakly dependent triangular arrays, where dependence is quantified and restricted in various ways; for example, see Theorem 2 in Andrews (1988) and the
theorems in de Jong (1998). With iid sampling, sufficient primitive conditions for a WLLN

˜ is bounded. From
are already in our A4 and A5, respectively: a) E kZi k2 < ∞, and b) I(·)
˜ − τ ≤ 2, so we have the dominating function |gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ )| ≤ 2|Zi |.
A5, −2 ≤ I(·)
Consequently,
|gn∗ (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ)| ≤ 2|Zi |,

|g∗n (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ)| ≤ 2|Zi |.

If the data are iid, then gn∗ (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ) is a row-wise iid triangular array. Thus, a


sufficient condition for a WLLN is supn E kgn∗ k2 < ∞ (as can be shown with Markov’s




inequality). This condition holds since supn E kgn∗ k2 ≤ E k2Zi k2 < ∞ by A4. An extension
to independent but not identical sampling follows from a Lindeberg condition for Zi . A
pointwise WLLN continues to hold with dependence, too, as long as the dependence is not
too strong.
Assumption A3 in Andrews (1987) in our notation is
n

lim sup

ρ→0 n≥1

1X
{E[gn∗ (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ)] − E[gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ )]} = 0,
n i=1

(B.2)

and similarly when replacing gn∗ with g∗n . Since gn varies with n but not i, the strict
stationarity in assumption (iv) in Lemma B.1 implies the summands do not vary with i,

33

which simplifies (B.2) to be
lim sup|∆n | = 0, ∆n ≡ E[gn∗ (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ)] − E[gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ )], ∆∞ ≡ lim ∆n .

ρ→0 n≥1

n→∞

(B.3)
Strict stationarity is not necessary, though, as long as (B.2) still holds.
A necessary condition for (B.3) is pointwise convergence limρ→0 ∆n = 0 for each fixed n.
By A3 and A5, gni (β, τ ) is continuous and even differentiable in β. Additionally, as noted
above, 2|Zi | is a dominating function with finite expectation (by A4), so the dominated
convergence theorem gives
lim ∆n = lim E[gn∗ (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ) − gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ )]
ρ→0


∗
= E lim [gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ) − gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ )]

ρ→0

ρ→0

= E{0} = 0,
and similarly for g∗n , for any n.
For ∆∞ , as n → ∞, we can again move the limit inside expectations by the dominated
convergence theorem, so
n
o
lim E[gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ )] = E lim gn (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ )

n→∞

n→∞

= E{Zi [1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} − τ ]}
= E{E[Zi (1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} − τ ) | Zi ]}
= E{Zi [E(1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} | Zi ) − τ ]}
= E{Zi [P(Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0 | Zi ) − τ ]}.
˜
˜
Technically, since I(0/h
n ) = 0.5 for any hn > 0, the function I(·/hn ) → 1{· ≥ 0} −
0.5 1{· = 0} as n → ∞, so we have
E{Zi [E(1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0} − 0.5 1{Λ(Yi , Xi , β) = 0} | Zi ) − τ ]}
 

=0 a.s. by A7


}|
{
z


= E Zi P(Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0 | Zi ) − 0.5 P(Λ(Yi , Xi , β) = 0 | Zi ) −τ
.


That is, by A7, the 0.5 adjustment corresponds to a zero probability event that does not
affect the overall expectation. For gn∗ , similarly,
(
lim E[gn∗ (Yi , Xi , Zi , β, τ, ρ)] = E

n→∞

)
h 

i
sup Zi P Λ(Yi , Xi , β̃) ≤ 0 | Zi − τ .

β̃∈B(β,ρ)

34

Consequently,
(
∆∞

)
h 

i
= E Zi [P(Λ(Yi , Xi , β) ≤ 0 | Zi ) − τ ] − sup Zi P Λ(Yi , Xi , β̃) ≤ 0 | Zi − τ .
β̃∈B(β,ρ)

For this to have a limit of zero as ρ → 0 again requires continuity in ρ, but the necessary and
sufficient conditions are different than for fixed n. Sufficient conditions here are found in A2
and A7: Λ(·) is continuous in β, and for any β ∈ B and almost all z ∈ Z, the conditional
distribution of Λ(Yi , Xi , β) given Zi = z is continuous in a neighborhood of zero. For example,
if Λ(Yi , Xi , β) = Yi − Xi> β, then it is sufficient that Yi has a continuous distribution given
almost all Zi = z.
Given limρ→0 ∆n = 0 for any n < ∞ and n = ∞, the conclusion limρ→0 supn≥1 |∆n | = 0
follows because the supremum is attained: supn≥1 |∆n | = |∆k | for some k ≥ 1 or k = ∞. If
instead limρ→0 ∆n = 0 only for n ≥ 1, and not with limn→∞ , then it would be possible for all
limρ→0 ∆n = 0 pointwise but limρ→0 supn≥1 ∆n 6= 0; for example if ∆n = (1 − 1/n)1/ρ then
all limρ→0 ∆n = 0 but supn≥1 ∆n = 1 for any ρ, so limρ→0 supn≥1 ∆n = 1. This is why the
calculations for ∆∞ are necessary.
Having verified A1, A2, and A3 in Andrews (1987), his theorem applies, yielding the
desired ULLN.

B.2

Assumption A10

To establish Assumption A10, with iid data, the Lindeberg–Feller CLT can be applied as
in the proof of Theorem 1 in Kaplan and Sun (2017). More generally, A10 can hold under
weak dependence. For example, Theorem 3.13 in Wooldridge (1986, Ch. 2), as reproduced in
Proposition 1 of Andrews (1991a), is a CLT for near epoch dependent triangular arrays that
holds under some moment and dependence restrictions. The moment restriction, condition
(ii), in our notation is E{kgni (β0τ , τ )k2+ } < ∞ for some  > 0. Since |gni (β0τ , τ )| < 2|Zi |, if
the underlying Zi are strictly stationary then E(kZi k2+ ) < ∞ is sufficient; triangular array
data are allowed if supi≤n,n≥1 E(kZni k2+ ) < ∞ for some  > 0.

B.3

Assumption A11

Unfortunately, for multiple reasons, Assumption A11 cannot be deduced simply by applying
a result like Lemma 4.3 in Newey and McFadden (1994, p. 2156). Fortunately, it is closely
related to the well-studied result of consistency of the kernel estimator for the quantile
35

regression asymptotic covariance matrix. Since the argument is the same for each row in the
matrix, we consider row k. Plugging in definitions,
n

Ṁn(k,·) (τ )

=

∇β > M̂n(k) (β̃, τ )

1 X ∂ (k)
=
g (β, τ )
n i=1 ∂β > ni

β=β̃

n

1 X (k) ˜0
>
=
Zi I −Λ(Yi , Xi , β̃)/hn (−h−1
n )Di (β̃) ,
n i=1

Di (b) ≡

∂
Λ(Yi , Xi , β)
∂β

.

(B.4)
(B.5)

β=b

By A5, I˜0 (·) is a kernel function. The RHS of (B.4) is closely related to the kernel estimator
of the usual quantile regression estimator’s asymptotic covariance matrix initially proposed
under censoring by Powell (1984, eqn. (5.6)) and without censoring in Powell (1991), but
with two differences: 1) we have β̃ instead of β̂, 2) we have a more general model. As a
special case of our model, the “usual” quantile regression model would have Zi = Xi and
Λ(Yi , Xi , β) = Yi − Xi> β, so ∇β Λ(Yi , Xi , β̃) = −Xi , and (B.4) simplifies to
!
n
n
>
X

1 X (k) ˜0
β̃
Y
−
X
1
i
(k)
i
>
X I (Xi> β̃ − Yi )/hn (−h−1
I˜0
Xi Xi> ,
n )(−Xi ) =
n i=1 i
nhn i=1
hn

(B.6)

using the symmetry I˜0 (−u) = I˜0 (u) from A5. Since β̃ lies between β0τ and β̂MM , proofs using
√
√
β̂MM still hold since n-consistency of β̂MM implies n-consistency of β̃.
For (B.6), Kato (2012) shows consistency (i.e., our A11) with both iid and weakly dependent data. In fact, he shows the stronger result of asymptotic normality, so some of his as√
sumptions may be weakened if only consistency is required; for example, his hn n/ log(n) →
√
∞ in Assumption 13 can be (slightly) weakened to hn n → ∞, and not as many moments of Xi are required. Specifically, Kato (2012) considers strictly stationary β-mixing
data, and the mixing coefficients β(j), moments of Xi , and bandwidth rate are jointly reP∞ λ
1−2/δ
stricted in his Assumptions 9, 10, and 13 (p. 268):
< ∞ for some δ > 2
j=1 j [β(j)]
and λ > 1 − 2/δ; E[kXi kmax{6,2δ} ] < ∞; and for some integer sequence sn → ∞ with
√
sn = o( nhn ), (n/hn )1/2 β(sn ) → 0.
For the more general (B.4), similar conditions are sufficient if Di (β) = Di , a random
variable depending on Yi and Xi but not the argument β. This occurs if (and only if)
the residual function Λ(·) is linear-in-parameters. Then, Di replaces one of the Xi in Kato
(2012), while Zi replaces the other. The most notable restriction is on moments of Di (which
implies a certain number of finite moments for Yi and Xi ) in addition to Zi (which is already
36

in A4). Many economic variables are bounded or reasonably have infinite moments (e.g., a
normal distribution), in which case such moment assumptions are not binding. If Di (b) does
depend on its argument, then an extension of the argument itself in Kato (2012) is necessary.
In (B.6), Xi plays the roles of both the derivative of Λ(Yi , Xi , β) and the instrument
vector, so the PDF in G is just conditional on Xi ; more generally, both the instrument vector
and derivative must be conditioned on. This can be seen by computing the expectation of
(B.4) in a similar manner to the proof of Lemma 4.3. After replacing β̃ = β0τ + Op (n−1/2 )
and dropping the remainder, letting Di ≡ ∇β Λ(Yi , Xi , β0τ ) and Λi ≡ Λ(Yi , Xi , β0τ ),
same for all i by A1

z

}|
n
X

∂
1
.
(k)
E Zi I˜0 −Λ(Yi , Xi , β0τ )/hn (−h−1
E[Ṁn(k,·) (τ )] =
Λ(Yi , Xi , β)
n )
n i=1
∂β >
h
i
(k) >
−1 ˜0
= E Zi Di (−hn )I −Λi /hn
n
h
io

(k)
0
˜
= E Zi Di> E (−h−1
)
I
−Λ
/h
|
Z
,
D
i
n
i
i
n


Z

(k) >
−1 ˜0
(−hn )I −L/hn fΛ|Z,D (L | Zi , Di ) dL
= E Zi Di


Z 1
(k) >
0
−I˜ (v)fΛ|Z,D (−hn v | Zi , Di ) dv
= E Zi Di
−1

Z 1

(k) >
= − E Zi Di
I˜0 (v) fΛ|Z,D (0 | Zi , Di )

{
β=β̃

−1

−

0
fΛ|Z,D
(−hn v





| Zi , Di )hn v + · · · dv

i
h
(k) >
= − E Zi Di fΛ|Z,D (0 | Zi , Di )


Z 1
(r)
(k) >
0
r
r
˜
− hn E Zi Di
I (v)(v /r!)fΛ|Z,D (−h̃v | Zi , Di ) dv
−1
h
i
(k)
= − E Zi Di> fΛ|Z,D (0 | Zi , Di ) + O(hrn ).
Finally, note that Kato (2012) does not require the conditional quantile regression model
to be true, i.e., his results hold under misspecification; see his remark on p. 263 and Assumptions 8–13.

37

C
C.1

Computational details
Simulation DGP details

DGP 1 With iid sampling, there is a randomized treatment offer (instrument) Zi = 1 with
probability 1/2 and Zi = 0 otherwise; Ui ∼ Unif(0, 1) (the unobservable); Di = 1 if i is
treated and Di = 0 otherwise, with P(Di = 1 | Zi , Ui ) = Zi min{1, (4/3)Ui } so that there is
imperfect compliance and endogenous self-selection into treatment; and Yi = β(Ui )+Di γ(Ui ),
where the function β(τ ) = 60 + Q(τ ) with Q(·) the quantile function of the χ23 distribution,
and γ(τ ) = 100(τ − 0.5), so there is heterogeneity of the quantile treatment effects.
DGP 2 This DGP is a stationary time series regression with measurement error. The latent
p
iid
explanatory variable is Zt , with Z0 ∼ N(0, 1), Zt = ρZ Zt−1 + 1 − ρ2Z νt , and νt ∼ N(0, 1),
iid

so Var(Zt ) = 1 for all t; we use ρZ = 0.5. The measurement error is ηt ∼ N(0, 1), and Xt =
Zt + ηt is the observed (mismeasured) explanatory variable. Since the ηt are independent,
the lagged Xt−1 provides a valid instrument. The outcome is Yt = γZt + t with γ = 1
p
iid
and t unobserved. Finally, t = ρ t−1 + 1 − ρ2 Vt , 0 ∼ N(0, 1), Vt ∼ N(0, 1), so the
marginal distribution is t ∼ N(0, 1) for all t, and the series {t }, {ηt }, and {νt } are mutually
independent. Letting β(τ ) be the τ -quantile of t − γηt , since Yt = γZt + t = γXt + t − γηt ,
we have the quantile restrictions P(Yt − γXt − β(τ ) ≤ 0) = P(t − γηt ≤ β(τ )) = τ , and
P(t −γηt ≤ β(τ ) | Xt−1 ) = P(t −γηt ≤ β(τ )) = τ since Xt−1 ⊥
⊥ ηt , t , so the IVQR intercept
and slope parameters are β(τ ) and γ = 1, respectively.
DGP 3 This DGP is identical to DGP 2 except that t = ρ t−1 + (1 − ρ )Vt , 0 ∼ Cauchy,
iid

Vt ∼ Cauchy, so the marginal distribution is t ∼ Cauchy for all t.
DGP 4 This DGP is for a log-linearized quantile Euler equation with over-identification,
similar to the empirical application in Section 6. The discount factor is βτ = 0.99, the the
EIS is 1/γτ = 0.2. There are four excluded instruments, Zj,t = ρj Zj,t−1 + ηj,t for j = 1, 2, 3, 4,
with ρj = 0.2j. The vector (η1,t , η2,t , η3,t , η4,t ) is multivariate normal with unit variances and
Corr(ηj,t , ηk,t ) = 0.1 for j 6= k. Then, Xt = δ0 + δ1 Z1,t + Vt (δ2 Z2,t + δ3 Z3,t + δ4 Z4,t ) + Vt , and
Yt = ln(βτ )/γτ + Xt /γτ + Ut . Error term vector (Ut , Vt ) is bivariate normal with standard
deviations σU = 2 and σV = 2, and covariance σU V = 0.8. Linking to Section 6, Yt represents
the log consumption ratio, and Xt represents the log real interest rate.

38

C.2

Bandwidth selection

For estimation, simply picking the smallest possible bandwidth seems reasonable and performs well in simulations. For linear models, the plug-in bandwidth from Kaplan and Sun
(2017) also seems to work well. In our experience, this “optimal” bandwidth from Kaplan
and Sun (2017) is usually much larger than the smallest numerically feasible value. For
example, this is suggested by the figures in Section 7.3 of Kaplan and Sun (2017), where
the plug-in optimal bandwidth is clearly well above the smallest fixed bandwidth they used.
The same is true in their empirical example (Section 6), and it is again true in our empirical
example, where the smallest feasible bandwidth is (almost) always below 0.0001 while the
optimal bandwidth is (usually) between 0.001 and 0.05.
For the estimator to attain asymptotic normality, with dependent data, it seems nh2n →
∞ is required for Assumption A11, which implies hn must be larger than n−1/2 . The smallest
possible bandwidth is too small, but the bandwidth from Kaplan and Sun (2017) satisfies
this condition. Alternatively, one could experiment with a variation of the AMSE-optimal
bandwidth (for estimating G) proposed in Kato (2012). With a linear model, this is easily
done by replacing one of the X in the rule-of-thumb formula in Kato (2012) with our Z,
leaving the other X as the regressor vector that in our notation includes the endogenous
regressors in Y and exogenous regressors in X. More careful consideration of inferenceoptimal bandwidths is left to future work (in progress).

References
Amemiya, T. (1982): “Two Stage Least Absolute Deviations Estimators,” Econometrica,
50, 689–711.
Andrews, D. W. K. (1987): “Consistency in Nonlinear Econometric Models: A Generic
Uniform Law of Large Numbers,” Econometrica, 55, 1465–1471.
——— (1988): “Laws of Large Numbers for Dependent Non-identically Distributed Random
Variables,” Econometric Theory, 4, 458–467.
——— (1991a): “An Empirical Process Central Limit Theorem for Dependent Nonidentically Distributed Random Variables,” Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 38, 187–203.
——— (1991b): “Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation,” Econometrica, 59, 817–858.
——— (1992): “Generic Uniform Convergence,” Econometric Theory, 8, 241–257.
Angrist, J., V. Chernozhukov, and I. Fernández-Val (2006): “Quantile Regression
Under Misspecification, with an Application to the U.S. Wage Structure,” Econometrica,
74, 539–563.
39

Borchers, H. W. (2015): pracma: Practical Numerical Math Functions, R package version
1.8.3.
Buchinsky, M. (1998): “Recent Advances in Quantile Regression Models: A Practical
Guideline for Empirical Research,” Journal of Human Resources, 33, 88–126.
Campbell, J. Y. (2003): “Consumption-Based Asset Pricing,” in Handbook of the Economics of Finance: Financial Markets and Asset Pricing, ed. by G. M. Constantinides,
M. Harris, and R. M. Stulz, North Holland, vol. 1, Part B, chap. 13, 803–887.
Campbell, J. Y. and N. G. Mankiw (1989): “Consumption, Income, and Interest Rates:
Reinterpreting the Time Series Evidence,” in NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1989, ed. by
O. J. Blanchard and S. Fischer, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 185–216.
Campbell, J. Y. and L. M. Viceira (1999): “Consumption and Portfolio Decisions
When Expected Returns Are Time Varying,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 433–
495.
Chambers, C. P. (2009): “An Axiomatization of Quantiles on the Domain of Distribution
Functions,” Mathematical Finance, 19, 335–342.
Chen, L.-Y. and S. Lee (2017): “Exact Computation of GMM Estimators for Instrumental Variable Quantile Regression Models,” Working paper, available at https:
//arxiv.org/abs/1703.09382.
Chen, X., V. Chernozhukov, S. Lee, and W. K. Newey (2014): “Local Identification
of Nonparametric and Semiparametric Models,” Econometrica, 82, 785–809.
Chen, X. and Z. Liao (2015): “Sieve Semiparametric Two-Step GMM under Weak Dependence,” Journal of Econometrics, 189, 163–186.
Chen, X., O. Linton, and I. van Keilegom (2003): “Estimation of Semiparametric
Models When the Criterion Function is not Smooth,” Econometrica, 71, 1591–1608.
Chen, X. and D. Pouzo (2009): “Efficient Estimation of Semiparametric Conditional
Moment Models with Possibly Nonsmooth Residuals,” Journal of Econometrics, 152, 46–
60.
——— (2012): “Estimation of Nonparametric Conditional Moment Models with Possibly
Nonsmooth Moments,” Econometrica, 80, 277–322.
Chernozhukov, V. and C. Hansen (2005): “An IV Model of Quantile Treatment Effects,” Econometrica, 73, 245–261.
——— (2006): “Instrumental Quantile Regression Inference for Structural and Treatment
Effect Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 132, 491–525.
——— (2008): “Instrumental Variable Quantile Regression: A Robust Inference Approach,”
Journal of Econometrics, 142, 379–398.
Chernozhukov, V., C. Hansen, and K. Wüthrich (2017): “Instrumental Variable
Quantile Regression,” in Handbook of Quantile Regression, ed. by R. Koenker, V. Chernozhukov, X. He, and L. Peng, CRC/Chapman-Hall, forthcoming.
Chernozhukov, V. and H. Hong (2003): “An MCMC Approach to Classical Estimation,” Journal of Econometrics, 115, 293–346.
Cochrane, J. H. (2005): Asset Pricing, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
de Castro, L. and A. F. Galvao (2017): “Dynamic Quantile Models of Rational Behavior,” University of Iowa, mimeo.
de Jong, R. M. (1998): “Weak Laws of Large Numbers for Dependent Random Variables,”
40

Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 209–225.
de Jong, R. M. and J. Davidson (2000): “Consistency of Kernel Estimators of Heteroscedastic and Autocorrelated Covariance Matrices,” Econometrica, 68, 407–423.
Fernandes, M., E. Guerre, and E. Horta (2017): “Smoothing Quantile Regressions,”
Mimeo, available at http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/18390.
Galvao, A. F. and K. Kato (2016): “Smoothed Quantile Regression for Panel Data,”
Journal of Econometrics, 193, 92–112.
Giovannetti, B. C. (2013): “Asset Pricing under Quantile Utility Maximization,” Review
of Financial Economics, 22, 169–179.
Hall, R. E. (1988): “Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption,” Journal of Political
Economy, 96, 339–357.
Hansen, L. P. (1982): “Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators,” Econometrica, 50, 1029–1054.
Hansen, L. P. and K. J. Singleton (1983): “Stochastic Consumption, Risk Aversion,
and the Temporal Behavior of Asset Returns,” Journal of Political Economy, 92, 249–265.
Horowitz, J. L. (1998): “Bootstrap Methods for Median Regression Models,” Econometrica, 66, 1327–1351.
Hwang, J. and Y. Sun (2015): “Should We Go One Step Further? An Accurate Comparison of One-step and Two-step Procedures in a Generalized Method of Moments Framework,” Working paper, available at https://hwang.econ.uconn.edu/research.
Kaplan, D. M. and Y. Sun (2017): “Smoothed Estimating Equations for Instrumental
Variables Quantile Regression,” Econometric Theory, 33, 105–157.
Kato, K. (2012): “Asymptotic Normality of Powell’s Kernel Estimator,” Annals of the
Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 64, 255–273.
Kinal, T. W. (1980): “The Existence of Moments of k-Class Estimators,” Econometrica,
48, 241–249.
Koenker, R. and G. Bassett, Jr. (1978): “Regression Quantiles,” Econometrica, 46,
33–50.
Lancaster, T. and S. J. Jun (2010): “Bayesian quantile regression methods,” Journal
of Applied Econometrics, 25, 287–307.
Ljungqvist, L. and T. J. Sargent (2012): Recursive Macroeconomic Theory, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 3rd ed.
Lucas, R. E. (1978): “Asset Prices in an Exchange Economy,” Econometrica, 46, 1429–
1446.
MaCurdy, T. (2007): “A Practitioner’s Approach to Estimating Intertemporal Relationships Using Longitudinal Data: Lessons from Applications in Wage Dynamics,” in Handbook of Econometrics, ed. by J. J. Heckman and E. E. Leamer, Elsevier, vol. 6A, chap. 62,
4057–4167.
MaCurdy, T. and H. Hong (1999): “Smoothed Quantile Regression in Generalized
Method of Moments,” Mimeo.
MaCurdy, T. and C. Timmins (2001): “Bounding the Influence of Attrition on Intertemporal Wage Variation in the NLSY,” Mimeo, available at http://public.econ.
duke.edu/~timmins/bounds.pdf.
Manski, C. F. (1988): “Ordinal Utility Models of Decision Making under Uncertainty,”
41

Theory and Decision, 25, 79–104.
Newey, W. K. and D. McFadden (1994): “Large Sample Estimation and Hypothesis
Testing,” in Handbook of Econometrics, ed. by R. F. Engle and D. L. McFadden, Elsevier,
vol. 4, chap. 36, 2111–2245.
Newey, W. K. and K. D. West (1987): “A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix,” Econometrica, 55, 703–708.
Oberhofer, W. and H. Haupt (2016): “Asymptotic Theory for Nonlinear Quantile
Regression under Weak Dependence,” Econometric Theory, 32, 686–713.
Ogaki, M. and C. M. Reinhart (1998): “Measuring Intertemporal Substitution: The
Role of Durable Goods,” Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1078–1098.
Otsu, T. (2008): “Conditional Empirical Likelihood Estimation and Inference for Quantile
Regression Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 142, 508–538.
Pötscher, B. M. and I. R. Prucha (1994): “Generic Uniform Convergence and Equicontinuity Concepts for Random Functions: An Exploration of the Basic Structure,” Journal
of Econometrics, 60, 23–63.
Powell, J. L. (1984): “Least Absolute Deviations Estimation for the Censored Regression
Model,” Journal of Econometrics, 25, 303–325.
——— (1991): “Estimation of Monotonic Regression Models under Quantile Restrictions,”
in Nonparametric and semiparametric methods in econometrics and statistics: proceedings
of the Fifth International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics, ed. by W. A.
Barnett, J. Powell, and G. Tauchen, Cambridge University Press, 357–384.
——— (1994): “Estimation of Semiparametric Models,” in Handbook of Econometrics, ed.
by R. F. Engle and D. L. McFadden, Elsevier, vol. 4, chap. 41, 2443–2521.
R Core Team (2013): R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Rostek, M. (2010): “Quantile Maximization in Decision Theory,” Review of Economic
Studies, 77, 339–371.
Schennach, S. M. (2005): “Bayesian exponentially tilted empirical likelihood,”
Biometrika, 92, 31–46.
——— (2007): “Point estimation with exponentially tilted empirical likelihood,” Annals of
Statistics, 35, 634–672.
Su, L. and Z. Yang (2011): “Instrumental Variable Quantile Estimation of Spatial Autoregressive Models,” Working paper, available at http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/ljsu/
Publications/ivqr_sar20110505.pdf.
Toda, A. A. and K. Walsh (2015): “The Double Power Law in Consumption and Implications for Testing Euler Equations,” Journal of Political Economy, 123, 1177–1200.
Toda, A. A. and K. J. Walsh (2017): “Fat tails and spurious estimation of consumptionbased asset pricing models,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 32, 1156–1177.
van der Vaart, A. W. (1998): Asymptotic Statistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Whang, Y.-J. (2006): “Smoothed Empirical Likelihood Methods for Quantile Regression
Models,” Econometric Theory, 22, 173–205.
Wooldridge, J. M. (1986): “Asymptotic Properties of Econometric Estimators,” Ph.D.
thesis, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.
42

Wüthrich, K. (2016): “A comparison of two quantile models with endogeneity,” Working
paper.
——— (2017): “A closed-form estimator for quantile treatment effects with endogeneity,”
Working paper.
Xiang, Y., S. Gubian, B. Suomela, and J. Hoeng (2013): “Generalized Simulated
Annealing for Global Optimization: The GenSA Package.” The R Journal, 5, 13–28.
Yogo, M. (2004): “Estimating the Elasticity of Intertemporal Substitution When Instruments are Weak,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 797–810.

43

