Uncertainty and Change: Survey Evidence of Firms' Subjective Beliefs

Layer 1: Overview

Research question and motivation: A large literature shows that firms perceiving more uncertainty make more cautious intertemporal decisions (investment, hiring, price setting), but it is far less clear what makes firms uncertain in the first place. Macro models typically impose rational expectations and treat uncertainty as exogenous shocks to the conditional volatility of fundamentals. The paper asks how subjective uncertainty arises and evolves, and whether it is the same object as conditional volatility.

Data and design: The authors build a new panel from a quantitative module they added in 2012 to the ifo Business Survey of German manufacturing firms. At the start of each quarter, top managers report (i) last quarter’s realized sales (“Umsatz”) growth, (ii) a one-quarter-ahead point forecast, and (iii) best- and worst-case scenarios. The “span” between best and worst case is their quantitative measure of subjective uncertainty; the forecast error is realized growth minus the point forecast. The baseline sample is 1,005 firms and 8,889 firm-quarter observations over 27 waves, 2013:Q2–2019:Q4 — a calm period with no German recession. A simple scenario-analysis model (Proposition 1) shows that under a quadratic loss and a location-scale shock family, span is proportional to subjective standard deviation, justifying span as an index of subjective conditional volatility. An organizing framework contrasts rational expectations (Example R: subjective uncertainty equals conditional volatility, forecasts unbiased) with learning about signal quality (Example L: managers are unsure of signal precision, so unfamiliar signals raise perceived uncertainty even when true volatility is constant, and generate forecast bias).

Main findings with magnitudes: (1) Subjective uncertainty reflects experienced change, in both cross section and time series, following an asymmetric V-shape in growth (steeper negative branch, flatter positive branch, minimum near zero). Mean span is 12.4 pp, larger than mean absolute forecast error of 9.0 pp; cross-firm SD of time-averaged span is 7.4 pp and within-firm time-series SD of span is 6.3 pp. Cross-sectional V: a 1 pp lower (more negative) average growth goes with about 0.6 pp higher span; a 1 pp higher positive average growth with about 0.2 pp higher span. Time-series V (firm fixed effects removed): a 1 pp lower negative quarterly growth is followed by 0.2 pp higher span next quarter; a 1 pp higher positive growth by 0.1 pp (0.118 positive, -0.204 negative branch coefficients in Table 4). (2) Uncertainty is more than conditional volatility. Volatility explains about a quarter of cross-sectional variation in uncertainty; turbulence quartile dummies alone explain 30%, with span rising from 7 pp (lowest) to 18 pp (highest quartile). But controlling for turbulence, shrinking firms remain more uncertain (bottom-trend dummy ~2 pp) and make systematically too-conservative (toward-zero) forecasts, while large firms (>250 employees) report ~5 pp lower span holding trend/turbulence fixed (9 pp unconditionally). In the time series, after positive growth uncertainty rises but absolute forecast errors do not — inconsistent with rational expectations (Proposition R2), consistent with learning (Example L). Within-firm forecast-error/forecast correlation is -0.27 (overreaction); larger in magnitude (-0.31 vs -0.24) for low-excess-span firms. (3) Uncertainty is mostly idiosyncratic (time/industry fixed effects give R-squared ~1%, rising to ~5-7% with time-industry effects) yet matters for plans: a one-SD rise in span raises the probability of planned employment decrease by 2.4 pp (vs 4.2 pp for a one-SD forecast decline; baseline ~11%), raises planned price decreases by 0.9 pp and lowers planned price increases by 0.8 pp. Because employment (a quantity) and prices move the same direction, uncertainty acts like a negative demand shifter / “pessimism,” not a freezer of actions.

Implications: Understanding subjective uncertainty requires going beyond rational-expectations models where uncertainty equals conditional volatility; learning is a promising alternative even for mature firms (median age 45 years). Decoupling of uncertainty from volatility matters for welfare and policy evaluation (misallocation, optimal policy under idiosyncratic risk).

Layer 2: Deep Dive

What is the core measurement strategy, and why is span a valid index of subjective uncertainty?

The ifo module elicits best- and worst-case sales-growth scenarios; span (best minus worst) is the uncertainty measure, and the separate point forecast (answer 2b) is the subjective conditional mean. The authors model managers who think through a finite number n of scenarios to minimize expected quadratic loss based on distance from the closest scenario. Proposition 1 shows that if growth g = mu + sigma*epsilon belongs to a location-scale family, optimal span is linear in sigma (independent of mu), so span is proportional to subjective conditional standard deviation. Quadratic cost is a second-order approximation to general loss, making the link broad. Span is also robust/low-cognitive-load: it depends only on adjacent scenarios’ first-order conditions, so it is insensitive to interior reshaping or tail-shape changes managers cannot confidently distinguish.

What is the identification strategy for distinguishing uncertainty from conditional volatility, and what are the threats?

Identification rests on contrasting two observable implications. Under rational expectations (Example R), a cross-sectional uncertainty V must be accompanied by a cross-sectional volatility V in mean absolute forecast errors (Proposition R1), and a time-series uncertainty V must coincide with a ‘conditional-volatility V’ in absolute forecast errors (Proposition R2). Under learning (Example L), uncertainty can move with growth while debiased forecast-error volatility does not (Proposition L2). The authors test these by comparing span responses to forecast-error responses. The main threat is that span is only an index of subjective volatility (level not identified), so for the negative branch — where both uncertainty and volatility rise — they cannot fully rule out that higher uncertainty merely reflects higher conditional volatility. They argue against this because the implied span-to-volatility ratio (up to 4 in Table 4) would far exceed the roughly one-for-one cross-sectional relationship for most firms. For positive growth, the absence of any forecast-error response makes the rational-expectations explanation clean to reject.

What are the two competing mechanisms and how are they distinguished empirically?

Mechanism 1 (Example R, rational expectations): subjective uncertainty equals true conditional volatility, driven by heteroskedastic fundamentals; forecasts are unbiased. Mechanism 2 (Example L, learning about signal precision): growth is homoskedastic but managers observe a noisy signal of unknown information content gamma; using a Normal-Gamma prior with confidence parameter nu, an unfamiliar signal (far from prior mean, either sign) leads managers to infer lower precision and remain more uncertain, and generates forecast bias toward zero. Distinguishing tests: (a) cross section — shrinking firms are more uncertain AND biased holding volatility fixed (supports learning, Proposition L1b); large firms are less uncertain but unbiased (supports a confidence/nu channel, L1c); (b) time series — after positive growth, uncertainty rises but absolute forecast errors do not (rejects R2, supports L2); (c) the within-firm negative correlation between forecast and forecast error (-0.27) indicates overreaction from overprecision (Proposition L3). The preferred reading is a hybrid: a known volatility component generating the negative branch (R) plus a symmetric learning V (L).

What heterogeneity is documented across firms?

Three dimensions. Turbulence (time-series SD of growth): strongly raises uncertainty — top vs bottom quartile span 18 vs 7 pp, ~1.5 cross-sectional SDs, dummies explain 30%. Trend growth: asymmetric V — both fast-growing and fast-shrinking firms are more uncertain, but after controlling for turbulence only the bottom (shrinking) trend quartile retains a significant ~2 pp effect, and shrinking firms also have biased (too-conservative) forecasts, whereas fast-growing firms lose significance once volatility is controlled. Size: larger firms perceive less uncertainty — large (>250 employees) firms ~9 pp lower span unconditionally, ~5 pp lower controlling for trend and turbulence, but show no significant difference in average forecast errors (so the size effect is a confidence/nu channel, not bias). Time-series heteroskedasticity of span also rises with turbulence and trend and is larger for smaller firms, consistent with smaller firms having lower nu. Employment effects of uncertainty are similar across size classes (if anything slightly stronger for large firms).

What robustness checks are run?

Industry dummies (14 sectors) added to the cross-sectional span regression leave the turbulence/trend/size coefficients essentially unchanged and raise R-squared by only 2 pp, showing the effects are within-industry. Time and time-industry fixed effects confirm variation is overwhelmingly idiosyncratic (R-squared ~1% rising to ~5-7%). The within-firm uncertainty results are robust to requiring at least 5 span observations per firm (Table I4), as are the employment/price-plan results (Tables I6). Deseasonalization is corroborated at macro and micro level (Appendix B). Forecast-error analyses use a debiased absolute forecast error (residual from regressing forecast error on past growth and firm fixed effects) to separate volatility from bias, and a ‘statistical forecast error’ (deviation of growth from firm mean) as an econometrician benchmark, both giving the same V/no-V patterns. Data quality is documented: ~73-86% of respondents are top management, the responder is the same person in ~98% of firms, ~80% of firms use in-house quantitative planning, and a majority rely on scenario analysis.

How does this paper relate to and differ from closely related prior work?

It builds on survey-based ‘micro uncertainty’ work (Guiso and Parigi 1999; Bontempi et al. 2010; Bachmann, Elstner and Sims 2013). Several papers found V-shapes between subjective uncertainty and lagged sales growth (Altig et al. 2022 Atlanta Fed SBU; Bloom et al. 2020 MOPS; Kumar, Gorodnichenko and Coibion 2023 New Zealand), but those use single cross sections or short pooled samples and cannot separate cross-sectional from time-series Vs. The contribution is decomposing the V into between- and within-firm components and constructing volatility Vs to contrast against the uncertainty Vs, showing uncertainty is more than volatility. It also connects to the behavioral/miscalibration literature (Ben-David, Graham and Harvey 2013; Barrero 2022) by linking forecast bias to the gap between subjective uncertainty and conditional volatility via endogenous perceived precision. Uniquely, it studies subjective idiosyncratic uncertainty jointly with both a quantity (employment) and prices in normal (non-recession) times; Kumar et al. (2023) found ‘uncertainty as pessimism’ but for a macro variable (GDP).

What are the policy and modeling implications, and their scope conditions?

The decoupling of uncertainty from volatility matters for welfare and policy because the standard approach (regress absolute forecast errors on conditioning information and use the fitted value as uncertainty) measures ’too little’ uncertainty — it ignores uncertainty about features the econometrician sees only with hindsight. Heterogeneous-firm models of misallocation and optimal policy under idiosyncratic risk (e.g., Boar et al. 2025; Di Tella et al. 2025) should incorporate uncertainty distinct from volatility. Models of firm dynamics need either heteroskedastic innovations or sufficient nonlinearity, plus feedback from past growth to uncertainty (learning), and should treat idiosyncratic demand uncertainty as a driver of employment churn and price dispersion even in steady state. Scope conditions: the evidence is German manufacturing, 2013-2019, a calm idiosyncratic-shock-dominated period (so results speak to idiosyncratic, not aggregate, uncertainty); span identifies relative not absolute uncertainty; for idiosyncratic uncertainty to affect actions, firm decisions must depend on it (manager career concerns, closely-held ownership, or ambiguity/Knightian uncertainty defeating diversification). The authors note the decoupling principle extends to policy uncertainty (e.g., tariffs) even when realized paths are not volatile.

What does the ‘uncertainty as a negative demand shifter’ result tell us about the type of shocks managers fear?

Because higher span lowers BOTH planned employment (a quantity) and planned prices in the same direction, the comovement indicates that managers primarily worry about demand shortfalls rather than cost shocks. A firm fearing a demand shortfall scales down production (sheds workers) and lowers prices; a firm fearing input-cost increases would still cut employment but RAISE prices. The observed pattern therefore points to idiosyncratic, subjective demand uncertainty as the relevant primitive, and (with financial frictions or risk/ambiguity-averse decision-makers placing more weight on low-payoff states) explains why uncertainty ‘acts like pessimism’ rather than freezing actions.

What are the key caveats and limitations?

Span is an index of subjective volatility, so levels and the exact span-to-volatility ratio are not point-identified, leaving residual ambiguity on the negative branch where uncertainty and volatility both rise. The sample is non-recessionary German manufacturing, so results characterize idiosyncratic (not aggregate) uncertainty; the authors explicitly note variation is essentially all idiosyncratic. The learning examples abstract from explicit dynamics (the prior is held fixed each period), serving as stark illustrations rather than a fully dynamic structural model; the data are interpreted through a hybrid of R and L. The plan outcomes are qualitative (up/down/same) and ifo does not elicit realized outcomes suitable for the authors’ purposes, so the link to realized employment/prices relies on external evidence that ifo indicators forecast those variables.

Key Concepts