The Comparative Performance of Alternative Out-ofsample Predictability Tests with Non-linear Models
|
|
- Gerald Frank White
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Comparative Performance of Alternative Out-ofsample Predictability Tests with Non-linear Models Yu Liu, University of Texas at El Paso Alex Nikolsko-Rzhevskyy, University of Lehigh Ruxandra Prodan, University of Houston Arguably the most popular way to evaluate forecasting models is by using the mean squared prediction error to construct either the Diebold and Mariano (1995) and West (1996) test, for non-nested models, or the Clark and West (2006) test, for nested models. However, both are designed and well-studied for linear, rather than nonlinear models. In this paper, we investigate the size and power properties of both tests with nonlinear models, TAR, Band-TAR, ESTAR and Markov-Switching, by performing Monte Carlo simulations with a range of data generating processes, sample sizes, forecast horizons, and variance-covariance estimators. We find the Clark and West test with Hodrick variance-covariance estimator to have the best size, while the Newey-West estimator often results in the highest adjusted power. To illustrate our findings, we revisit four influential papers that employ nonlinear models. JEL Classification: F31, F37, C5 Keywords: Econometric models, Evaluating forecasts, Nonlinear time series, Long memory time series, and Forecasting competitions
2 1 Introduction The mean squared prediction error (MSPE) is generally considered the most popular measure used to evaluate the out-of-sample forecasting performance of two models. When the models are non-nested, the test for equal predictability developed by Diebold and Mariano (1995) and West (1996) is widely used, henceforth the DMW test. The DMW test statistic is distributed normally, with the null hypothesis stating that the competing linear models achieve the same MSPE, thus forecasting equally well. When the models are nested, the DMW test statistic is undersized if standard normal critical values are used. In particular, this is the case when the null is a random walk. 1 More recent studies take the above matters into consideration by using a newly developed inference procedure proposed by Clark and West (2006, 2007), henceforth the CW test, specifically designed for testing the null of equal predictive ability of two nested models. The CW statistic, distributed asymptotically normally, explicitly takes into account that in finite samples, the nesting model is estimated less precisely than the nested model and adjusts the statistic for bias. The CW test has been widely used in the past few years, with recent papers by Gourinchas and Rey (2007), Molodtsova and Papell (2009), Molodtsova, Nikolsko-Rzhevskyy, and Papell (2008, 2011), Engel, Mark and West (2007), Rossi and Sekhposyan (2010), Alquist and Killian (2008), and Panopoulou and Pantelidis (2014),among others. In a recent paper, Rogoff and Stavrakeva (2009) examine several popular exchange rate forecasting models described by Gourinchas and Rey (2007), Engel, Mark and West (2007), and Molodtsova and Papell (2009), which outperform the random walk in an out-of-sample exchange rate predictability exercise, when the assessment is based on the CW test. Rogoff and Stavrakeva argue that one of the sources of the overly optimistic results from these papers is the failure to check robustness with respect to alternative out-of-sample test statistics. They conclude that the new asymptotic out-of-sample tests, such as the CW test, are easy to use, but the bootstrapped out-of-sample DMW test remains more powerful and better sized. The above equal predictability tests, whether designed for non-nested or nested models, are aimed toward testing the linear models. However, with few exceptions, there are no equal predictability tests specifically designed for cases where the competing models are nonlinear; therefore, DMW and CW tests remain the most popular choices. 2 To the 1 As opposed to drawing population-level inference, one may be interested in comparing forecasts of the nested models in a finite sample. In this case the DMW test is an appropriate choice. While these questions are not investigated explicitly in this paper, the reader can refer to Giacomini and White (2006) and Clark and McCracken (2009), among others, for additional details. 2 Some studies have tried to design forecast evaluation methods for nonlinear models. Mizrach (1992) applies a multivariate nearest-neighbor nonparametric model to exchange rates and finds it to marginally improve upon RW forecasts. Van Dijk and Franses (2003) argue that extreme observations are more relevant than others in certain cases and propose a forecast evaluation methodology where different weights are given to different forecasts (Weighted and Modified Weighted DMW tests).
3 best of our knowledge, there are no studies that investigate the size and power properties of the DMW and CW tests in application to nonlinear models. This issue is especially important because nonlinear models are becoming more common when modeling persistent economic and financial series. Researchers often use nonlinear models when simpler linear alternatives fail to capture certain types of economic behavior. For instance, nominal exchange rates (times of appreciation and depreciation) or real exchange rates (where transaction costs could give rise to a band of inactivity where arbitrage is not profitable so the real exchange rate deviations from purchasing power parity are not corrected inside the band). This trend has brought with it an increased interest in forecasting nominal/real exchange rates with nonlinear models. Engel (1994) and Nikolsko-Rzhevskyy and Prodan (2012) investigate whether a Markov-Switching random walk with drift model (henceforth MS-RW) is a useful specification for out-of-sample nominal exchange rate forecasting; the latter study finds evidence of both short- and long-run predictability for monthly nominal exchange rates. 3 Rapach and Wohar (2006) analyze the out-of-sample forecasting performance of two nonlinear models, a band-threshold autoregressive (Band-TAR) model and an exponential smooth threshold autoregressive (ESTAR) model, for four real exchange rates. They find that, in several instances, the nonlinear models outperform the simple linear autoregressive models. More recently, using longer spans of data, Pavlidis, Paya and Peel (2012) model and then forecast two real exchange rates. They find that for the U.S./U.K. real exchange rate, ESTAR outperforms both the random walk and linear alternatives. 4 Another strand of papers surveys ways to compute multi-step forecasts from nonlinear models and compares them to linear forecasts. Some of the recent works include Teräsvirta (2006), Teräsvirta, van Dijk and Medeiros (2005), Marcellino (2005), Stock and Watson (1999) and Ramsey (1996). The comparison is typically done by either simply comparing MSPEs from linear and nonlinear models that does not allow making statistical inferences, or by applying equal predictability tests with various variance-covariance estimators developed specifically for linear models. Hence, the existing research does not provide justification for using DMW or CW tests for non-linear models, nor does it give recommendations for choosing the most appropriate test and variance-covariance estimator for a particular class of models. This is the gap in the literature that we attempt to fill with this study. 3 The nonlinear behavior of the nominal exchange rate has been documented by previous research. Engel and Hamilton (1990) argue that a simple two-state Markov-switching random walk model with drift, which allows the constant term and the variance of innovations to take two distinct values during times of appreciation and depreciation, is a good representation for nominal exchange rates. Other papers, such as Lundbergh and Terasvirta (2006), develop models that characterize the dynamic behavior of exchange rates as fluctuating within a target zone. 4 Note that we have traded generality for clarity. In terms of nonlinear model selection, we focus on autoregressive models instead of econometric models. For a detailed discussion of forecasting nominal/real exchange rates with nonlinear econometric models, see Panopoulou and Pantelidis (2014) and Sartore, Trevisan, Trova and Volo(2002), and Jamaleh(2002).
4 Our contributions are the following. First, we compare side by side the DMW and CW tests and provide guidance for choosing the most appropriate statistic in terms of size and power when evaluating forecasts of persistent series from linear and various nonlinear models against a random walk model; in particular, we focus on the AR, Band-TAR, ESTAR and MS-RW models. Second, for multistep forecasting, we investigate the properties of both tests across the two variance-covariance estimators, Newey and West (1987) (henceforth NW) and Hodrick (1992), resulting in four possible test/variance-covariance estimator combinations: DMW-NW, DMW-Hodrick, CW-NW and CW-Hodrick. We use Monte Carlo simulations to compute the empirical size, power, and size adjusted power for various sample sizes and forecast horizons, as well as generate tables of corresponding critical values. Our results show that when using standard normal critical values, for both linear and nonlinear models, the CW-Hodrick test has the most appropriate size for all forecasting horizons, while the DMW tests with either NW or Hodrick adjustments are significantly undersized at short horizons and oversized at long horizons, confirming previous findings for linear models. When using bootstrapped critical values, for the majority of cases, the CW-NW test has the highest power among the alternatives. While DMW- NW has desirable properties for some nonlinear models, its performance is inferior to either CW test for other models. Finally, the adjusted power for all tests decreases when the forecast horizon increases or the number of predictions decreases. In the empirical section we revisit three influential studies that model economic series using non-linear models. These include Obstfeld and Taylor (1997), who apply a Band-TAR(1) model to the U.K., Germany, France and Japan s real exchange rates, Taylor, Peel and Sarno (2001), who model the same real exchange rates as an ESTAR(1) process, and Engel and Hamilton (1990), who estimate the U.K, German and French nominal exchange rates using the MS-RW model. We test whether any of the proposed nonlinear models significantly outperforms the driftless random walk in an out-of-sample forecasting exercise. We find weak to no predictability of exchange rates using Band- TAR(1), ESTAR(1), and MS-RW models. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the models and Section 3 discusses model forecasting and relevant test statistics. Sections 4 and 5 describe Monte Carlo simulation procedures and results, Section 6 presents our empirical examples, and Section 7 concludes. 2 The Models In order to study the out of sample forecasting performance and to perform the size/power simulation exercise, we consider one widely used linear autoregressive model (AR) that serves as a benchmark, and three non-linear models, the band threshold autoregressive model (Band-TAR), the exponential smooth transition autoregressive model (ESTAR) and the Markov-Switching random walk with drift model (MS-RW). The key feature of these non-linear models is that they allow for several regimes and a sufficiently large shock
5 can cause the system to switch between them. The dates at which the series crosses the threshold are not specified beforehand by the researcher, but are estimated endogenously. Each of the four models is tested against the driftless random walk (RW). AR(1): Without a doubt, the most popular statistical linear technique to model and forecast a time series y t is a simple autoregressive model with one lag, AR(1), defined as: y t = α 0 + α 1 y t 1 + ɛ t (1) where ɛ t is a white-noise process with zero mean and variance σ 2. Under the null, α 0 = 0 and α 1 = 1, resulting in a driftless RW. We use AR(1) as a benchmark model for the following non-linear models. Band-TAR(1): The Band-TAR(1) model, first used by Obstfeld and Taylor (1997) and then by Rapach and Wohar (2006) to estimate and forecast real exchange rates, assumes that iceberg transportation costs create a band for the real exchange rate within which the marginal cost of arbitrage exceeds the marginal benefit. The model is characterized by unit root behavior in the inner regime and reversion to the edge of the unit root band in the two outer regimes: y t = y t 1 + α out (y t 1 τ) + ɛ out t y t = y t 1 + ɛ in t y t = y t 1 + α out (y t 1 + τ) + ɛ out t y t 1 > τ τ y t 1 τ τ > y t 1 where ɛ out t and ɛ in t are white-noise series with generally non-equal variances σout 2 and σin, 2 τ and τ are the values of the two thresholds, and α out is the speed at which the real exchange rate moves back to the inner regime. The Band-TAR model permits us to estimate the value of the threshold, τ, without imposing a priori lines of demarcation between the regimes. In order to do so, a grid search over all potential values y t of the thresholds is conducted, which yields a super-consistent estimate of τ. 5 ESTAR(1): In contrast to the discrete regime switching that characterizes the above threshold models, the ESTAR model proposed by Granger and Teräsvirta (1993) allows for smooth transitions, so that the speed of adjustment varies with the extent of the deviation of y t from the mean. Taylor, Peel and Sarno (2001) and Rapach and Wohar (2006) have employed the following ESTAR(1) model to estimate and forecast real exchange rates: [ y t = y t 1 1 e α(y t 1 τ) 2] (y t 1 τ) + ɛ t (3) 5 In this and the following models we follow the conventional practice of excluding the highest and the lowest 15% of the potential values of τ to ensure an adequate number of observations on each side of the threshold. (2a) (2b) (2c)
6 where ɛ t N(0, σ 2 ), α is a negative constant called the smoothness parameter and τ is the long-run equilibrium level of y t. The speed of the mean reversion increases gradually as y t is getting further away from the long run equilibrium, τ. MS-RW: Following Engel and Hamilton s (1990) 2-state MS-RW with drift model, we decompose a non-stationary time series into a sequence of stochastic, segmented time trends. The regime at any given time is presumed to be the outcome of a Markov Chain whose realizations are unobserved. The parameter estimates can then be used to infer which regime the process is in and provide forecasts for the future values of the series. We define the growth rate of y t as dy t = 100(ln y t ln y t 1 ), so that dy t is the percentage change of the series from time t 1 to time t. The model then postulates the existence of an unobserved variable (s t ) that may be equal to one or two. The variable characterizes the state (or regime) that the process is in at time t. When s t = 1, dy t is distributed as N(µ 1, σ1), 2 whereas when s t = 2, dy t is distributed as N(µ 2, σ2). 2 Thus, the model postulates that: dy t = µ st + ɛ st (4) where the unobserved state variable (s t ) is governed by the following transition probabilities: { P r[st = 1 s t 1 = 1] = p 11 (5a) P r[s t = 2 s t 1 = 2] = p 22 (5b) This is a simple version of the more general MS-RW model. Compared to the more general MS-RW model, this parsimonious specification introduces less noise into its forecast by estimating only six parameters for each series. The parameter vector θ = {µ 1, µ 2, σ 1, σ 2, p 11, p 22 } can be estimated by maximum likelihood. The sample likelihood is a function of the observed values of the changes in y t. The states are unobserved and the inferences about their probabilities are based on the observed data. The maximum likelihood estimation is performed using the algorithm described by Hamilton (1989). 3 Forecasting and Inference 3.1 The multistep forecast construction methodology Let y t be the time series of interest and suppose that we want to forecast subsequent values of the series, y t+1, y t+2,..., y t+h conditional on the current and past observations, y t p, y t p+1,..., y t, where we allow the forecast horizon, h, to run from 1 to 36. For the AR(1) model, it is straightforward to obtain the h-step ahead forecasts recursively because its functional form is linear. On the other hand, forecasting with Band-TAR, ESTAR and MS-RW models is a nontrivial task. As discussed in Koop,
7 Pesaran and Potter (1996), for Band-TAR and ESTAR models, the iterated projections from a nonlinear model are state-dependent. Therefore, in order to construct multiperiod forecasts, we use the method described in Enders (2004). Specifically, using the Band-TAR(1) model as an example, we select 36 random realizations of the residuals from Equation 2 such that the residuals are drawn with replacement. We call these residuals ɛ t+1, ɛ t+2,..., ɛ t+36. We then generate yt+1 through yt+36 by substituting these bootstrapped residuals back into Equation 2. For this particular history, we repeat the process 1,000 times. The sample means of each yt+h,i should converge to the true conditional h-step ahead forecasts, y t+h, under the Law of Large Numbers. To construct an h-step-ahead forecast from the MS-RW model, we first fit the model inside the moving window using data up to time t. Then after we define vectors S t = (P r[s t = 1]; P r[s t = 2]) and M = (µ 1 ; µ 2 ), we calculate the growth rate forecast as y MS,t+h = 100(ln y MS,t+h ( ) i ln y t ) = Σ h i=1(s t ) p11 1 p 11 (M). 1 p 22 p The forecasts evaluation tests To test the forecasting performance of the above models against the driftless random walk no-change forecast, Ey t+h = y t, we use the DMW and CW tests of equal forecasting accuracy. To account for overlapping data, we employ the variance-covariance estimator of either Newey-West or Hodrick. In particular, if we define an h-step forecast from model M as y M,t+h and a RW forecast as y RW,t+h = y t, then the sample forecast errors under H 0 and H 1 would be ê RW,t+h = y t+h y t and ê M,t+h = y t+h y M,t+h. If ˆf t = ê 2 RW,t+h ê2 M,t+h, then its mean value f = MSP E RW MSP E M (6) and variance The DMW statistic is defined as V = 1 P T t=t P +h ( ˆf f) 2 (7) DMW = f P 1 V (8) The CW test adjusts the DMW statistic for the non-zero expected difference between the two MSPEs, which, for the case of linear models, is known to result in asymptotically normal distribution of the statistic. If we define ˆf t = ê 2 RW,t+h ( ê 2 M,t+h M,t+h) y2 ADJ,
8 its mean and variance as ( f ADJ = MSP E RW MSP E M 1 P V ADJ = 1 P T t=t P +h T t=t P +h y 2 M,t+h ) ( ˆf ADJ f ADJ ) 2 (9) (10) then CW = f ADJ P 1 V ADJ (11) 4 Size and Power Simulations We use Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the finite-sample size, power and size-adjusted power of the predictability tests discussed above. In order to do that, we calculate one and multi-step forecasts for the four models described in Section 2, the corresponding forecasts under the non-predictability null, and then compute the DMW and CW statistics. While performing multi-step forecasting, we control for the serial correlation present in the errors due to the overlapping data using either the NW or Hodrick variance-covariance estimators. We therefore analyze four statistics: DMW-NW, DMW-Hodrick, CW-NW and CW-Hodrick. In order to evaluate the empirical size and power, we first compare DMW-NW, DMW-Hodrick, CW-NW or CW-Hodrick test statistic against the standard normal critical values. Clark and West (2006) and McCracken (2007) show that the CW test results in asymptotically normally distributed statistic for a class of linear models, while the DMW test is severely undersized. To calculate the size-adjusted power, we bootstrap the critical values for the four tests mentioned above. Rogoff and Stavrakeva (2009) argue that the bootstrapped DMW test might have a higher power than the CW test. We perform a non-parametric bootstrap that is based on re-sampling the residuals with replacement, and then generating the new series. We then re-fit the model and record the statistics of interest. We repeat these steps 1,000 times. The critical values are taken from the sorted series in an ascending order, with the 900th entry being the 10% critical value, the 950th entry being the 5% critical value, and the 990th entry being the 1% critical value. 4.1 The linear and non-linear DGPs We generate data based on several popular studies that have previously employed nonlinear models. In order to do so, we have reconstructed their original data, and use that data to fit the models both under the null and alternative. As a result, the data generating processes (DGP) employed in this paper provide representative results for the size, power
9 and size adjusted power of nonlinear alternatives versus the no predictability null for a range of empirical nominal/real exchange rate applications. AR(1): The linear DGP is the AR(1) process defined by Equation 1. The forecast under the null is a no change RW forecast of y RW,t+h = y t for all h, while the forecast under the alternative y AR,t+h is iteratively obtained from the AR(1) regression. Hence, when evaluating the size, α 0 = 0, the level of persistence α 1 = 1.00, and ɛ t N(0, ), which corresponds to a driftless RW. When evaluating the power, α 0 = 0, the persistence α 1 = 0.95, and ɛ t N(0, ). 6 Band-TAR(1): The Band-TAR(1) process is generated in the form of Equation 2. Our data generating process is based on the coefficients estimated by Obstfeld and Taylor (1997) using monthly real exchange rates for the U.K., Germany, France and Japan from 1980:02 to 1994:11. For simplicity, the average of the coefficients estimated from all countries is computed. When evaluating the size, the null is a driftless random walk, with ɛ t N(0, ). When evaluating the power, we set αt out = 0.060, τ = and ɛ out t N(0, ) for the two outer regimes, and ɛ in t N(0, ) for the inner regime. ESTAR(1): The ESTAR(1) process is generated according to Equation 3. Our data generating process is based on Taylor, Peel and Sarno (2001) using monthly real exchange rates for the U.K., Germany, France and Japan from 1973:02 to 1996:12. Similarly to Band-TAR(1), for ESTAR(1) we also average the coefficients estimated from all the four countries. When evaluating the size, the null is a driftless random walk with ɛ t N(0, ). When evaluating the power we set α = 0.292, τ = and ɛ t N(0, ). MS-RW: The MS-RW process is generated according to Equations 4 and 5. Our data generating process is based on the coefficients estimated by Engel and Hamilton (1990) using the British pound/u.s. dollar monthly nominal exchange rate from 1973:12 to 1988:03. 7 When evaluating the size, the null is a driftless RW, with ɛ t N(0, ). When evaluating the power, we make the following parametrization: for s t = 1, the observed change in the exchange rate dy t is distributed as N( 0.020, ), for s t = 2, dy t is distributed as N(0.013, ). The dynamics of the unobserved state variable s t is governed by the following transition probabilities: p 11 = and p 22 = The forecasting exercise design To study the forecasting performance of the above models, we closely follow the setup of Clark and West (2006). In particular, we consider rolling, as opposed to recursive, 6 The standard deviation is chosen to be in order to be similar in magnitude to the standard deviations for the nonlinear models below. 7 In the original paper, the authors use quarterly, rather monthly, data.
10 window regressions to obtain multi-step-ahead forecasts of the series of interest y t from every estimated model. We fix the window size, R, at 120 periods, while the number of predictions, P, is allowed to take on the values of 48, 96, 144 and 240. We therefore generate a total of R + P observations. Using the window of R data points, multi-step ahead predictions for horizon h are formed for observations R + h through R + P, where h = 1 to 36 periods. The total number of predictions is thus P h Simulation Results The size, power and size adjusted power results are reported in Tables 1, 2 and 3, correspondingly. Even though we only discuss the empirical results for the 10% nominal size, other results are qualitatively similar. 5.1 Size simulations The size results for the linear and nonlinear models are presented in Tables The tables show the proportion of rejections using the 10% one-sided standard normal critical value. For example, in Table 1.1, Panel A, when h = 1, the empirical size for the DMW- NW statistics is 4.8%, implying that 48 out of 1,000 simulations generate statistics larger than The size results for the linear AR model are presented in Table 1.1. They show that for all values of P and h, the CW-Hodrick test has the best size when using the standard normal critical values. For example, when P = 144, the CW-Hodrick test is correctly sized at most horizons, while being only slightly oversized at long horizons with the average empirical size of 12%. On the other hand, for the same P, the CW-NW statistic is oversized at all horizons (ranging from 15.1% at the 3-step to 28.7% at the 36-step horizon) except for the 1-step horizon when it is slightly undersized (9.6%). As expected and documented in the previous literature, when the models are nested, both DMW-NW and DMW-Hodrick tests are strongly undersized at most horizons, especially for large P. In general, the empirical size of both DMW tests is inconsistent and varies with the parameters it decreases with P and increases with h, ranging from 0.1% for P = 240 and h = 1 up to 32% for P = 48 and h = 36. Size results for the nonlinear models are presented in Tables Our findings are in accord with the linear case. The CW-Hodrick statistic is correctly sized at most horizons (while being slightly oversized at long horizons). When P = 144, the CW- Hodrick statistic has an average empirical size of 13.0% for Band-TAR, 11.1% for ESTAR and 8% for the MS-RW model. The CW-NW test does not perform as well as the CW-Hodrick test while it is correctly sized for h = 1, its performance quickly deteriorates as the forecast horizon h
11 increases. When P = 144, the CW-NW statistic has an average empirical size of 19.5% for Band-TAR, 20.6% for ESTAR and 13.1% for the MS-RW model. Performance of the DMW tests is generally inferior to that of both CW tests and produces inconsistent results depending on P and h. For example, when P = 48 and h = 24, the empirical size for Band-TAR(1) is 27.8% and 23.3%, for the DMW-NW and DMW-Hodrick tests, respectively. When P = 240 and h = 1, the size is 0% for both tests. This pattern is similar for other nonlinear models as well. In summary, CW-Hodrick provides the best empirical size compared to the other three tests when the standard normal critical values are used. Additionally, for all models and test statistics, the oversizing issue aggravates as the forecast horizon increases and the number of predictions decreases. 5.2 Power simulations We study the finite-sample power of the above tests using both standard normal critical values (unadjusted power) and bootstrapped critical values (adjusted power) at the nominal size of 10%. The unadjusted power results are presented in Tables 2.1 through 2.4, while the adjusted power results are presented in Tables 3.1 through The unadjusted power For the linear model, the unadjusted power results are presented in Table 2.1. We can see that the CW-NW has higher power than the alternatives that increases with the forecast horizon, while the performance of all the tests generally varies with P and h. Band-TAR(1) and ESTAR(1) results are presented in Tables Similarly to the AR(1) case, CW-NW clearly dominates other tests for most values of P and h. Performance of the CW-Hodrick test, on the other hand, is unremarkable. Both versions of the DMW test have lower power, reaching as low as 0.4% for h = 1 and P = 240 for DMW-Hodrick for the Band-TAR(1) model. 8 The MS-RW results (Tables 2.4) are somewhat different from the previous models. CW-Hodrick appears superior to CW-NW for all values of P and h. Both versions of the DMW test have low power, except at very short horizon. The power of all tests seem to deteriorate as the forecast horizon increases. To sum up, despite the fact that the CW-NW test appears to have the highest power for all autoregressive models, one needs to keep in mind that size simulations show that the test is severely oversized when used with the standard normal critical values, especially for high h. Hence, for that case, the CW-Hodrick test might be more appropriate. 8 The DGPs for the Band-TAR and ESTAR models, based on the coefficients estimated by Obstfeld and Taylor (1997) and Taylor, Peel and Sarno (2001), using monthly real exchange rates, are highly persistent and it is usually not easy to distinguish them from a random walk process.
12 5.2.2 The adjusted power For the adjusted power, we use bootstrapped critical values from 1,000 iterations and fix the size at 10% for all the tests. The results are presented in Tables 3.1 through 3.4. Two trends are obvious for the adjusted power of the tests: The size-adjusted power gradually increases with the number of predictions P and is generally lower for high h comparing to low and midrange h. However, there are some differences among the tests depending on the underlying DGP. For the linear model (Table 3.1), the tests using the NW adjustment have a higher adjusted power than the tests using the Hodrick adjustment, for both CW and DMW tests for all values of P and all forecast horizons h, with the exception of very small h, where both tests estimators similarly. 9 In the case of Band-TAR(1) and ESTAR(1), Tables , the performance of the tests using the NW and Hodrick estimators is similar. For the MS-RW model, Table 3.4, the CW tests have a higher power than the DMW tests, with the power of CW-Hodrick being slightly higher than that of CW-NW. Overall, when bootstrapping critical values, we argue that CW-NW test generally has the highest size-adjusted power for all autoregressive models. For the MS-RW model, CW-Hodrick is preferable to other options. 5.3 Summary of simulation results Table 4 provides a summary of bootstrapped 10% critical values based on the simulation results. We find that for nonlinear models, the DMW tests with either NW or Hodrick adjustments are undersized at short horizon and oversized at long horizon, confirming previous findings for linear models. CW-Hodrick appears to be properly sized most of the time, while CW-NW is often oversized. In terms of size-adjusted power, when one bootstraps critical values, for the majority of cases, the CW-NW test has the highest power among the alternatives. For short-horizon forecasting, both CW tests perform similarly well. 6 Empirical Results In this section we revisit three influential studies that model economic series using nonlinear models. These include Obstfeld and Taylor (1997), who estimate a Band-TAR(1) model in application to the U.K., Germany, France and Japan s real exchange rates, Taylor, Peel and Sarno (2001), who model the same real exchange rates as an ESTAR(1) process, and Engel and Hamilton (1990), who estimate the U.K, German and French 9 For instance, the CW-NW test systematically has a higher power than the CW-Hodrick test, the largest difference between the two tests can be observed at longer horizons (38.8% versus 21% for P = 144 at the 36-step horizon).
13 nominal exchange rates using the MS-RW model. 10 Our goal is to test whether any of the proposed models is able to significantly outperform the driftless random walk in an out-of-sample forecasting exercise. The empirical test results using bootstrapped and standard normal critical values are presented in Tables ; the bootstrapped 10% critical values are shown in Tables When modeling real exchange rates for the U.K., Germany, France and Japan using either Band-TAR(1) or ESTAR(1) models, we find weak evidence that these models outperform the RW model for all four countries. In particular, Band-TAR(1) appears to work well for France at short, and U.K., Germany, and Japan at medium to long horizons, while ESTAR(1) works well only for the U.K. at short and Japan at long horizons. Neither model, however, is able to outperform the RW for Japan and Germany for h = 1. These results are consistent with Rapach and Wohar (2006) who also find limited evidence of predictability. There are minor differences between tests results using bootstrapped and standard normal critical values. Both tests using the NW adjustment are oversized at long horizons, while both DMW tests, regardless of the adjustment, are undersized at short horizons. These observations are consistent with our Monte-Carlo experiments. When modeling the U.K., German, and French nominal exchange rates measured against the U.S. dollar using the MS-RW model, we find almost no evidence that these models outperform the RW model. The only exception is the case of Germany where the model works well at very short horizons when using CW-NW or CW-Hodrick tests. This result is consistent with Engel and Hamilton (1990) who found the MSPE of the RW to be smaller than that of the MS-RW model. However, had they used the CW test, their finding could have been reversed. We do not find significant differences between the results with standard normal and bootstrapped critical values. 7 Conclusions We discuss the current state-of-the-art in multi-step non-linear forecasting, evaluate the properties of popular tests of equal predictability, and provide practical guidance to forecasters. Specifically, we analyze the DMW and CW tests, using standard normal and bootstrapped critical values, and two variance-covariance estimators (Newey-West and Hodrick) when the null hypothesis is a driftless random walk. Our alternatives are Band- TAR, ESTAR and the MS-RW models. We use Monte Carlo simulations to compute the empirical size, power, and size adjusted power for a number of DGPs, sample sizes, and forecast horizons. We provide several recommendations for forecasters. First, when using standard normal critical values, the recommended test is CW-Hodrick, which generally has the best size among all the tests considered. The drawback that it is somewhat oversized for 10 The span of the data used in each study is specified in Tables
14 small P and large h. Second, when bootstrapping critical values, we recommend using the CW-NW test that has the highest adjusted power for most non-linear models except MS- RW, when CW-Hodrick should be used instead. The downside is that bootstrapping can be burdensome, computationally intensive and time consuming, especially for non-linear forecasting above one step ahead. Considering that our Monte Carlo simulations and empirical tests main focus on nominal and real exchange rates, the above recommendations may be especially valuable for exchange rate forecasters.
15 References [1] Clark, T. E. and McCracken, M. W. (2014). Nested Forecast Model Comparisons: a New Approach to Testing Equal Accuracy, Journal of Econometrics, Forthcoming. [2] Clark, T. E. and West, K. D. (2006). Using Out-of-Sample Mean Squared Prediction Errors to Test the Martingale Difference Hypothesis, Journal of Econometrics, 135(1-2), [3] Clark, T. E. and West, K. D. (2007). Approximately Normal Tests for Equal Predictive Accuracy in Nested Models, Journal of Econometrics, 138, [4] Clements, M.P., Franses, P.H., and Swanson, N.R. (2004). Forecasting Economic and Fincnail Time-series with Nonlinear Models, International Journal of Forecasting, 20(2), [5] Diebold, F. and Mariano, R. (1995). Comparing Predictive Accuracy, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13(3), [6] Enders, W. (2004). Applied Econometric Time Series. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. [7] Engel, C. (1994). Can the Markov Switching Model Forecast Exchange Rates? Journal of International Economics, 36(1-2), [8] Engel, C. and Hamilton, J.D. (1990). Long Swings in the Dollar: Are They in the Data and Do Markets Know It? American Economic Review, 80(4), [9] Engel, C., Mark, N. and West, K. (2007). International Financial Adjustment, Journal of Political Economy, 115(4), [10] Giacomini, R., and White, H. (2006). Tests of Conditional Predictive Ability., Econometrica, 74(6), [11] Gourinchas, P.-O. and Rey, H. (2007) International Financial Adjustment, Journal of Political Economy, 115(4), [12] Granger, C.W. J. and Teräsvirta. (1993). Modelling Nonlinear Economic Relationships, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [13] Hamilton, J.D. (1989). A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of Nonstationary Time Series and the Business Cycle, Econometrica, 57(2), [14] Hodrick, R. (1992). Dividend Yields and Expected Stock Returns: Alternative Procedures for Inference and Measurement, Review of Financial Studies, 5(3), [15] Jamaleh, A. (2002). Explaining and forecasting the euro/dollar exchange rate through a non-linear threshold model, The European Journal of Finance, 8(4), [16] Koop, G., Pesaran, M.H. and Potter, S. (1996). Impulse Response Analysis of Nonlinear Multivariate Models, Journal of Econometrics, 74, [17] Lundbergh, Stefan and Teräsvirta. (2006) A Time Series Model for an Exchange Rate in a Target Zone with Applications, Journal of Econometrics, 2006, 131(1-2), [18] Marcellino, M. (2005). Instability and Non-Linearity in the EMU, In; Costas Milas, Philip Rothman and Dick van Dijk (eds.), Nonlinear Time Series Analysis of Business
16 Cycles, Elsevier. [19] McCracken, M. W. (2007). Asymptotics for Out of Sample Tests of Granger Causality, Journal of Econometrics, 140(2), [20] Mizrach, B. (1992). Multivariate Nearest-Neighbor Forecasts of EMS Exchange Rates, Journal of Applied Econometrics, vol. 7(S), [21] Molodtsova, T., Nikolsko-Rzhevksyy, A. and Papell, D. (2008). Taylor Rules and Real-Time Data: A Tale of Two Countries and One Exchange Rate, Journal of Monetary Economics, 55(S1), S63-S79. [22] Molodtsova, T., Nikolsko-Rzhevksyy, A. and Papell, D. (2011). Taylor Rules and the Euro, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 43(2-3), [23] Molodtsova, T. and Papell D. (2009). Out-of-Sample Exchange Rate Predictability with Taylor Rule Fundamentals, Journal of International Economics, 77(2), [24] Newey, W.K. and West, K.D. (1987). A Simple, Positive Semi-definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix, Econometrica, 55(3), [25] Nikolsko-Rzhevskyy, A. and Prodan, R. (2012). New Evidence of Exchange Rates Predictability Using the Long Swings Model, International Journal of Forecasting, 28(2), [26] Obstfeld, M. and Taylor, A.M. (1997). Nonlinear Aspects of Goods-Market Arbitrage and Adjustment: Heckschers Commodity Points Revisited, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 11, [27] Panopoulou, E. and Pantelidis, T. (2014). Regime-switching models for exchange rates, The European Journal of Finance, Forthcoming. [28] Pavlidis, E. G., Paya, I. and Peel, D. A. (2012) Forecast Evaluation of Nonlinear Models: The Case of Long-Span Real Exchange Rates, Journal of Forecasting, pp [29] Ramsey, J. B. (1996). If Nonlinear Models Cannot Forecast, What Use Are They? Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Forecasting, 1, [30] Rapach, D. E. and Wohar, M.E. (2006). The Out-of-Sample Forecasting Performance of Nonlinear Models of Real Exchange Rate Behavior, International Journal of Forecasting, 22(2), [31] Rogoff, K. S. and Stavrakeva, V. (2009). The Continuing Puzzle of Short Horizon Exchange Rate Forecasting, NBER Working Papers 14071, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [32] Rossi, B. and Sekhposyan, T. (2010). Has Economic Models Forecasting Performance for US Output Growth and Inflation Changed Over Time, and When? International Journal of Forecasting, 26(4), [33] Rothman, P. (1998). Forecasting Asymmetric Unemployment Rates, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, [34] SartoreD., Trevisan,L. Trova, M., and Volo, F. (2002). US dollar/euro exchange rate: a monthly econometric model for forecasting, The European Journal of Finance, 8(4), ,
17 [35] Stock, J. H. and Watson, M. W. (1999). A Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Univariate Models for Forecasting Macroeconomic Time Series, in R. F. Engle and H. White (eds), Cointegration, Causality and Forecasting. A Festschrift in Honour of Clive W.J. Granger, Oxford University Press, Oxford, [36] Taylor, M.P., Peel,D.A. and Sarno, L. (2001). Nonlinear Mean Reversion in Real Exchange Rates: Toward a Solution to the Purchasing Power Parity Puzzles, International Economic Review 42, [37] Tiao, G. C., and Tsay, R. S. (1994). Some Advances in Non-Linear and Adaptive Modelling in Time-Series, Journal of Forecasting, 13, [38] Tsay, R. S. (2002). Nonlinear Models and Forecasting, In; Clements, M. P., Hendry, D.F. (Eds.), A Companion to Economic Forecasting, Blackwell, Oxford, [39] Teräsvirta, T. (2006). Forecasting Economic Variables with Nonlinear Models, Handbook of Economic Forecasting, Elsevier. [40] Teräsvirta, T., van Dijk, D., and Medeiros, M. (2005). Linear Models, Smooth Transition Autoregressions, and Neural Networks for Forecasting Macroeconomic Time Series: A Re-examination, International Journal of Forecasting, 21(4), [41] van Dijk, Dick and Franses, P. H. (2003). Selecting a Nonlinear Time Series Model using Weighted Tests of Equal Forecast Accuracy, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 65(s1), [42] West, K. D. (1996) Asymptotic Inference about Predictive Ability, Econometrica, 64,
18 1 Empirical Size Simulation Results Table 1.1 AR(1) Empirical Size: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P=48 DMW-NW 4.8% 9.4% 13.5% 18.4% 27.4% 32.0% DMW-Hodrick 4.7% 5.2% 5.4% 6.3% 21.1% NA CW-NW 12.5% 18.8% 25.2% 30.9% 39.5% 42.0% CW-Hodrick 12.5% 12.3% 12.4% 12.3% 29.4% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 2.0% 3.8% 6.4% 11.5% 17.0% 19.8% DMW-Hodrick 1.9% 2.0% 2.6% 4.1% 5.1% 7.3% CW-NW 10.2% 16.3% 20.6% 26.5% 31.5% 35.1% CW-Hodrick 10.2% 9.8% 11.0% 12.1% 13.3% 15.3% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 1.1% 2.2% 3.6% 7.4% 12.9% 14.1% DMW-Hodrick 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 2.8% 3.5% 3.7% CW-NW 9.6% 15.1% 16.8% 21.6% 27.6% 28.7% CW-Hodrick 9.6% 10.7% 11.0% 12.1% 12.6% 14.4% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 0.1% 0.6% 1.6% 3.6% 6.9% 8.6% DMW-Hodrick 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% 1.7% 2.5% 2.9% CW-NW 7.7% 12.6% 13.4% 17.8% 21.4% 25.2% CW-Hodrick 7.7% 8.1% 8.8% 11.1% 12.5% 13.2% Notes: a) R represents the size of the rolling window while P represents the number of out-of-sample predictions. b) DMW refers to the unadjusted t-test for equal MSPE developed by Diebold and Mariano (1995) and West (1996); CW refers to the adjusted t-test for equal MSPE developed by Clark and West (2006). c) NW refers to the variance-covariance estimator proposed by Newey and West (1987) while Hodrick refers to the variance-covariance estimator proposed by Hodrick (1992). d) Hodrick variance-covariance estimator requires P >2h so that DMW-Hodrick and CW-Hodrick statistics are not available for P =48 and h =36. e) The number of simulation is 1,000. The table shows the proportion of rejections using the one-sided standard normal critical values. For example, in panel A, h =1, for DMW-NW, the number 4.8% implies that 48 out of 1,000 simulations generate statistics larger than 1.28.
19 Table 1.2 TAR(2) Empirical Size: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 1.1% 3.9% 8.7% 17.3% 23.4% 28.2% DMW-Hodrick 0.8% 1.7% 3.3% 7.2% 22.4% NA CW-NW 9.1% 16.7% 22.5% 28.5% 32.1% 35.8% CW-Hodrick 9.1% 11.2% 11.3% 13.6% 32.3% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 0.1% 0.9% 4.1% 9.0% 14.3% 14.1% DMW-Hodrick 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 3.5% 4.9% 5.7% CW-NW 8.4% 12.3% 16.2% 21.1% 25.5% 26.2% CW-Hodrick 8.4% 9.3% 10.1% 9.4% 11.8% 13.3% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 0.1% 0.5% 1.9% 4.9% 9.3% 8.9% DMW-Hodrick 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 1.4% 2.6% 3.9% CW-NW 8.4% 11.2% 14.2% 17.3% 22.2% 24.5% CW-Hodrick 8.4% 8.7% 9.5% 9.8% 10.3% 11.5% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4% DMW-Hodrick 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.2% 1.8% 1.0% CW-NW 7.5% 10.8% 11.6% 13.8% 16.5% 19.9% CW-Hodrick 7.5% 9.5% 9.7% 9.0% 9.6% 9.3%
20 Table 1.3 Band-TAR(1) Empirical Size: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 3.2% 9.1% 14.9% 21.4% 27.8% 34.6% DMW-Hodrick 2.7% 5.2% 6.5% 8.9% 23.3% NA CW-NW 11.3% 17.6% 23.0% 28.6% 32.3% 37.7% CW-Hodrick 11.3% 11.1% 12.7% 13.3% 28.3% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 1.5% 4.6% 9.1% 14.5% 20.1% 22.5% DMW-Hodrick 1.2% 3.0% 3.8% 6.7% 10.0% 11.2% CW-NW 11.2% 15.1% 18.9% 25.0% 26.8% 28.0% CW-Hodrick 11.2% 10.5% 11.9% 12.8% 14.4% 15.5% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 0.8% 3.7% 6.9% 11.6% 18.0% 18.4% DMW-Hodrick 0.6% 1.8% 2.9% 5.7% 8.0% 8.5% CW-NW 10.3% 15.0% 18.3% 20.5% 26.3% 26.3% CW-Hodrick 10.3% 12.0% 12.9% 14.1% 14.0% 14.4% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 0.1% 1.1% 3.6% 7.5% 10.9% 12.4% DMW-Hodrick 0.0% 0.6% 1.8% 3.9% 5.0% 4.8% CW-NW 9.4% 14.5% 15.4% 18.0% 20.4% 21.9% CW-Hodrick 9.4% 10.6% 11.4% 11.8% 12.4% 11.9%
21 Table 1.4 ESTAR(1) Empirical Size: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 6.1% 13.6% 19.1% 26.4% 37.0% 40.1% DMW-Hodrick 5.3% 8.4% 9.2% 9.7% 29.5% NA CW-NW 14.1% 21.5% 26.6% 32.7% 41.4% 44.6% CW-Hodrick 14.1% 15.2% 14.9% 13.9% 33.7% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 2.8% 6.0% 10.6% 19.0% 25.3% 28.2% DMW-Hodrick 2.5% 4.2% 5.6% 8.2% 9.7% 10.7% CW-NW 11.9% 16.0% 20.7% 26.9% 31.6% 32.8% CW-Hodrick 11.9% 10.7% 11.9% 14.3% 14.1% 15.4% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 1.1% 4.0% 7.3% 13.1% 20.2% 22.5% DMW-Hodrick 0.7% 2.6% 3.3% 5.8% 7.6% 7.9% CW-NW 9.5% 14.8% 17.8% 22.3% 29.4% 29.8% CW-Hodrick 9.5% 10.2% 11.3% 11.4% 12.1% 12.3% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 0.3% 1.9% 3.3% 8.0% 13.5% 16.3% DMW-Hodrick 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 3.7% 6.0% 6.6% CW-NW 9.0% 11.4% 14.1% 17.9% 22.5% 24.8% CW-Hodrick 9.0% 8.6% 9.3% 10.2% 11.8% 11.9%
22 Table 1.5 MS-RW Empirical Size: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 2.5% 2.5% 4.6% 7.9% 13.8% 17.6% DMW-Hodrick 2.1% 1.6% 2.2% 2.9% 11.6% NA CW-NW 8.9% 12.7% 16.0% 22.6% 29.1% 32.6% CW-Hodrick 8.9% 9.6% 9.5% 10.4% 25.8% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 1.0% 1.4% 1.7% 3.1% 5.7% 7.1% DMW-Hodrick 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6% CW-NW 8.5% 9.1% 9.7% 13.1% 17.8% 21.8% CW-Hodrick 8.5% 7.1% 7.6% 7.0% 7.0% 8.2% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.9% 2.9% 4.4% DMW-Hodrick 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 1.3% 1.7% CW-NW 9.0% 10.2% 10.2% 12.7% 17.0% 19.5% CW-Hodrick 9.0% 7.7% 7.3% 7.8% 8.1% 8.2% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 1.3% DMW-Hodrick 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% CW-NW 10.3% 9.8% 9.5% 9.8% 12.4% 15.5% CW-Hodrick 10.3% 8.5% 7.9% 6.7% 6.7% 5.9%
23 2 Unadjusted Power Simulation Results Table 2.1 AR(1) Unadjusted Power: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 14.8% 24.3% 31.4% 38.9% 47.3% 50.5% DMW-Hodrick 14.1% 14.0% 13.2% 12.6% 34.6% NA CW-NW 35.5% 47.4% 55.0% 60.2% 65.3% 65.3% CW-Hodrick 35.5% 32.2% 29.1% 27.2% 48.8% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 9.2% 19.0% 25.0% 37.9% 46.0% 47.3% DMW-Hodrick 8.9% 9.0% 10.7% 11.9% 10.1% 11.6% CW-NW 42.9% 54.8% 60.7% 68.4% 71.9% 69.6% CW-Hodrick 42.9% 42.1% 39.9% 36.8% 26.8% 25.2% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 6.5% 15.1% 22.2% 35.8% 49.0% 48.4% DMW-Hodrick 5.9% 7.8% 8.6% 10.8% 11.0% 9.3% CW-NW 52.0% 63.0% 69.4% 74.6% 79.4% 76.3% CW-Hodrick 52.0% 49.8% 51.3% 45.1% 38.1% 30.7% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 5.0% 13.1% 21.7% 38.0% 50.3% 52.1% DMW-Hodrick 4.5% 7.9% 10.1% 13.7% 14.0% 10.5% CW-NW 67.7% 76.2% 79.7% 84.0% 85.5% 83.7% CW-Hodrick 67.7% 67.1% 66.9% 64.2% 53.4% 40.2% Note: See Notes to Table 1.1.
24 Table 2.2 TAR(2) Unadjusted Power: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 65.1% 88.3% 93.9% 91.9% 81.6% 67.6% DMW-Hodrick 48.1% 45.5% 19.8% 7.1% 37.7% NA CW-NW 99.6% 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% 97.8% 92.7% CW-Hodrick 99.6% 97.0% 81.7% 41.4% 59.1% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 87.6% 96.9% 98.7% 98.2% 96.3% 92.3% DMW-Hodrick 74.0% 73.3% 47.4% 9.5% 3.2% 6.2% CW-NW 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 99.5% 99.4% 97.4% CW-Hodrick 99.9% 100.0% 99.7% 79.6% 36.8% 30.1% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 94.3% 99.1% 99.3% 98.9% 97.2% 92.5% DMW-Hodrick 89.8% 89.2% 75.5% 18.7% 1.9% 2.3% CW-NW 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 99.7% 99.2% 97.0% CW-Hodrick 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 97.1% 55.6% 31.9% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 99.2% 99.6% 99.1% 98.4% 96.1% 89.2% DMW-Hodrick 98.3% 98.3% 95.0% 52.7% 7.1% 1.4% CW-NW 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.7% 99.2% 96.5% CW-Hodrick 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.6% 90.5% 58.8%
25 Table 2.3 Band-TAR(1) Unadjusted Power: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 4.7% 11.3% 19.7% 25.4% 35.5% 35.8% DMW-Hodrick 4.0% 5.5% 8.7% 10.4% 31.4% NA CW-NW 13.9% 23.2% 27.7% 34.3% 42.0% 41.0% CW-Hodrick 13.9% 15.7% 16.2% 16.7% 36.5% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 2.1% 7.0% 14.5% 24.0% 27.6% 28.5% DMW-Hodrick 1.7% 3.6% 6.7% 10.3% 12.2% 12.4% CW-NW 16.0% 22.6% 27.6% 33.7% 37.3% 38.2% CW-Hodrick 16.0% 16.8% 18.3% 20.9% 19.1% 18.9% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 1.6% 6.4% 11.9% 20.5% 27.6% 27.2% DMW-Hodrick 1.2% 3.2% 6.2% 10.3% 10.6% 10.4% CW-NW 16.8% 25.3% 29.3% 34.0% 37.4% 35.7% CW-Hodrick 16.8% 19.0% 22.7% 21.7% 19.8% 16.9% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 0.5% 3.4% 9.2% 17.9% 22.0% 22.7% DMW-Hodrick 0.4% 2.0% 5.3% 9.9% 11.6% 8.7% CW-NW 19.2% 27.0% 29.6% 33.4% 34.0% 33.5% CW-Hodrick 19.2% 20.6% 21.1% 24.0% 20.6% 16.8%
26 Table 2.4 ESTAR(1) Unadjusted Power: Nominal Size=10% Panel A: R=120, P= DMW-NW 7.0% 19.4% 29.1% 37.5% 46.2% 46.4% DMW-Hodrick 6.0% 12.1% 12.5% 13.1% 33.7% NA CW-NW 20.5% 32.1% 40.6% 45.9% 51.9% 53.8% CW-Hodrick 20.5% 21.0% 20.8% 19.6% 39.9% NA Panel B: R=120, P=96 DMW-NW 4.4% 12.6% 21.4% 31.4% 39.4% 40.4% DMW-Hodrick 4.0% 6.5% 9.8% 12.8% 15.1% 15.3% CW-NW 21.6% 29.4% 36.3% 44.6% 49.9% 50.5% CW-Hodrick 21.6% 21.6% 21.4% 22.7% 22.8% 22.0% Panel C: R=120, P=144 DMW-NW 2.3% 9.1% 16.5% 27.0% 36.8% 39.1% DMW-Hodrick 1.8% 4.6% 8.1% 11.6% 11.7% 11.7% CW-NW 20.2% 27.7% 34.6% 40.6% 48.0% 48.5% CW-Hodrick 20.2% 19.7% 22.5% 24.5% 22.0% 20.7% Panel D: R=120, P=240 DMW-NW 0.6% 6.2% 10.7% 22.0% 32.0% 37.2% DMW-Hodrick 0.5% 2.8% 5.7% 9.8% 13.9% 13.1% CW-NW 23.8% 31.7% 36.6% 42.3% 48.4% 52.3% CW-Hodrick 23.8% 24.9% 26.1% 26.5% 26.4% 23.7%
The Comparative Performance of Alternative Out-ofsample Predictability Tests with Non-linear Models
The Comparative Performance of Alternative Out-ofsample Predictability Tests with Non-linear Models Yu Liu, University of Texas at El Paso Ruxandra Prodan, University of Houston Alex Nikolsko-Rzhevskyy,
More informationForecasting the Real Exchange Rates Behavior: An Investigation of Nonlinear Competing Models. Yu Liu and Ruxandra Prodan.
Forecasting the Real Exchange Rates Behavior: An Investigation of Nonlinear Competing Models Yu Liu and Ruxandra Prodan Preliminary draft Abstract: There is a large amount of literature which finds that
More informationNew evidence of exchange rates predictability using the long swings model 1
New evidence of exchange rates predictability using the long swings model 1 Alex Nikolsko-Rzhevskyy University of Memphis Ruxandra Prodan University of Houston July 26, 2009 Using the two state Markov
More informationThe Continuing Puzzle of Short Horizon Exchange Rate Forecasting
The Continuing Puzzle of Short Horizon Exchange Rate Forecasting by Kenneth Rogoff and Vania Stavrakeva 1 Abstract: Are structural models getting closer to being able to forecast exchange rates at short
More informationTechnical Appendix-3-Regime asymmetric STAR modeling and exchange rate reversion
Technical Appendix-3-Regime asymmetric STAR modeling and exchange rate reversion Mario Cerrato*, Hyunsok Kim* and Ronald MacDonald** 1 University of Glasgow, Department of Economics, Adam Smith building.
More informationDo Markov-Switching Models Capture Nonlinearities in the Data? Tests using Nonparametric Methods
Do Markov-Switching Models Capture Nonlinearities in the Data? Tests using Nonparametric Methods Robert V. Breunig Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Social Sciences and School of
More informationInflation Revisited: New Evidence from Modified Unit Root Tests
1 Inflation Revisited: New Evidence from Modified Unit Root Tests Walter Enders and Yu Liu * University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa and University of Texas at El Paso Abstract: We propose a simple modification
More informationSzilárd MADARAS, 1 Lehel GYÖRFY 2 1. Introduction. DOI: /auseb
Acta Univ. Sapientiae, Economics and Business, 4 (2016) 33 41 DOI: 10.1515/auseb-2016-0002 Non-Linearity and Non-Stationarity of Exchange Rate Time Series in Three Central-Eastern European Countries Regarding
More informationApplied Econometrics and International Development Vol.9-1 (2009)
FUNCTIONAL FORMS AND PPP: THE CASE OF CANADA, THE EU, JAPAN, AND THE U.K. HSING, Yu Abstract This paper applies an extended Box-Cox model to test the functional form of the purchasing power parity hypothesis
More informationImproving forecasting performance by window and model averaging
Improving forecasting performance by window and model averaging Prasad S Bhattacharya and Dimitrios D Thomakos Abstract This study presents extensive results on the benefits of rolling window and model
More informationNon-Linear Forecasting using a Taylor Rule Based Exchange Rate Model
Non-Linear Forecasting using a Taylor Rule Based Exchange Rate Model By Rudan Wang (Department of Economics, University of Bath) Bruce Morley* (Department of Economics, University of Bath) Michalis P.
More informationBagging and Forecasting in Nonlinear Dynamic Models
DBJ Discussion Paper Series, No.0905 Bagging and Forecasting in Nonlinear Dynamic Models Mari Sakudo (Research Institute of Capital Formation, Development Bank of Japan, and Department of Economics, Sophia
More informationSelecting a Nonlinear Time Series Model using Weighted Tests of Equal Forecast Accuracy
Selecting a Nonlinear Time Series Model using Weighted Tests of Equal Forecast Accuracy Dick van Dijk Econometric Insitute Erasmus University Rotterdam Philip Hans Franses Econometric Insitute Erasmus
More informationTesting for Regime Switching in Singaporean Business Cycles
Testing for Regime Switching in Singaporean Business Cycles Robert Breunig School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Commerce Australian National University and Alison Stegman Research School of Pacific
More informationPurchasing power parity: A nonlinear multivariate perspective. Abstract
Purchasing power parity: A nonlinear multivariate perspective Frédérique Bec THEMA, University of Cergy-Pontoise and CREST, France Mélika Ben Salem OEP, Paris-Est University and LEA-INRA (PSE), France
More informationA Comparison of Business Cycle Regime Nowcasting Performance between Real-time and Revised Data. By Arabinda Basistha (West Virginia University)
A Comparison of Business Cycle Regime Nowcasting Performance between Real-time and Revised Data By Arabinda Basistha (West Virginia University) This version: 2.7.8 Markov-switching models used for nowcasting
More informationOut-of-Sample Forecasting of Unemployment Rates with Pooled STVECM Forecasts
Out-of-Sample Forecasting of Unemployment Rates with Pooled STVECM Forecasts Costas Milas Department of Economics, Keele University Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis Philip Rothman Department of Economics,
More informationPurchasing power parity over two centuries: strengthening the case for real exchange rate stability A reply to Cuddington and Liang
Journal of International Money and Finance 19 (2000) 759 764 www.elsevier.nl/locate/econbase Purchasing power parity over two centuries: strengthening the case for real exchange rate stability A reply
More informationA Test for State-Dependent Predictive Ability based on a Markov-Switching Framework
A Test for State-Dependent Predictive Ability based on a Markov-Switching Framework Sebastian Fossati University of Alberta This version: May 17, 2018 Abstract This paper proposes a new test for comparing
More informationDo we need Experts for Time Series Forecasting?
Do we need Experts for Time Series Forecasting? Christiane Lemke and Bogdan Gabrys Bournemouth University - School of Design, Engineering and Computing Poole House, Talbot Campus, Poole, BH12 5BB - United
More informationFinancial Econometrics
Financial Econometrics Nonlinear time series analysis Gerald P. Dwyer Trinity College, Dublin January 2016 Outline 1 Nonlinearity Does nonlinearity matter? Nonlinear models Tests for nonlinearity Forecasting
More informationInference in VARs with Conditional Heteroskedasticity of Unknown Form
Inference in VARs with Conditional Heteroskedasticity of Unknown Form Ralf Brüggemann a Carsten Jentsch b Carsten Trenkler c University of Konstanz University of Mannheim University of Mannheim IAB Nuremberg
More informationDEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
ISSN 0819-64 ISBN 0 7340 616 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NUMBER 959 FEBRUARY 006 TESTING FOR RATE-DEPENDENCE AND ASYMMETRY IN INFLATION UNCERTAINTY: EVIDENCE FROM
More informationDiscussion of Bootstrap prediction intervals for linear, nonlinear, and nonparametric autoregressions, by Li Pan and Dimitris Politis
Discussion of Bootstrap prediction intervals for linear, nonlinear, and nonparametric autoregressions, by Li Pan and Dimitris Politis Sílvia Gonçalves and Benoit Perron Département de sciences économiques,
More informationGeneral comments Linear vs Non-Linear Univariate vs Multivariate
Comments on : Forecasting UK GDP growth, inflation and interest rates under structural change: A comparison of models with time-varying parameters by A. Barnett, H. Mumtaz and K. Theodoridis Laurent Ferrara
More informationFinQuiz Notes
Reading 9 A time series is any series of data that varies over time e.g. the quarterly sales for a company during the past five years or daily returns of a security. When assumptions of the regression
More informationUniversity of Kent Department of Economics Discussion Papers
University of Kent Department of Economics Discussion Papers Testing for Granger (non-) Causality in a Time Varying Coefficient VAR Model Dimitris K. Christopoulos and Miguel León-Ledesma January 28 KDPE
More informationSIRE DISCUSSION PAPER
SCOTTISH INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS SIRE DISCUSSION PAPER SIRE-DP-25-24 On the Sources of Uncertainty in Exchange Rate Predictability Joseph P. Byrne Dimitris Korobilis Pinho J. Ribeiro UNIVERSITY
More informationFORECASTING AND COMBINING COMPETING MODELS OF EXCHANGE RATE DETERMINATION
FORECASTING AND COMBINING COMPETING MODELS OF EXCHANGE RATE DETERMINATION CARLO ALTAVILLA PAUL DE GRAUWE CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 1747 CATEGORY 6: MONETARY POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL FINANCE JUNE 2006 An
More informationVAR-based Granger-causality Test in the Presence of Instabilities
VAR-based Granger-causality Test in the Presence of Instabilities Barbara Rossi ICREA Professor at University of Pompeu Fabra Barcelona Graduate School of Economics, and CREI Barcelona, Spain. barbara.rossi@upf.edu
More informationFORECASTING THE FINNISH CONSUMER PRICE INFLATION USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK MODELS AND THREE AUTOMATED MODEL SELECTION TECHNIQUES *
Finnish Economic Papers Volume 26 Number 1 Spring 2013 FORECASTING THE FINNISH CONSUMER PRICE INFLATION USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK MODELS AND THREE AUTOMATED MODEL SELECTION TECHNIQUES * ANDERS BREDAHL
More informationOptimizing forecasts for inflation and interest rates by time-series model averaging
Optimizing forecasts for inflation and interest rates by time-series model averaging Presented at the ISF 2008, Nice 1 Introduction 2 The rival prediction models 3 Prediction horse race 4 Parametric bootstrap
More informationFORECASTING PERFORMANCE OF LOGISTIC STAR MODEL - AN ALTERNATIVE VERSION TO THE ORIGINAL LSTAR MODELS. Olukayode, A. Adebile and D ahud, K, Shangodoyin
FORECASTING PERFORMANCE OF LOGISTIC STAR MODEL - AN ALTERNATIVE VERSION TO THE ORIGINAL LSTAR MODELS Olukayode, A. Adebile and D ahud, K, Shangodoyin Abstract This paper proposes an alternative representation
More informationA Non-Parametric Approach of Heteroskedasticity Robust Estimation of Vector-Autoregressive (VAR) Models
Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, vol.1, no.1, 2012, 55-67 ISSN: 2241-0988 (print version), 2241-0996 (online) International Scientific Press, 2012 A Non-Parametric Approach of Heteroskedasticity
More informationCointegration and Tests of Purchasing Parity Anthony Mac Guinness- Senior Sophister
Cointegration and Tests of Purchasing Parity Anthony Mac Guinness- Senior Sophister Most of us know Purchasing Power Parity as a sensible way of expressing per capita GNP; that is taking local price levels
More informationComparing Nested Predictive Regression Models with Persistent Predictors
Comparing Nested Predictive Regression Models with Persistent Predictors Yan Ge y and ae-hwy Lee z November 29, 24 Abstract his paper is an extension of Clark and McCracken (CM 2, 25, 29) and Clark and
More informationForecasting the unemployment rate when the forecast loss function is asymmetric. Jing Tian
Forecasting the unemployment rate when the forecast loss function is asymmetric Jing Tian This version: 27 May 2009 Abstract This paper studies forecasts when the forecast loss function is asymmetric,
More informationResearch Statement. Zhongwen Liang
Research Statement Zhongwen Liang My research is concentrated on theoretical and empirical econometrics, with the focus of developing statistical methods and tools to do the quantitative analysis of empirical
More informationUsing all observations when forecasting under structural breaks
Using all observations when forecasting under structural breaks Stanislav Anatolyev New Economic School Victor Kitov Moscow State University December 2007 Abstract We extend the idea of the trade-off window
More informationDepartment of Economics, UCSD UC San Diego
Department of Economics, UCSD UC San Diego itle: Spurious Regressions with Stationary Series Author: Granger, Clive W.J., University of California, San Diego Hyung, Namwon, University of Seoul Jeon, Yongil,
More informationBootstrapping the Grainger Causality Test With Integrated Data
Bootstrapping the Grainger Causality Test With Integrated Data Richard Ti n University of Reading July 26, 2006 Abstract A Monte-carlo experiment is conducted to investigate the small sample performance
More informationStationarity and cointegration tests: Comparison of Engle - Granger and Johansen methodologies
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Stationarity and cointegration tests: Comparison of Engle - Granger and Johansen methodologies Faik Bilgili Erciyes University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative
More informationTesting an Autoregressive Structure in Binary Time Series Models
ömmföäflsäafaäsflassflassflas ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Discussion Papers Testing an Autoregressive Structure in Binary Time Series Models Henri Nyberg University of Helsinki and HECER Discussion
More informationDepartment of Economics, UCSB UC Santa Barbara
Department of Economics, UCSB UC Santa Barbara Title: Past trend versus future expectation: test of exchange rate volatility Author: Sengupta, Jati K., University of California, Santa Barbara Sfeir, Raymond,
More informationOil price and macroeconomy in Russia. Abstract
Oil price and macroeconomy in Russia Katsuya Ito Fukuoka University Abstract In this note, using the VEC model we attempt to empirically investigate the effects of oil price and monetary shocks on the
More informationForecasting Euro Area Macroeconomic Variables using a Factor Model Approach for Backdating. Ralf Brüggemann and Jing Zeng
University of Konstanz Dep artment of Economics Forecasting Euro Area Macroeconomic Variables using a Factor Model Approach for Backdating Ralf Brüggemann and Jing Zeng Working Paper Series 2012 15 http://www.wiwi.uni
More informationThe PPP Hypothesis Revisited
1288 Discussion Papers Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung 2013 The PPP Hypothesis Revisited Evidence Using a Multivariate Long-Memory Model Guglielmo Maria Caporale, Luis A.Gil-Alana and Yuliya
More informationEconomics 718, Applied Time Series
Spring 2018 K. West Economics 718, Applied Time Series This Spring, EC718 will study linear time series models, concentrating on aspects relevant to current empirical research in macroeconomics, international
More informationAn estimate of the long-run covariance matrix, Ω, is necessary to calculate asymptotic
Chapter 6 ESTIMATION OF THE LONG-RUN COVARIANCE MATRIX An estimate of the long-run covariance matrix, Ω, is necessary to calculate asymptotic standard errors for the OLS and linear IV estimators presented
More informationAre PPP Tests Erratically Behaved? Some Panel Evidence
Are PPP Tests Erratically Behaved? Some Panel Evidence Guglielmo Maria Caporale a, Christoph Hanck b a Brunel University, London b Universität Dortmund October 5, 2006 Abstract This paper examines whether,
More informationTheodore Panagiotidis*^ and Gianluigi Pelloni**
Free University of Bozen - Bolzano School of Economics Bolzano, Italy Working Paper No. 13 IS NON-LINEAR SERIAL DEPENDENCE PRESENT IN THE US UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND THE GROWTH RATES OF EMPLOYMENT SECTORAL
More informationUnit Roots, Nonlinear Cointegration and Purchasing Power Parity
Unit Roots, Nonlinear Cointegration and Purchasing Power Parity Alfred A. Haug and Syed A. Basher June 10, 2005 Abstract We test long run PPP within a general model of cointegration of linear and nonlinear
More informationA note on nonlinear dynamics in the Spanish term structure of interest rates B
International Review of Economics and Finance 15 (2006) 316 323 www.elsevier.com/locate/iref A note on nonlinear dynamics in the Spanish term structure of interest rates B Vicente EsteveT Departamento
More informationThreshold effects in Okun s Law: a panel data analysis. Abstract
Threshold effects in Okun s Law: a panel data analysis Julien Fouquau ESC Rouen and LEO Abstract Our approach involves the use of switching regime models, to take account of the structural asymmetry and
More informationThe Panel Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle
The Panel Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle David H. Papell Department of Economics University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-5882 (713) 743-3807 E-Mail: dpapell@uh.edu April 2004 Does long-run purchasing power
More informationThe Influence of Additive Outliers on the Performance of Information Criteria to Detect Nonlinearity
The Influence of Additive Outliers on the Performance of Information Criteria to Detect Nonlinearity Saskia Rinke 1 Leibniz University Hannover Abstract In this paper the performance of information criteria
More informationECONOMICS 7200 MODERN TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Econometric Theory and Applications
ECONOMICS 7200 MODERN TIME SERIES ANALYSIS Econometric Theory and Applications Yongmiao Hong Department of Economics & Department of Statistical Sciences Cornell University Spring 2019 Time and uncertainty
More informationApplied Economics, 2008, 1 26, ifirst. Carlo Altavilla a, * and Paul De Grauwe b
Applied Economics, 2008, 1 26, ifirst Forecasting and combining competing models of exchange rate determination Carlo Altavilla a, * and Paul De Grauwe b a Department of Economic Studies, University of
More informationLM threshold unit root tests
Lee, J., Strazicich, M.C., & Chul Yu, B. (2011). LM Threshold Unit Root Tests. Economics Letters, 110(2): 113-116 (Feb 2011). Published by Elsevier (ISSN: 0165-1765). http://0- dx.doi.org.wncln.wncln.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.10.014
More informationDiscussion of Tests of Equal Predictive Ability with Real-Time Data by T. E. Clark and M.W. McCracken
Discussion of Tests of Equal Predictive Ability with Real-Time Data by T. E. Clark and M.W. McCracken Juri Marcucci Bank of Italy 5 th ECB Workshop on Forecasting Techniques Forecast Uncertainty in Macroeconomics
More informationNON-LINEARITIES AND HYSTERESIS IN OECD UNEMPLOYMENT *
A R TIGO RBEE Revista Brasileira de Economia de Empresas Brazilian Journal of Business Economics Vol. 2 - nº 3 Setembro - Dezembro 2002 p. 23-30 NON-LINEARITIES AND HYSTERESIS IN OECD UNEMPLOYMENT * Miguel
More informationThe MIT Press Journals
The MIT Press Journals http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals This article is provided courtesy of The MIT Press. To join an e-mail alert list and receive the latest news on our publications, please visit: http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-mail
More informationEconometric modeling of the relationship among macroeconomic variables of Thailand: Smooth transition autoregressive regression model
The Empirical Econometrics and Quantitative Economics Letters ISSN 2286 7147 EEQEL all rights reserved Volume 1, Number 4 (December 2012), pp. 21 38. Econometric modeling of the relationship among macroeconomic
More informationForecasting. Bernt Arne Ødegaard. 16 August 2018
Forecasting Bernt Arne Ødegaard 6 August 208 Contents Forecasting. Choice of forecasting model - theory................2 Choice of forecasting model - common practice......... 2.3 In sample testing of
More informationNon-nested model selection. in unstable environments
Non-nested model selection in unstable environments Raffaella Giacomini UCLA (with Barbara Rossi, Duke) Motivation The problem: select between two competing models, based on how well they fit thedata Both
More informationForecasting the term structure interest rate of government bond yields
Forecasting the term structure interest rate of government bond yields Bachelor Thesis Econometrics & Operational Research Joost van Esch (419617) Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam
More informationForecasting Levels of log Variables in Vector Autoregressions
September 24, 200 Forecasting Levels of log Variables in Vector Autoregressions Gunnar Bårdsen Department of Economics, Dragvoll, NTNU, N-749 Trondheim, NORWAY email: gunnar.bardsen@svt.ntnu.no Helmut
More information9) Time series econometrics
30C00200 Econometrics 9) Time series econometrics Timo Kuosmanen Professor Management Science http://nomepre.net/index.php/timokuosmanen 1 Macroeconomic data: GDP Inflation rate Examples of time series
More informationTECHNICAL WORKING PAPER SERIES APPROXIMATELY NORMAL TEST FOR EQUAL PREDICTIVE ACCURACY IN NESTED MODELS. Todd E. Clark Kenneth D.
TECHNICAL WORKING PAPER SERIES APPROXIMATELY NORMAL TEST FOR EQUAL PREDICTIVE ACCURACY IN NESTED MODELS Todd E. Clark Kenneth D. West Technical Working Paper 326 http://www.nber.org/papers/t0326 NATIONAL
More informationPredicting bond returns using the output gap in expansions and recessions
Erasmus university Rotterdam Erasmus school of economics Bachelor Thesis Quantitative finance Predicting bond returns using the output gap in expansions and recessions Author: Martijn Eertman Studentnumber:
More informationEconometric Forecasting
Robert M. Kunst robert.kunst@univie.ac.at University of Vienna and Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna October 1, 2014 Outline Introduction Model-free extrapolation Univariate time-series models Trend
More informationEconometric Forecasting
Robert M Kunst robertkunst@univieacat University of Vienna and Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna September 29, 2014 University of Vienna and Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna Outline Introduction
More informationA Threshold Model of Real U.S. GDP and the Problem of Constructing Confidence. Intervals in TAR Models
A Threshold Model of Real U.S. GDP and the Problem of Constructing Confidence Intervals in TAR Models Walter Enders Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies University of Alabama Tuscalooosa,
More informationA Guide to Modern Econometric:
A Guide to Modern Econometric: 4th edition Marno Verbeek Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam B 379887 )WILEY A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication Contents Preface xiii 1 Introduction
More informationNONLINEAR DYNAMICS UNDER UNCOVERED INTEREST RATE PARITY: CASES OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HUNGARY AND SLOVAKIA 1
Vít Pošta NONLINEAR DYNAMICS UNDER UNCOVERED INTEREST RATE PARITY: CASES OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HUNGARY AND SLOVAKIA 1 Abstract: There has been an increasing amount of research giving mixed evidence of
More informationThe Taylor Rule and Forecast Intervals for Exchange Rates *
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working Paper No. 22 http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/institute/wpapers/2008/0022.pdf The Taylor Rule and Forecast Intervals
More informationIs there an optimal forecast combination? A stochastic dominance approach to forecast combination puzzle.
Is there an optimal forecast combination? A stochastic dominance approach to forecast combination puzzle. Mehmet Pinar University of Guelph and Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Thanasis Stengos University
More informationA Panel Test of Purchasing Power Parity. under the Null of Stationarity.
A Panel Test of Purchasing Power Parity under the Null of Stationarity. John Hunter * and Mark Simpson Department of Economics, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH Abstract Purchasing Power
More informationA New Nonlinear Unit Root Test with Fourier Function
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive A New Nonlinear Unit Root est with Fourier Function Burak Güriş Istanbul University October 2017 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/82260/ MPRA Paper No. 82260,
More informationA TIME SERIES PARADOX: UNIT ROOT TESTS PERFORM POORLY WHEN DATA ARE COINTEGRATED
A TIME SERIES PARADOX: UNIT ROOT TESTS PERFORM POORLY WHEN DATA ARE COINTEGRATED by W. Robert Reed Department of Economics and Finance University of Canterbury, New Zealand Email: bob.reed@canterbury.ac.nz
More informationForecasting Canadian GDP: Evaluating Point and Density Forecasts in Real-Time
Forecasting Canadian GDP: Evaluating Point and Density Forecasts in Real-Time Frédérick Demers Research Department Bank of Canada October 2007 (Preliminary and Incomplete - Do not Quote) Presented at the
More informationSpatial Considerations on the PPP Debate *
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working Paper No. 138 http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/institute/wpapers/213/138.pdf Spatial Considerations on the PPP
More informationHow Puzzling is the PPP Puzzle? An Alternative Half-Life Measure of Convergence to PPP
How Puzzling is the PPP Puzzle? An Alternative Half-Life Measure of Convergence to PPP Georgios Chortareas and George Kapetanios Abstract Evidence of lengthy half-lives for real exchange rates in the presence
More informationIs the Basis of the Stock Index Futures Markets Nonlinear?
University of Wollongong Research Online Applied Statistics Education and Research Collaboration (ASEARC) - Conference Papers Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences 2011 Is the Basis of the Stock
More informationVolatility. Gerald P. Dwyer. February Clemson University
Volatility Gerald P. Dwyer Clemson University February 2016 Outline 1 Volatility Characteristics of Time Series Heteroskedasticity Simpler Estimation Strategies Exponentially Weighted Moving Average Use
More informationOn Consistency of Tests for Stationarity in Autoregressive and Moving Average Models of Different Orders
American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 2016; 5(3): 146-153 http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajtas doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160503.20 ISSN: 2326-8999 (Print); ISSN: 2326-9006 (Online)
More informationTesting for PPP: Should We Use Panel Methods??
Empirical Economics manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Testing for PPP: Should We Use Panel Methods?? Anindya Banerjee 1, Massimiliano Marcellino 2 and Chiara Osbat 3 1 Corresponding author:
More informationEC821: Time Series Econometrics, Spring 2003 Notes Section 9 Panel Unit Root Tests Avariety of procedures for the analysis of unit roots in a panel
EC821: Time Series Econometrics, Spring 2003 Notes Section 9 Panel Unit Root Tests Avariety of procedures for the analysis of unit roots in a panel context have been developed. The emphasis in this development
More informationEconometría 2: Análisis de series de Tiempo
Econometría 2: Análisis de series de Tiempo Karoll GOMEZ kgomezp@unal.edu.co http://karollgomez.wordpress.com Segundo semestre 2016 IX. Vector Time Series Models VARMA Models A. 1. Motivation: The vector
More informationAre Forecast Updates Progressive?
CIRJE-F-736 Are Forecast Updates Progressive? Chia-Lin Chang National Chung Hsing University Philip Hans Franses Erasmus University Rotterdam Michael McAleer Erasmus University Rotterdam and Tinbergen
More informationFrederick Wallace Universidad de Quintana Roo. Abstract
Nonlinear unit root tests of PPP using long-horizon data Frederick Wallace Universidad de Quintana Roo Abstract The Kapetanios, Shin, and Snell (KSS, 2003) test for a nonlinear unit root is used to study
More informationBDS ANFIS ANFIS ARMA
* Saarman@yahoocom Ali_r367@yahoocom 0075 07 MGN G7 C5 C58 C53 JEL 3 7 TAR 6 ARCH Chaos Theory Deterministic 3 Exponential Smoothing Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average 5 Autoregressive Conditional
More informationNonlinearity and Inflation Rate Differential Persistence: Evidence from the Eurozone.
Nonlinearity and Inflation Rate Differential Persistence: Evidence from the Eurozone. Nikolaos Giannellis Department of Economics, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, 5, Greece, email: ngianel@cc.uoi.gr.
More informationPeriklis. Gogas. Tel: +27. Working May 2017
University of Pretoria Department of Economics Working Paper Series Macroeconomicc Uncertainty, Growth and Inflation in the Eurozone: A Causal Approach Vasilios Plakandaras Democritus University of Thrace
More informationWorking Paper SerieS. A Predictability Test for a Small Number of Nested Models. NO 1580 / august 2013
Working Paper SerieS NO 1580 / august 2013 A Predictability Test for a Small Number of Nested Models Eleonora Granziera, Kirstin Hubrich and Hyungsik Roger Moon In 2013 all ECB publications feature a motif
More informationStock index returns density prediction using GARCH models: Frequentist or Bayesian estimation?
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Stock index returns density prediction using GARCH models: Frequentist or Bayesian estimation? Ardia, David; Lennart, Hoogerheide and Nienke, Corré aeris CAPITAL AG,
More informationVAR Models and Applications
VAR Models and Applications Laurent Ferrara 1 1 University of Paris West M2 EIPMC Oct. 2016 Overview of the presentation 1. Vector Auto-Regressions Definition Estimation Testing 2. Impulse responses functions
More informationA Bootstrap Test for Causality with Endogenous Lag Length Choice. - theory and application in finance
CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series Paper No. 223 A Bootstrap Test for Causality with Endogenous Lag Length Choice - theory and application in finance R. Scott Hacker and Abdulnasser Hatemi-J April 200
More informationAre Forecast Updates Progressive?
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Are Forecast Updates Progressive? Chia-Lin Chang and Philip Hans Franses and Michael McAleer National Chung Hsing University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus University
More informationEVALUATING DIRECT MULTI-STEP FORECASTS
EVALUATING DIRECT MULTI-STEP FORECASTS Todd Clark and Michael McCracken Revised: April 2005 (First Version December 2001) RWP 01-14 Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Todd E. Clark is
More information