On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression

Local to unity limit theory is used in applications to construct confidence intervals (CIs) for autoregressive roots through inversion of a unit root test (Stock (1991)). Such CIs are asymptotically valid when the true model has an autoregressive root that is local to unity (rho = 1 + c/n), but are...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Peter C. B. PHILLIPS
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soe_research/1830
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soe_research/article/2829/viewcontent/ConfidenceIntervalsAutoregressiveRootsPredictiveRegression_2012_pp.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.soe_research-2829
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.soe_research-28292017-06-12T06:39:53Z On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression Peter C. B. PHILLIPS, Local to unity limit theory is used in applications to construct confidence intervals (CIs) for autoregressive roots through inversion of a unit root test (Stock (1991)). Such CIs are asymptotically valid when the true model has an autoregressive root that is local to unity (rho = 1 + c/n), but are shown here to be invalid at the limits of the domain of definition of the localizing coefficient c because of a failure in tightness and the escape of probability mass. Failure at the boundary implies that these CIs have zero asymptotic coverage probability in the stationary case and vicinities of unity that are wider than O(n(-1/3)). The inversion methods of Hansen (1999) and Mikusheva (2007) are asymptotically valid in such cases. Implications of these results for predictive regression tests are explored. When the predictive regressor is stationary, the popular Campbell and Yogo (2006) CIs for the regression coefficient have zero coverage probability asymptotically, and their predictive test statistic Q erroneously indicates predictability with probability approaching unity when the null of no predictability holds. These results have obvious cautionary implications for the use of the procedures in empirical practice. 2014-05-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soe_research/1830 info:doi/10.3982/ECTA11094 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soe_research/article/2829/viewcontent/ConfidenceIntervalsAutoregressiveRootsPredictiveRegression_2012_pp.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Economics eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Autoregressive root Confidence belt Confidence interval Coverage probability Local to unity Localizing coefficient Predictive regression Tightness Econometrics
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Autoregressive root
Confidence belt
Confidence interval
Coverage probability
Local to unity
Localizing coefficient
Predictive regression
Tightness
Econometrics
spellingShingle Autoregressive root
Confidence belt
Confidence interval
Coverage probability
Local to unity
Localizing coefficient
Predictive regression
Tightness
Econometrics
Peter C. B. PHILLIPS,
On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression
description Local to unity limit theory is used in applications to construct confidence intervals (CIs) for autoregressive roots through inversion of a unit root test (Stock (1991)). Such CIs are asymptotically valid when the true model has an autoregressive root that is local to unity (rho = 1 + c/n), but are shown here to be invalid at the limits of the domain of definition of the localizing coefficient c because of a failure in tightness and the escape of probability mass. Failure at the boundary implies that these CIs have zero asymptotic coverage probability in the stationary case and vicinities of unity that are wider than O(n(-1/3)). The inversion methods of Hansen (1999) and Mikusheva (2007) are asymptotically valid in such cases. Implications of these results for predictive regression tests are explored. When the predictive regressor is stationary, the popular Campbell and Yogo (2006) CIs for the regression coefficient have zero coverage probability asymptotically, and their predictive test statistic Q erroneously indicates predictability with probability approaching unity when the null of no predictability holds. These results have obvious cautionary implications for the use of the procedures in empirical practice.
format text
author Peter C. B. PHILLIPS,
author_facet Peter C. B. PHILLIPS,
author_sort Peter C. B. PHILLIPS,
title On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression
title_short On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression
title_full On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression
title_fullStr On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression
title_full_unstemmed On Confidence Intervals for Autoregressive Roots and Predictive Regression
title_sort on confidence intervals for autoregressive roots and predictive regression
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2014
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soe_research/1830
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soe_research/article/2829/viewcontent/ConfidenceIntervalsAutoregressiveRootsPredictiveRegression_2012_pp.pdf
_version_ 1770572906025189376