×

The robustness of modified unit root tests in the presence of GARCH. (English) Zbl 1134.91545

Summary: The research of Kim and Schmidt [J. Econom. 59, 287–300 (1993)] is extended to examine the properties of modified Dickey-Fuller unit root tests in the presence of generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH). Using Monte Carlo simulation, the properties of the tests are examined for a range of GARCH processes over alternative sample sizes. Oversizing is observed for all tests, with the extent of size distortion driven by the volatility, rather than the persistence, of the underlying GARCH process. While the original Dickey-Fuller test is found to exhibit greater size distortion than the modified tests, the modified tests are found to be substantially oversized when the GARCH process exhibits a high degree of volatility, even for large samples.

MSC:

91B82 Statistical methods; economic indices and measures
91B28 Finance etc. (MSC2000)
91B84 Economic time series analysis
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI Link

References:

[1] DOI: 10.2307/2527343 · doi:10.2307/2527343
[2] DOI: 10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1 · Zbl 0616.62119 · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
[3] Boswijk, P. 2001. Testing for unit roots with near-integrated volatility. 2001. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-077/4, Tinbergen Institute.
[4] DOI: 10.1155/S1110757X02107029 · Zbl 1107.62358 · doi:10.1155/S1110757X02107029
[5] DOI: 10.2307/2286348 · doi:10.2307/2286348
[6] DOI: 10.2307/2951767 · Zbl 0780.62099 · doi:10.2307/2951767
[7] DOI: 10.2307/2171846 · Zbl 0888.62088 · doi:10.2307/2171846
[8] DOI: 10.2307/1912773 · Zbl 0491.62099 · doi:10.2307/1912773
[9] DOI: 10.1088/1469-7688/1/2/305 · doi:10.1088/1469-7688/1/2/305
[10] DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9892.1991.tb00078.x · Zbl 0721.62088 · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9892.1991.tb00078.x
[11] Hamori S, Econ. Lett. 57 pp 245– (1999) · Zbl 0903.90022 · doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00245-0
[12] DOI: 10.1016/0304-4076(93)90027-3 · Zbl 04516693 · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(93)90027-3
[13] DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00118-5 · Zbl 1043.62107 · doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00118-5
[14] Leybourne S, Oxford Bull. Econ. Statist. 57 pp 559– (1995) · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.1995.tb00040.x
[15] DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9892.2004.00406.x · Zbl 1092.62090 · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9892.2004.00406.x
[16] DOI: 10.1111/1467-6419.00169 · doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00169
[17] DOI: 10.2307/1392213 · doi:10.2307/1392213
[18] DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9892.1995.tb00243.x · Zbl 0825.62688 · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9892.1995.tb00243.x
[19] DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00051-7 · Zbl 0930.62016 · doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00051-7
[20] DOI: 10.2307/2289315 · Zbl 0663.62098 · doi:10.2307/2289315
[21] DOI: 10.1111/1467-9892.00243 · Zbl 0979.62070 · doi:10.1111/1467-9892.00243
[22] Tanaka K, J. R. Statist. Soc. 46 pp 58– (1984)
[23] Taylor S, Modelling Financial Time Series (1986)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.