The Size and Power of the Variance Ratio Test in Finite Samples: A Monte Carlo Investigation
We examine the finite sample properties of the variance ratio test of the random walk hypothesis via Monte Carlo simulations under two null and three alternative hypotheses. These results are compared to the performance of the Dickey-Fuller t and the Box-Pierce Q statistics. Under the null hypothesis of a random walk with independent and identically distributed Gaussian increments, the empirical size of all three tests are comparable. Under a heteroscedastic random walk null, the variance ratio test is more reliable than either the Dickey-Fuller or Box-Pierce tests. We compute the power of these three tests against three alternatives of recent empirical interest: a stationary AR(l), the sum of this AR(1) and a random walk, and an integrated AR(1). By choosing the sampling frequency appropriately, the variance ratio test is shown to be as powerful as the Dickey-Fuller and Box-Pierce tests against the stationary alternative, and is more powerful than either of the two tests against the two unit-root alternatives.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 3254 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6367|
Phone: (215) 898-7616
Fax: (215) 573-8084
Web page: http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~rlwctr/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Schwert, G. William, 1987. "Effects of model specification on tests for unit roots in macroeconomic data," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 73-103, July.
- Peter C.B. Phillips & Pierre Perron, 1986.
"Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
795R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Sep 1987.
- Tom Doan, "undated". "PPUNIT: RATS procedure to perform Phillips-Perron Unit Root test," Statistical Software Components RTS00160, Boston College Department of Economics.
- Phillips, P.C.B., 1986. "Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression," Cahiers de recherche 8633, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
- White, Halbert & Domowitz, Ian, 1984. "Nonlinear Regression with Dependent Observations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 143-161, January.
- Poterba, James M & Summers, Lawrence H, 1986.
"The Persistence of Volatility and Stock Market Fluctuations,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1142-1151, December.
- James M. Poterba & Lawrence H. Summers, 1984. "The Persistence of Volatility and Stock Market Fluctuations," Working papers 353, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- James M. Poterba & Lawrence H. Summers, 1984. "The Persistence of Volatility and Stock Market Fluctuations," NBER Working Papers 1462, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Cochrane, John H, 1988. "How Big Is the Random Walk in GNP?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(5), pages 893-920, October.
- Robert J. Shiller & Pierre Perron, 1985.
"Testing the Random Walk Hypothesis: Power versus Frequency of Observation,"
NBER Technical Working Papers
0045, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Shiller, Robert J. & Perron, Pierre, 1985. "Testing the random walk hypothesis : Power versus frequency of observation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-386.
- Pierre Perron & Robert J. Shiller, 1984. "Testing the Random Walk Hypothesis: Power Versus Frequency of Observation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 732, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- John Y. Campbell & N. Gregory Mankiw, 1986.
"Are Output Fluctuations Transitory?,"
NBER Working Papers
1916, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dufour, Jean-Marie & Roy, Roch, 1985.
"Some robust exact results on sample autocorrelations and tests of randomness,"
Journal of Econometrics,
Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 257-273, September.
- Dufour, J.M. & Roy, R., 1984. "Some Robust Exact Results on Sample Autocorrelations and Tests of Randomness," Cahiers de recherche 8412, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
- Robert J. Shiller, 1980.
"The Use of Volatility Measures in Assessing Market Efficiency,"
NBER Working Papers
0565, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Shiller, Robert J, 1981. "The Use of Volatility Measures in Assessing Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 36(2), pages 291-304, May.
- White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fth:pennfi:28-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.