IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Modified Hiemstra-Jones Test for Granger Non-causality

Listed author(s):
  • Cees Diks & Valentyn Panchenko

The paper addresses a problem in a frequently used nonparametric test for Granger causality (Hiemstra and Jones, 1994). Some examples suffice to show that the equality tested in general is not an implication of the null hypothesis of conditional independence. Upon deriving the asymptotic bias we indeed find that the commonly used test procedure leads to inconsistencies. Monte Carlo simulations using certain processes satisfying the null hypothesis show that, for a given nominal size, the actual rejection rate may tend to one as the sample size increases. Motivated by these results we propose an alternative test statistic and develop its asymptotic distribution theory. Monte Carlo simulations show that the actual size of the new test is closer to nominal, particularly in the presence of conditional heteroskedasticity. Our results offer (at least partial) explanations for several anomalies reported in the applied empirical literature, notably those suggesting strong evidence for trading volume Granger-causing returns. For daily S&P500 returns and trading volume data, our approach suggests that the evidence is in fact weaker than suggested by the Hiemstra-Jones test.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
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.

Paper provided by Society for Computational Economics in its series Computing in Economics and Finance 2004 with number 192.

in new window

Date of creation: 11 Aug 2004
Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf4:192
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sce:scecf4:192. 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: (Christopher F. Baum)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.