Search results

In this chapter we discuss model selection and predictive accuracy tests in the context of parameter and model uncertainty under recursive and rolling estimation schemes. We begin by summarizing some recent theoretical findings, with particular emphasis on the construction of valid bootstrap procedures for calculating the impact of parameter estimation error. We then discuss the Corradi and Swanson (2002) (CS) test of (non)linear out-of-sample Granger causality. Thereafter, we carry out a series of Monte Carlo experiments examining the properties of the CS and a variety of other related predictive accuracy and model selection type tests. Finally, we present the results of an empirical investigation of the marginal predictive content of money for income, in the spirit of Stock and Watson (1989), Swanson (1998) and Amato and Swanson (2001).

In a recent paper, Hausman, Newey, Woutersen, Chao, and Swanson (2012) propose a new estimator, HFUL (Heteroscedasticity robust Fuller), for the linear model with endogeneity. This estimator is consistent and asymptotically normally distributed in the many instruments and many weak instruments asymptotics. Moreover, this estimator has moments, just like the estimator by Fuller (1977). The purpose of this note is to discuss at greater length the existence of moments result given in Hausman et al. (2012). In particular, we intend to answer the following questions: Why does LIML not have moments? Why does the Fuller modification lead to estimators with moments? Is normality required for the Fuller estimator to have moments? Why do we need a condition such as Hausman et al. (2012), Assumption 9? Why do we have the adjustment formula?

This chapter shows how a weighted average of a forward and reverse Jackknife IV estimator (JIVE) yields estimators that are robust against heteroscedasticity and many instruments. These estimators, called HFUL (Heteroscedasticity robust Fuller) and HLIM (Heteroskedasticity robust limited information maximum likelihood (LIML)) were introduced by Hausman, Newey, Woutersen, Chao, and Swanson (2012), but without derivation. Combining consistent estimators is a theme that is associated with Jerry Hausman and, therefore, we present this derivation in this volume. Additionally, and in order to further understand and interpret HFUL and HLIM in the context of jackknife type variance ratio estimators, we show that a new variant of HLIM, under specific grouped data settings with dummy instruments, simplifies to the Bekker and van der Ploeg (2005) MM (method of moments) estimator.

The topic of volatility measurement and estimation is central to financial and more generally time-series econometrics. In this chapter, we begin by surveying models of volatility, both discrete and continuous, and then we summarize some selected empirical findings from the literature. In particular, in the first sections of this chapter, we discuss important developments in volatility models, with focus on time-varying and stochastic volatility as well as nonparametric volatility estimation. The models discussed share the common feature that volatilities are unobserved and belong to the class of missing variables. We then provide empirical evidence on “small” and “large” jumps from the perspective of their contribution to overall realized variation, using high-frequency price return data on 25 stocks in the DOW 30. Our “small” and “large” jump variations are constructed at three truncation levels, using extant methodology of Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006), Andersen, Bollerslev, and Diebold (2007), and Aït-Sahalia and Jacod (2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Evidence of jumps is found in around 22.8% of the days during the 1993–2000 period, much higher than the corresponding figure of 9.4% during the 2001–2008 period. Although the overall role of jumps is lessening, the role of large jumps has not decreased, and indeed, the relative role of large jumps, as a proportion of overall jumps, has actually increased in the 2000s.

We thank the Simon Center for Regional Forecasting at the John Cook School of Business at Saint Louis University – especially Jack Strauss, Director of the Simon Center and Ellen Harshman, Dean of the Cook School – for its generosity and hospitality in hosting a conference during the summer of 2006 where many of the chapters appearing in this volume were presented. The conference provided a forum for discussing many important issues relating to forecasting in the presence of structural breaks and model uncertainty, and participants viewed the conference as helping to significantly improve the quality of the research appearing in the chapters of this volume.³ This volume is part of Elsevier's new series, Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, and we also thank Hamid Beladi for his support as an Editor of the series.

This chapter develops a novel bootstrap procedure to obtain robust bias-corrected confidence intervals in regression discontinuity (RD) designs. The procedure uses a wild bootstrap from a second-order local polynomial to estimate the bias of the local linear RD estimator; the bias is then subtracted from the original estimator. The bias-corrected estimator is then bootstrapped itself to generate valid confidence intervals (CIs). The CIs generated by this procedure are valid under conditions similar to Calonico, Cattaneo, and Titiunik’s (2014) analytical correction – that is, when the bias of the naive RD estimator would otherwise prevent valid inference. This chapter also provides simulation evidence that our method is as accurate as the analytical corrections and we demonstrate its use through a reanalysis of Ludwig and Miller’s (2007) Head Start dataset.