Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: RE: RE: RE: Not the same results with GARCH
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: RE: RE: RE: Not the same results with GARCH
Date
Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:27:52 +0100
As said, we don't have your data. But it seems that there are two
major peaks to be found in the surface being explored. I guess you
should worry a bit about how weird the topology (topography) of the
surface being explored really is, not just about what the algorithms
are finding but about what they are not showing you.
These models are very attractive in many ways. My gut feeling is that
they have been a bit oversold and in any case it is not a great
surprise that they may be difficult to fit. The history of time series
analysis is full of models that went in and out of favour almost as
rapidly as zoot suits or hula-hoops.
Nick
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Valerie Orozco
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you Nick for your answer.
>
> You're true, I have to consider some criteria to find my best model. But I still find really surprising that the 4 standard optimization techniques give the same results and that the default one (combination of 2) gives very very very strange and different results...
>
> Fortunately the "best" models (looking at the LL, BIC and AIC criteria, see below) are those that seem the most credible in my opinion.
>
> The conclusion to this is that it is really important to estimate the model with all the optimization techniques to check robustness and choose the best one.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free nr bhhh dfp bfgs
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> valeur
> _cons 110.1*** 102.3*** 102.3*** 102.3*** 102.3***
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ARMA
> L.ma 0.781*** 0.695*** 0.695*** 0.695*** 0.695***
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ARCH
> L.arch -0.0279* 0.241** 0.241*** 0.241** 0.241**
> L.garch -0.956*** 0.742*** 0.742*** 0.742*** 0.742***
> _cons 254.3*** 5.671 5.676* 5.672 5.678
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> aic 1979.8 1972.9 1972.9 1972.9 1972.9
> bic 1997.5 1990.7 1990.7 1990.7 1990.7
> LL -984.9 -981.5 -981.5 -981.5 -981.5
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------
> Valérie OROZCO
> Toulouse School of Economics (INRA-GREMAQ)
> 21, allée de Brienne
> F-31000 Toulouse, France
>
> MF 219
> +33 5 61 12 85 91
> -------------------------------
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> From Nick Cox <[email protected]>
> To "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> Subject st: RE: RE: Not the same results with GARCH
> Date Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:24:51 +0100
>
> No one replied yet, no doubt partly because we can't say anything about your data.
>
> My guess is that you did nothing wrong; these models are not always as successful as people want, and different search methods can find different (sub-)optima within parameter space.
>
> You don't cite any figures of merit/badness-of-fit/goodness-of-fit measures, but there seems to be a choice between two quite different fits. Perhaps there are also graphical or scientific grounds to choose between them.
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Valerie Orozco
> Envoyé : mercredi 26 octobre 2011 08:39
> À : '[email protected]'
> Objet : RE: Not the same results with GARCH
>
> I just noticed that the optimization technique used in my "Free" model (without any technique specified) is :
> e(technique) : "bhhh bfgs"
> That is a combination of 2 techniques. I don't understand why the results are so different from the others estimations but it explains why the results are not the same than the "nr" ones.
>
> valérie
>
> -------------------------------
> Valérie OROZCO
> Toulouse School of Economics (INRA-GREMAQ) 21, allée de Brienne
> F-31000 Toulouse, France
>
> MF 219
> +33 5 61 12 85 91
> -------------------------------
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Valerie Orozco
> Envoyé : mardi 25 octobre 2011 15:38
> À : [email protected]
> Objet : Not the same results with GARCH
>
> Hi,
>
> I have some trouble with the "arch" command.
> I want to model a MA(1) process and a GARCH on its residuals. When I specify the technique of optimization, I find quite the same results whatever the method (nr bhhh dfp bfgs). But when I don't write the "technique" option, I have very strange results (see below).
> I thought that no specifying the technique means that the technique would have been the default one (nr) but it seems not...
> Do you have an idea? What I am doing wrong???
>
> Thank you.
> Valérie
>
> Here you have my program:
> /****************************************************/
> eststo clear
> eststo Free : arch valeur, ma(1) garch(1) arch(1)
>
> local tech "nr bhhh dfp bfgs"
> foreach t of local tech {
> qui eststo `t' : arch valeur, ma(1) garch(1) arch(1) technique(`t') }
>
> estout
> /****************************************************/
>
> And here, you have the results :
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free nr bhhh dfp bfgs
> b b b b b
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> valeur
> _cons 110.1188 102.2961 102.2969 102.2965 102.2959
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ARMA
> L.ma .7813551 .6950596 .6950131 .6950479 .6950538
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ARCH
> L.arch -.0278845 .2406442 .2407423 .2405665 .2407807
> L.garch -.9560793 .741724 .7416003 .7417785 .7415708
> _cons 254.3421 5.670839 5.675977 5.672461 5.67767
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------
> Valérie OROZCO
> Toulouse School of Economics (INRA-GREMAQ) 21, allée de Brienne
> F-31000 Toulouse, France
>
> MF 219
> +33 5 61 12 85 91
> -------------------------------
>
>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/