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]

From |
vwiggins@stata.com (Vince Wiggins, StataCorp) |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: error variance increases when we add a variable in a GARCH model |

Date |
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:58:23 -0600 |

John Levendis <johnlevendis@business.loyno.edu> is surprised that when he adds regressors to an ARCH model, the variance of the residuals is not reduced, > I'm trying to estimate a GARCH(1,1) model, with and without an > exogenous variable. My dependent variable is usually some financial > stock's daily returns. Sometimes, when I add the exogenous variable > to the model, the error variance actually increases; i.e. the model > fits *worse* when I include an extra variable. I was under the > impression that goodness-of-fit never goes down when you add a > variable. Any ideas why I'm getting this strange result? Is it just > because the models are estimated iteratively, and the likelihood > isn't quite maxed out? John provides the example, > fetchyahooquotes UTX SPY, freq(d) chg(ln) start(01jan2000) > > gen day=_n > tsset day > > arch ln_UTX L(1/2).ln_UTX, arch(1) garch(1) > predict double resid_restricted, resid > > arch ln_UTX L(1/2).ln_UTX L(1/2).ln_SPY, arch(1) garch(1) > predict double resid_unrestricted, resid > > sum resid* Which indeed shows smaller residual variance for the more restricted first model. The problem lies with the expectation that the residual variance will necessarily go down when adding terms to an ARCH or GARCH model. Recall that these models are attempting to model the conditional variance of those residuals. What that means is that all residuals are not created equal when fitting these models. Some contribute more than others because they have smaller conditional variance. The likelihood for the model, once you have conditioned on the regressors and ARCH/GARCH process is particularly simple. Each observation's contribution to the likelihood is, 2 2 e_t ln(L_t) = -1/2 { ln(2*pi*sigma_t ) + --------- } 2 sigma_t where: e_t are the errors, and 2 sigma_t are the conditional variances of the errors (see page 49 of [TS] for a typeset version) We see that the errors are scaled by our estimates of the conditional variances (sigma_t^2). The errors always enter the likelihood scaled by the variances. Said another way, minimizing error variance would not provide maximum likelihood estimates of ARCH/GARCH models. So, we must find ways to compare the models that do not use residuals. I ran John's models, and while they take several iterations to converge (typical of ARCH/GARCH models), they look to be well converged. Moreover, the model with covariates has a larger likelihood, as expected. The models are nested, so we can perform a likelihood ratio test. I did, and with these models, the chi2(2) = 4.31 with a Prob > chi2 = .1157. On a side note I had forgotten about -fetchyahooquotes- (available from the Stata Journal downloads). I am going to try and forget it again. It is far too much fun. -- Vince vwiggins@stata.com * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Changing line color for more than 20 overlaid twoway line plots** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: spatial weights which also take into account time** - Previous by thread:
**st: error variance increases when we add a variable in a GARCH model** - Next by thread:
**st: Explanatories that vary only over time in panel data** - Index(es):