Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T11:55:43.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A CROSS-SECTIONAL METHOD FOR RIGHT-TAILED PANIC TESTS UNDER A MODERATELY LOCAL TO UNITY FRAMEWORK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2022

Yohei Yamamoto Open the ORCID record for Yohei Yamamoto [Opens in a new window]  and
Tetsushi Horie
Yohei Yamamoto*
Affiliation:
Hitotsubashi University
Tetsushi Horie
Affiliation:
Hitotsubashi University
*
Address correspondence to Yohei Yamamoto, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8601, Japan; e-mail: yohei.yamamoto@econ.hit-u.ac.jp.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The left-tailed unit-root tests of the panel analysis of nonstationarity in idiosyncratic and common components (PANIC) proposed by Bai and Ng (2004, Econometrica 72, 1127–1177) have standard local asymptotic power. We assess the size and power properties of the right-tailed version of the PANIC tests when the common and/or the idiosyncratic components are moderately explosive. We find that, when an idiosyncratic component is moderately explosive, the tests for the common components may have considerable size distortions, and those for an idiosyncratic component may suffer from the nonmonotonic power problem. We provide an analytic explanation under the moderately local to unity framework developed by Phillips and Magdalinos (2007, Journal of Econometrics 136, 115–130). We then propose a new cross-sectional (CS) approach to disentangle the common and idiosyncratic components in a relatively short explosive window. Our Monte Carlo simulations show that the CS approach is robust to the nonmonotonic power problem.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 389 - 411
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This is a revised version of a paper previously circulated under the title “Testing for Speculative Bubbles in Large Dimensional Financial Panel Data Sets.” Yamamoto acknowledges the financial support for this work from MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 13K03593. We would like to thank the Editor (Peter C.B. Phillips), the Co-Editor (Robert Taylor), and four anonymous referees for their valuable comments, in particular, an extra referee in the final round. We would also like to thank the seminar participants at the Japan-Korea Allied Conference in Econometrics, Hiroshima University, University of Lancaster, the Development Bank of Japan, Academia Sinica, Pi-Day Conference in honor of Professor Pierre Perron at Boston University, and SETA2019 for their useful comments. All remaining errors are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Bai, J. (2003) Inferential theory for factor models of large dimensions. Econometrica 71(1), 135–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, J. (2004) Estimating cross-section common stochastic trends in nonstationary panel data. Journal of Econometrics 122, 137–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2004) A panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica 72(4), 1127–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, J. & Ng, S. (2006) Confidence intervals for diffusion index forecasts and inference for factor-augmented regressions. Econometrica 74(4), 1133–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becheri, I.G. & van den Akker, R. (2015) Uniformly Most Powerful Unit Root Tests for PANIC. Mimeo, Available at http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2688060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breitung, J. & Eickmeier, S. (2011) Testing for structural breaks in dynamic factor models. Journal of Econometrics 163, 71–84.Google Scholar
Deng, A. & Perron, P. (2008) A non-local perspective on the power properties of the CUSUM and CUSUM of squares tests for structural change. Journal of Econometrics 142, 212–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, D.A. & Fuller, W.A. (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 427–431.Google Scholar
Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T., & Stock, J. (1996) Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64(4), 813–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, U.K. & Elliott, G. (2003) Tests for unit roots and the initial condition. Econometrica 71(4), 1269–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perron, P. (1991) A test for changes in a polynomial trend function for a dynamic time series. Econometric Research Program Research Memorandum No. 363, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Perron, P. & Yamamoto, Y. (2016) On the usefulness or lack thereof of optimality criteria in structural change tests. Econometric Reviews 35(5), 782–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. & Magdalinos, T. (2007) Limit theory for moderate deviations from a unit root. Journal of Econometrics 136, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B., Wu, Y., & Yu, J. (2011) Explosive behavior in the 1990s Nasdaq: When did exuberance escalate asset values? International Economic Review 51(2), 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, P.C.B. & Yu, J. (2011) Dating the timeline of financial bubbles during the subprime crisis. Quantitative Economics 2, 455–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Said, S.E. & Dickey, D.A. (1984) Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika 71, 599–607.Google Scholar
Stock, J.H. & Watson, M.W. (1988) Testing for common trends. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 1097–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, J.H. & Watson, M.W. (2002) Forecasting using principal components from a large number of predictors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97, 1167–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, J.H. & Watson, M.W. (2005) Implications of Dynamic Factor Models for VAR Analysis. NBER Working paper 11467, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, J.H. & Watson, M.W. (2016) Dynamic factor models, factor-augmented vector autoregressions, and structural vector autoregressions in macroeconomics. In Taylor, J.B. & Uhlig, H. (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics . Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vogelsang, T.J. (1999) Sources of nonmonotonic power when testing for a shift in mean of a dynamic time series. Journal of Econometrics 88, 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerlund, J. (2015) The power of PANIC. Journal of Econometrics 185, 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, Y. & Tanaka, S. (2015) Testing for factor loading structural change under common breaks. Journal of Econometrics 189, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Yamamoto and Horie supplementary material

Yamamoto and Horie supplementary material

Download Yamamoto and Horie supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 415.1 KB