1 / 7

Comments on “Common Drifting Volatility in Large Bayesian VARs”

Comments on “Common Drifting Volatility in Large Bayesian VARs”. Keith Ord. November 16, 2012. Models: A Perspective. “A model is a metaphor of limited applicability, not the thing itself” [page 54]

cloris
Download Presentation

Comments on “Common Drifting Volatility in Large Bayesian VARs”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comments on “Common Drifting Volatility in Large Bayesian VARs” Keith Ord November 16, 2012

  2. Models: A Perspective “A model is a metaphor of limited applicability, not the thing itself” [page 54] “I will remember that I didn’t make the [business] world , and it doesn’t satisfy my equations.” [page 198] Emanuel Berman, Models. Behaving. Badly. Free Press, New York, 2011.

  3. Model Building • “Realistic” models often have too many parameters for effective estimation – we run into numerical difficulties, unstable solutions or both • Stochastic Volatility [SV] has considerable appeal as a modeling mechanism but numerical problems currently restrict its use to small Bayesian VAR systems • CCM have made ingenious use of a Kronecker structure to enable much larger systems to be estimated and demonstrate that there is little if any loss in efficiency relative to a full SV. • At the same time CSV improves considerably on B-VAR models without an SV component.

  4. Related Literature • Reducing the number of parameters is often viewed with alarm, yet the procedure has a distinguished history: • Stein’s 1961 classic shrinkage of a multivariate mean vector • Miller and Williams ( IJF 2004) showed that Stein-type shrinkage of seasonal factors produces improved forecasts • Traditional seasonal adjustment methods (e.g. X-12 ARIMA) may also benefit from such shrinkage (Findley et al., IJF 2004) • Stock and Watson’s work (e.g. JASA, 2002) on dynamic factor analysis allows regression models to accommodate a large number of predictors • CCM’s work may be viewed in this tradition, but recognizing that the ‘shrinkage’ to a single common SV is necessary to achieve the Kronecker structure. Question: Pajor (2006, op. cit.) suggests that Tsay’s SV scheme does better than regular SV. Did you explore this issue with your data?

  5. Is There Another Way? • Anderson and Moore (1979) introduced an innovations framework for a multivariate state-space scheme: • This scheme, discussed for example in Hyndman et al (2008, Chapter 17) readily maps into a VAR (or VARMA) scheme and has the advantage that updates do not require the Kalman filter. • As with other MV schemes, the system can quickly get parameter-heavy and various methods exist for reducing the dimensionality of the parameter space. • But what about SV?

  6. Innovations (C)SV? • In the univariate case we would consider: • Here, u(.) may take various forms such as the log of the squared error, with a small constant added when near-zero errors are a risk. So perhaps it is better described as a GARCH approach • In the MV case we could proceed directly with • Or, we might consider a CSV form: Question: Is CSV superior?

  7. References • Anderson, B.D.O. and Moore, J.B. (1979) Optimal Filtering. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall • Findley, D.F., Wills, K.C. and Monsell, B.C. (2004) Seasonal adjustment perspectives on damping seasonal factors: Shrinkage estimators for the X12-ARIMA program. International Journal of Forecasting, 20, 5521-556. • Hyndman, R.J., Koehler, A.B., Ord, J.K. and Snyder, R.D. (2008), Forecasting with Exponential Smoothing: The State Space Approach, New York and Berlin: Springer. • Miller, D.M. and Williams, D. (2004) Damping seasonal factors: Shrinkage estimators for the X12-ARIMA program. International Journal of Forecasting, 20, 529 – 549. • 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.

More Related