Abstract
We provide a comparison of different finite-sample bias-correction methods for possibly explosive autoregressive processes. We compare the empirical performance of the downward-biased standard OLS estimator with an OLS and a Cauchy estimator, both based on recursive demeaning, as well as a second-differencing estimator. In addition, we consider three different approaches for bias-correction for the OLS estimator: (i) bootstrap, (ii) jackknife and (iii) indirect inference. The estimators are evaluated in terms of bias and root mean squared errors (RMSE) in a variety of practically relevant settings. Our findings suggest that the indirect inference method clearly performs best in terms of RMSE for all considered levels of persistence. In terms of bias-correction, the jackknife works best for stationary and unit root processes, but with a typically large variance. For the explosive case, the indirect inference method is recommended. As an empirical illustration, we reconsider the “dot-com bubble” in the NASDAQ index and explore the usefulness of the indirect inference estimator in terms of testing, date stamping and calculations on overvaluation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Economic Modelling |
| Volume | 73 |
| Pages (from-to) | 354-364 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| ISSN | 0264-9993 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 01.06.2018 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2018 Elsevier B.V.
Research areas and keywords
- Economics
- explosive behavior
- Bias-correction
- Indirect inference
- Bubbles
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Economics and Econometrics
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Bias-corrected estimation for speculative bubbles in stock prices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver