Springer Texts in Business and Economics
Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity
Financial time-series such as foreign exchange rates, inflation rates and stock prices may exhibit some volatility which varies over time. In the case of inflation or foreign exchange rates this could be due to changes in the Federal Reserve’s policies. In the case of stock prices this could be due to rumors about a certain company’s merger or takeover. This suggests that the variance of these time-series may be heteroskedastic. Engle (1982) modeled this heteroskedasticity by relating the conditional variance of the disturbance term at time t to the size of the squared disturbance terms in the recent past. A simple Autoregressive Conditionally Heteroskedastic
(ARCH) model is given by
= E(ut/( t) = Yo + Y iut-i + •• + Yp^t-v (14-22)
where Zt denotes the information set upon which the variance of ut is to be conditioned. This typically includes all the information available prior to period t. In (14.22), the variance of ut conditional on the information prior to period t is an autoregressive function of order p in squared lagged values of ut. This is called an ARCH(p) process. Since (14.22) is a variance, this means that all the Y^s for i = 0,1,-,p have to be non-negative. Engle (1982) showed that a simple test for homoskedasticity, i. e., Ho; yi = Y2 = •• = Yv = 0, can be based upon an ordinary F-test which regresses the squared OLS residuals (e2) on their lagged values (e^^-^e2^) and a constant. The F-statistic tests the joint significance of the regressors and is reported by most regression packages. Alternatively, one can compute T times the centered R2 of this regression and this is distributed as xp under the null hypothesis Ho. This test resembles the usual homoskedasticity tests studied in Chapter 5 except that the squared OLS residuals are regressed upon their lagged values rather than some explanatory variables.
The simple ARCH(1) process
at = Yo + Yiut-1 (14.23)
can be generated as follows: ut = [yo + Y 1ut-i1/‘2€t where et ~ IID(0,1). Note that the simplifying variance of unity for et can be achieved by rescaling the parameters yo and y1. In this case, the conditional mean of ut is given by
E(ut/Z t) = [Y o + Y iu2-i}1/2 E (Y/Z t) = 0
since ut 1 is known at time t. Similarly, the conditional variance can be easily obtained from
E(u2/Z t) = [Y o + Y 1u2-1}E (H2/C t) = Yo + Y 1u2-1
since E(e‘2) = 1. Also, the conditional covariances can be easily shown to be zero since
E(utut-s/Z t )= ut-s E(ut/Z t) = 0 for s = 1, 2,^,t
The unconditional mean can be obtained by taking repeated conditional expectations period by period until we reach the initial period, see the Appendix to Chapter 2. For example, taking the conditional expectation of E(ut/Zt) based on information prior to period t — 1, we get
E[E(ut/Zt)/Zt-1 = E (0/Zt-1) = 0
It is clear that all prior conditional expectations of zero will be zero so that E(ut) = 0. Similarly, taking the conditional expectations of E(u2/Zt) based on information prior to period t — 1, we
get
By taking repeated conditional expectations one period at a time we finally get E(ut) = Yo(1 + Y1 + Y1 + •• + Y 1-1) + Y1uo
As t ^ x, the unconditional variance of ut is given by a2 = var(ut) = 70/(1 — Y1) for |y11 < 1 and Yo > 0. Therefore, the ARCH(1) process is homoskedastic.
ARCH models can be estimated using feasible GLS or maximum likelihood methods. Alternatively, one can use a double-length regression procedure suggested by Davidson and MacKinnon (1993) to obtain (i) one-step efficient estimates starting from OLS estimates or (ii) the maximum likelihood estimates. Here we focus on the feasible GLS procedure suggested by Engle (1982). For the regression model
y = Хв + u (14.25)
where y is T x 1 and X is T x k. First, obtain the OLS estimates вOLS and the OLS residuals e. Second, perform the following regression: ef = ao + a+e‘2-1 + residuals. This yields a test for homoskedasticity. Third, compute af = ao + a1 e2-1 and regress [(e2/at) — 1] on (1/at) and
(ef-1 /at). Call the regression estimates da. One updates a' = (ao, a1) by computing a = a + da. Fourth, recompute?2 using the updated a from step 3, and form the set of regressors xtjrt for j = 1,...,k, where
Finally, regress (etst/rt) where
st = 1 — 71 (X —
at at+1 at+1
on xtjrt for j = 1,...,k and obtain the least squares coefficients dy. Update the estimate of в by computing [3 = eOLS + dp. This procedure can run into problems if the are not all positive, see Judge et al. (1985) and Engle (1982) for details.
The ARCH model has been generalized by Bollerslev (1986). The Generalized ARCH (GARCH (p, q)) model can be written as
a2 = Yo + E i=1 Yiu-i + E q=1 Sj a2t-j
In this case, the conditional variance of ut depends upon q of its lagged values as well as p squared lagged values of ut. The simple GARCH (1,1) model is given by
2 і 2 і c 2
at = Yo + Y1ut-1 + S1at-1
An LM test for GARCH (p, q) turns out to be equivalent to testing ARCH (p + q). This simply regresses squared OLS residuals on (p + q) of its squared lagged values. The test statistic is T times the uncentered R2 and is asymptotically distributed as Xp+q under the null of homoskedasticity.
In conclusion, a lot of basic concepts have been introduced in this chapter and we barely scratched the surface. Hopefully, this will motivate the reader to take the next econometrics time series course.
Table 14.3 GARCH (1,1) model
equivalent. |
1. For the AR(1) model
yt = PVt-1 + et t = 1, 2,...,T; with p < 1 and et ~ IIN(0,ct^ )
(a) Show that if yo ~ N(0,a2e/1 — p2), then E(yt) = 0 for all t and var(yt) = oj(1 — p2) so that the mean and variance are independent of t. Note that if p =1 then var(yt) is to. If p > 1 then var(yt) is negative!
(b) Show that cov(yt, yt-s) = psa2 which is only dependent on s, the distance between the two time periods. Conclude from parts (a) and (b) that this AR(1) model is weakly stationary.
(c) Generate the above AR(1) series for T = 250, a2 = 0.25 and various values of p = ±0.9, ±0.8, ±0.5, ±0.3 and ±0.1. Plot the AR(1) series and the autocorrelation function ps versus s.
2. For the MA(1) model
yt = et + Oe—1 t = 1, 2,...,T; with et ~ IIN(0, a2e)
(a) Show that E(yt) = 0 and var(yt) = 1 + в2) so that the mean and variance are independent of t.
(b) Show that cov(yt, yt-1) = ва2 and cov(yt, yt-s) = 0 for s > 1 which is only dependent on s, the distance between the two time periods. Conclude from parts (a) and (b) that this MA(1) model is weakly stationary.
(c) Generate the above MA(1) series for T = 250, a2 = 0.25 and various values of в = 0.9, 0.8, 0.5, 0.3 and 0.1. Plot the MA(1) series and the autocorrelation function versus s.
3. Using the consumption-personal disposable income data for the U. S. used in this chapter:
(a) Compute the sample autocorrelation function for personal disposable income (Yt). Plot the sample correlogram. Repeat for the first-differenced series (AYt). Compute the Ljung-Box Qlb statistic, test that Ho; ps = 0 for s = 1,..., 20.
(b) Run the Augmented Dickey-Fuller test for the existence of a unit root in personal disposable income (Yt).
(c) Define Yt = AYt and run AYt on Yt-1 and a constant and trend. Test that the first-differenced series of personal disposable income is stationary. What do you conclude? Is Yt an I(1) process?
(d) Replicate the regression in (14.21) and verify the Engle-Granger (1987) test for cointegration.
(e) Replicate the GARCH(1,1) model given in Table 14.3.
(f) Repeat parts (a) through (e) using logC and logY. Are there any changes in the above results?
4. (a) Generate T = 25 observations on xt and yt as independent random walks with IIN(0,1)
disturbances. Run the regression yt = a + /3xt + ut and test the null hypothesis Ho; в = 0 using the usual t-statistic at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels. Repeat this experiment 1000 times and report the frequency of rejections at each significance level. What do you conclude?
(b) Repeat part (a) for T = 100 and T = 500.
(c) Repeat parts (a) and (b) generating xt and yt as independent random walks with drift as described in (14.11), using IIN(0,1) disturbances. Let 7 = 0.2 for both series.
(d) Repeat parts (a) and (b) generating xt and yt as independent trend stationary series as described in (14.10), using IIN(0,1) disturbances. Let a =1 and в = 0.04 for both series.
(e) Report the frequency distributions of the R2 statistics obtained in parts (a) through (d) for each sample size and method of generating the time-series. What do you conclude? Hint: See the Monte Carlo experiments in Granger and Newbold (1974), Davidson and MacKinnon (1993) and Banerjee, Dolado, Galbraith and Hendry (1993).
5. For the Money Supply, GNP and interest rate series data for the U. S. given on the Springer web site as MACRO. ASC, fit a VAR three equation model using:
(a) Two lags on each variable.
(b) Three lags on each variable.
(c) Compute the Likelihood Ratio test for part (a) versus part (b).
(d) For the two-equation VAR of Money Supply and interest rate with three lags on each variable, test that the interest rate does not Granger cause the money supply?
(e) How sensitive are the tests in part (d) if we had used only two lags on each variable.
6. For the simple Deterministic Time Trend Model Vt = a + fit + Ut t = 1, ..,T
where ut ~ IIN(0,v2).
(a) Show that
aOLS — a
Pols — P
where the t-th observation of X, the matrix of regressors, is [1,t].
(b) Use the results that ^t=i t = T(T + 1)/2 and t=i t2 = T(T + 1)(2T + 1)/6 to show that
plim (X'X/T) as T is not a positive definite matrix.
(c) Use the fact that
A(X 'X )-1AA-1 (X'u) = (A-1(X 'X )A-1)-1A-1(X'u)
(d) Show that z1 = f=1 ut/VT is N(0,v2) and z2
1)/6T2) with cov(z1,z2) = (T + 1)<t2/2T, so that
z1
z2
(e) Using the results in parts (c) and (d), conclude that the asymptotic distribution of
rVT^a°LS ^ is N(0,a2Q-1). Since (3OLS has the factor TVT rather than the usual
T T(PoLS - P) )
VT, it is said to be superconsistent. This means that not only does (POLS — P) converge to zero in probability limits, but so does T(POLS — P). Note that the normality assumption is not needed for this result. Using the central limit theorem, all that is needed is that ut is White noise with finite fourth moments, see Sims, Stock and Watson (1990) or Hamilton (1994).
7. Test of Hypothesis with a Deterministic Time Trend Model. This is based on Hamilton (1994). In problem 6, we showed that aOLS and POLS converged at different rates, %/T and TVT respectively. Despite this fact, the usual least squares t and F-statistics are asymptotically valid even when the ut’s are not Normally distributed.
(a) Show that s2 = ^'T=1(yt — aOLS — Polst)2/(T — 2) has plim s2 = a2.
(b) In order to test Ho; a = ao, the usual least squares package computes
ta = (Sols — ao)/[s2(1,0)(X'X)-1(1, 0)']1/2
where (X'X) is given in problem 6. Multiply the numerator and denominator by %/T and use the results of part (c) of problem 6 to show that this t-statistic has the same asymptotic distribution as t*a = %/T(aOLS — ao)/aZqu where q11 is the (1, 1) element of Q-1 defined in problem 6. t*a has an asymptotic N(0,1) distribution using the results of part (e) in problem 6.
(c) Similarly, to test Ho; в = во, the usual least squares package computes
te = (Pols — e)/[s2(0,1)(X 'X )-1 (0,1)']1/2.
Multiply the numerator and denominator by T/T and use the results of part (c) of problem 6 to show that this t-statistic has the same asymptotic distribution as t*p = T/T(POLS — P)/a/q22 where q22 is the (2, 2) element of Q-1 defined in problem 6. t*g has an asymptotic N(0, 1) distribution using the results of part (e) in problem 6.
8. A Random Walk Model. This is based on Fuller (1976) and Hamilton (1994). Consider the following random walk model
yt = yt-1 + ut t = 0,1,...,T where ut ~ IIN(0, a2) and yo = 0.
(a) Show that yt can be written as yt = u1 + u2 + .. + ut with E(yt) = 0 and var(yt) = ta2 so that yt ~ N(0,ta2).
(b) Square the random walk equation yj = (yt-1 + ut)2 and solve for yt-1ut. Sum this over t = 1, 2,.. .,T and show that
St=1 yt-1ut = (yT/2) — ^21=1 ut/2
Divide by Ta2 and show that ^T=1 yt-1ut/Ta2 is asymptotically distributed as (y2 — 1)/2. Hint: Use the fact that yT ~ N(0,Ta2).
(c) Using the fact that yt-1 ~ N(0, (t — 1)a2) show that E (Y^t=1 y‘t-1j = a2T(T — 1)/2. Hint: Use the expression for ^T=11 in problem 6.
(d) Suppose we had estimated an AR(1) model rather than a random walk, i. e., yt = pyt-1 + ut when the true p = 1. The OLS estimate is
X^T X^T 2 і X^T X^T 2
p = t=1 yt-1 rytl t=1 yt-1 = p + t=1 yt-1 ut/ t=1 yt-1
Show that
t=1 yt-1ut/Ta
plim T(p — p) = plim <tTL 2 2 2 = 0
t=1 y - 1/T 2 a2
Note that the numerator was considered in part (b), while the denominator was considered in part (c). One can see that the asymptotic distribution of p when p = 1 is a ratio of (x2 — 1)/2 random variable to a non-standard distribution in the denominator which is beyond the scope of this book, see Hamilton (1994) or Fuller (1976) for further details. The object of this exercise is to show that if p = 1, VT(s — p) is no longer normal as in the standard stationary least squares regression with p < 1. Also, to show that for the nonstationary (random walk) model, p converges at a faster rate (T) than for the stationary case (%/T). From part (c) it is clear that one has to divide the denominator of p by T2 rather than T to get a convergent distribution.
9. Consider the cointegration example given in (14.13) and (14.14).
(a) Verify equations (14.15)-(14.20).
(b) Show that the OLS estimator of в obtained by regressing Ct on Yt is superconsistent, i. e., show that plim T(Pols — в) ^ 0 as T ^x>.
This chapter draws on the material in Davidson and MacKinnon (1993), Maddala (1992), Hamilton
(1994), Banerjee et al. (1993) and Gujarati (1995). Advanced readings include Fuller (1976) and Hamilton
(1994). Easier readings include Mills (1990) and Enders (1995).
Banerjee, A., J. J. Dolado, J. W. Galbraith and D. F. Hendry (1993), Co-Integration, Error-Correction, and The Econometric Analysis of Non-stationary Data (Oxford University Press: Oxford).
Bierens, H. J. (2001), “ Unit Roots,” Chapter 29 in B. H. Baltagi (ed.) A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics (Blackwell: Massachusetts).
Bierens, H. J. and S. Guo (1993), “Testing for Stationarity and Trend Stationarity Against the Unit Root Hypothesis,” Econometric Reviews, 12: 1-32.
Bollerslev, T. (1986), “Generalized Autoregressive Heteroskedasticity,” Journal of Econometrics, 31: 307-327.
Box, G. E.P. and G. M. Jenkins (1970), Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control (Holden Day: San Francisco).
Box, G. E.P. and D. A. Pierce (1970), “The Distribution of Residual Autocorrelations in Auto-regressive - Integrated Moving Average Time Series Models,” Journal of American Statistical Association, 65: 1509-1526.
Chamberlain, G. (1982), “The General Equivalence of Granger and Sims Causality,” Econometrica, 50: 569-582.
Davidson, R. and J. G. MacKinnon (1993), Estimation and Inference in Econometrics (Oxford University Press: Oxford).
Dickey, D. A. and W. A. Fuller (1979), “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with A Unit Root,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74: 427-431.
Dolado, J. J., J. Gonzalo and F. Marmol (2001), “Cointegration,” Chapter 30 in B. H. Baltagi (ed.) A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics (Blackwell: Massachusetts).
Durlauf, S. N. and P. C.B. Phillips (1988), “Trends versus Random Walks in Time Series Analysis,” Econometrica, 56: 1333-1354.
Enders, W. (1995), Applied Econometric Time Series (Wiley: New York).
Engle, R. F. (1982), “Autogressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation,” Econometrica, 50: 987-1007.
Engle, R. F. and C. W.J. Granger (1987), “Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing,” Econometrica, 55: 251-276.
Fuller, W. A. (1976), Introduction to Statistical Time Series (John Wiley and Sons: New York).
Geweke, J., R. Meese and W. Dent (1983), “Comparing Alternative Tests of Causality in Temporal Systems: Analytic Results and Experimental Evidence,” Journal of Econometrics, 21: 161-194.
Ghysels, E. and P. Perron (1993), “The Effect of Seasonal Adjustment Filters on Tests for a Unit Root,” Journal of Econometrics, 55: 57-98.
Godfrey, L. G. (1979), “Testing the Adequacy of a Time Series Model,” Biometrika, 66: 67-72.
Granger, C. W.J. (1969), “Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods,” Econometrica, 37: 424-438.
Granger, C. W.J. (2001), “Spurious Regressions in Econometrics,” Chapter 26 in B. H. Baltagi (ed.) A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics (Blackwell: Massachusetts).
Granger, C. W.J., M. L. King and H. White (1995), “Comments on Testing Economic Theories and the Use of Model Selection Criteria,” Journal of Econometrics, 67: 173-187.
Granger, C. W.J. and P. Newbold (1974), “Spurious Regressions in Econometrics,” Journal of Econometrics, 2: 111-120.
Gujarati, D. N. (1995), Basic Econometrics (McGraw Hill: New York).
Hamilton, J. D. (1994), Time Series Analysis (Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey).
Johansen, S. (1988), “Statistical Analysis of Cointegrating Vectors,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12: 231-254.
Judge, G. G., R. C. Hill, W. E. Griffiths, H. Liitkepohl and T. C. Lee (1985), The Theory and Practice of Econometrics (John Wiley and Sons: New York).
Kwaitowski, D., P. C.B. Phillips, P. Schmidt and Y. Shin (1992), “Testing the Null Hypothesis of Sta - tionarity Against the Alternative of a Unit Root,” Journal of Econometrics, 54: 159-178.
Leybourne, S. J. and B. P.M. McCabe (1994), “A Consistent Test for a Unit Root,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 12: 157-166.
Litterman, R. B. (1986), “Forecasting with Bayesian Vector Autoregressions-Five Years of Experience,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 4: 25-38.
Ljung, G. M. and G. E.P. Box (1978), “On a Measure of Lack of Fit in Time-Series Models,” Biometrika, 65: 297-303.
Liitkepohl, H. (2001), “Vector Autoregressions,” Chapter 32 in B. H. Baltagi (ed.) A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics (Blackwell: Massachusetts).
MacKinnon, J. G. (1991), ’’Critical Values for Cointegration Tests,” Ch. 13 in Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in Cointegration, eds. R. F. Engle and C. W.J. Granger (Oxford University Press: Oxford ).
Maddala, G. S. (1992), Introduction to Econometrics (Macmillan: New York).
Mills, T. C. (1990), Time Series Techniques for Economists (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
Nelson, C. R. and C. I. Plosser (1982), “Trends and Random Walks in Macroeconomic Time Series: Some Evidence and Implications,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 10: 139-162.
Ng, S. and P. Perron (1995), “Unit Root Tests in ARMA Models With Data-Dependent Methods for the Selection of the Truncation Lag,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90: 268-281.
Perron, P. (1989), “The Great Cash, The Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis,” Econometrica, 57: 1361-1401.
Phillips, P. C.B. (1986), “Understanding Spurious Regressions in Econometrics,” Journal of Econometrics, 33: 311-340.
Phillips, P. C.B. and P. Perron (1988), “Testing for A Unit Root in Time Series Regression,” Biometrika, 75: 335-346.
Plosser, C. I. and G. W. Shwert (1978), “Money, Income and Sunspots: Measuring Economic Relationships and the Effects of Differencing,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 4: 637-660.
Sims, C. A. (1972), “Money, Income and Causality,” American Economic Review, 62: 540-552.
Sims, C. A. (1980), “Macroeconomics and Reality,” Econometrica, 48: 1-48.
Sims, C. A., J. H. Stock and M. W. Watson (1990), “Inference in Linear Time Series Models with Some Unit Roots,” Econometrica, 58: 113-144.
Stock, J. H. and M. W. Watson (1988), “Variable Trends in Economic Time Series,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2: 147-174.
0 z
Ф(1.65) = pr[z < 1.65] = 0.9505
Table A Area under the Standard Normal Distribution
z |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.04 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.07 |
0.08 |
0.09 |
0.0 |
0.5000 |
0.5040 |
0.5080 |
0.5120 |
0.5160 |
0.5199 |
0.5239 |
0.5279 |
0.5319 |
0.5359 |
0.1 |
0.5398 |
0.5438 |
0.5478 |
0.5517 |
0.5557 |
0.5596 |
0.5636 |
0.5675 |
0.5714 |
0.5753 |
0.2 |
0.5793 |
0.5832 |
0.5871 |
0.5910 |
0.5948 |
0.5987 |
0.6026 |
0.6064 |
0.6103 |
0.6141 |
0.3 |
0.6179 |
0.6217 |
0.6255 |
0.6293 |
0.6331 |
0.6368 |
0.6406 |
0.6443 |
0.6480 |
0.6517 |
0.4 |
0.6554 |
0.6591 |
0.6628 |
0.6664 |
0.6700 |
0.6736 |
0.6772 |
0.6808 |
0.6844 |
0.6879 |
0.5 |
0.6915 |
0.6950 |
0.6985 |
0.7019 |
0.7054 |
0.7088 |
0.7123 |
0.7157 |
0.7190 |
0.7224 |
0.6 |
0.7257 |
0.7291 |
0.7324 |
0.7357 |
0.7389 |
0.7422 |
0.7454 |
0.7486 |
0.7517 |
0.7549 |
0.7 |
0.7580 |
0.7611 |
0.7642 |
0.7673 |
0.7704 |
0.7734 |
0.7764 |
0.7794 |
0.7823 |
0.7852 |
0.8 |
0.7881 |
0.7910 |
0.7939 |
0.7967 |
0.7995 |
0.8023 |
0.8051 |
0.8078 |
0.8106 |
0.8133 |
0.9 |
0.8159 |
0.8186 |
0.8212 |
0.8238 |
0.8264 |
0.8289 |
0.8315 |
0.8340 |
0.8365 |
0.8389 |
1.0 |
0.8413 |
0.8438 |
0.8461 |
0.8485 |
0.8508 |
0.8531 |
0.8554 |
0.8577 |
0.8599 |
0.8621 |
1.1 |
0.8643 |
0.8665 |
0.8686 |
0.8708 |
0.8729 |
0.8749 |
0.8770 |
0.8790 |
0.8810 |
0.8830 |
1.2 |
0.8849 |
0.8869 |
0.8888 |
0.8907 |
0.8925 |
0.8944 |
0.8962 |
0.8980 |
0.8997 |
0.9015 |
1.3 |
0.9032 |
0.9049 |
0.9066 |
0.9082 |
0.9099 |
0.9115 |
0.9131 |
0.9147 |
0.9162 |
0.9177 |
1.4 |
0.9192 |
0.9207 |
0.9222 |
0.9236 |
0.9251 |
0.9265 |
0.9279 |
0.9292 |
0.9306 |
0.9319 |
1.5 |
0.9332 |
0.9345 |
0.9357 |
0.9370 |
0.9382 |
0.9394 |
0.9406 |
0.9418 |
0.9429 |
0.9441 |
1.6 |
0.9452 |
0.9463 |
0.9474 |
0.9484 |
0.9495 |
0.9505 |
0.9515 |
0.9525 |
0.9535 |
0.9545 |
1.7 |
0.9554 |
0.9564 |
0.9573 |
0.9582 |
0.9591 |
0.9599 |
0.9608 |
0.9616 |
0.9625 |
0.9633 |
1.8 |
0.9641 |
0.9649 |
0.9656 |
0.9664 |
0.9671 |
0.9678 |
0.9686 |
0.9693 |
0.9699 |
0.9706 |
1.9 |
0.9713 |
0.9719 |
0.9726 |
0.9732 |
0.9738 |
0.9744 |
0.9750 |
0.9756 |
0.9761 |
0.9767 |
2.0 |
0.9772 |
0.9778 |
0.9783 |
0.9788 |
0.9793 |
0.9798 |
0.9803 |
0.9808 |
0.9812 |
0.9817 |
2.1 |
0.9821 |
0.9826 |
0.9830 |
0.9834 |
0.9838 |
0.9842 |
0.9846 |
0.9850 |
0.9854 |
0.9857 |
2.2 |
0.9861 |
0.9864 |
0.9868 |
0.9871 |
0.9875 |
0.9878 |
0.9881 |
0.9884 |
0.9887 |
0.9890 |
2.3 |
0.9893 |
0.9896 |
0.9898 |
0.9901 |
0.9904 |
0.9906 |
0.9909 |
0.9911 |
0.9913 |
0.9916 |
2.4 |
0.9918 |
0.9920 |
0.9922 |
0.9925 |
0.9927 |
0.9929 |
0.9931 |
0.9932 |
0.9934 |
0.9936 |
2.5 |
0.9938 |
0.9940 |
0.9941 |
0.9943 |
0.9945 |
0.9946 |
0.9948 |
0.9949 |
0.9951 |
0.9952 |
2.6 |
0.9953 |
0.9955 |
0.9956 |
0.9957 |
0.9959 |
0.9960 |
0.9961 |
0.9962 |
0.9963 |
0.9964 |
2.7 |
0.9965 |
0.9966 |
0.9967 |
0.9968 |
0.9969 |
0.9970 |
0.9971 |
0.9972 |
0.9973 |
0.9974 |
2.8 |
0.9974 |
0.9975 |
0.9976 |
0.9977 |
0.9977 |
0.9978 |
0.9979 |
0.9979 |
0.9980 |
0.9981 |
2.9 |
0.9981 |
0.9982 |
0.9982 |
0.9983 |
0.9984 |
0.9984 |
0.9985 |
0.9985 |
0.9986 |
0.9986 |
3.0 |
0.9987 |
0.9987 |
0.9987 |
0.9988 |
0.9988 |
0.9989 |
0.9989 |
0.9989 |
0.9990 |
0.9990 |
Source: The SAS® function PROBNORM was used to generate this table. |
B. H. Baltagi, Econometrics, Springer Texts in Business and Economics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20059-5, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
Pr[t8 >ta = 2.306] = 0.025
Table B Right-Tail Critical Values for the t-Distribution
DF |
a=0.1 |
a=0.05 |
a=0.025 |
a=0.01 |
a=0.005 |
1 |
3.0777 |
6.3138 |
12.7062 |
31.8205 |
63.6567 |
2 |
1.8856 |
2.9200 |
4.3027 |
6.9646 |
9.9248 |
3 |
1.6377 |
2.3534 |
3.1824 |
4.5407 |
5.8409 |
4 |
1.5332 |
2.1318 |
2.7764 |
3.7469 |
4.6041 |
5 |
1.4759 |
2.0150 |
2.5706 |
3.3649 |
4.0321 |
6 |
1.4398 |
1.9432 |
2.4469 |
3.1427 |
3.7074 |
7 |
1.4149 |
1.8946 |
2.3646 |
2.9980 |
3.4995 |
8 |
1.3968 |
1.8595 |
2.3060 |
2.8965 |
3.3554 |
9 |
1.3830 |
1.8331 |
2.2622 |
2.8214 |
3.2498 |
10 |
1.3722 |
1.8125 |
2.2281 |
2.7638 |
3.1693 |
11 |
1.3634 |
1.7959 |
2.2010 |
2.7181 |
3.1058 |
12 |
1.3562 |
1.7823 |
2.1788 |
2.6810 |
3.0545 |
13 |
1.3502 |
1.7709 |
2.1604 |
2.6503 |
3.0123 |
14 |
1.3450 |
1.7613 |
2.1448 |
2.6245 |
2.9768 |
15 |
1.3406 |
1.7531 |
2.1314 |
2.6025 |
2.9467 |
16 |
1.3368 |
1.7459 |
2.1199 |
2.5835 |
2.9208 |
17 |
1.3334 |
1.7396 |
2.1098 |
2.5669 |
2.8982 |
18 |
1.3304 |
1.7341 |
2.1009 |
2.5524 |
2.8784 |
19 |
1.3277 |
1.7291 |
2.0930 |
2.5395 |
2.8609 |
20 |
1.3253 |
1.7247 |
2.0860 |
2.5280 |
2.8453 |
21 |
1.3232 |
1.7207 |
2.0796 |
2.5176 |
2.8314 |
22 |
1.3212 |
1.7171 |
2.0739 |
2.5083 |
2.8188 |
23 |
1.3195 |
1.7139 |
2.0687 |
2.4999 |
2.8073 |
24 |
1.3178 |
1.7109 |
2.0639 |
2.4922 |
2.7969 |
25 |
1.3163 |
1.7081 |
2.0595 |
2.4851 |
2.7874 |
26 |
1.3150 |
1.7056 |
2.0555 |
2.4786 |
2.7787 |
27 |
1.3137 |
1.7033 |
2.0518 |
2.4727 |
2.7707 |
28 |
1.3125 |
1.7011 |
2.0484 |
2.4671 |
2.7633 |
29 |
1.3114 |
1.6991 |
2.0452 |
2.4620 |
2.7564 |
30 |
1.3104 |
1.6973 |
2.0423 |
2.4573 |
2.7500 |
31 |
1.3095 |
1.6955 |
2.0395 |
2.4528 |
2.7440 |
32 |
1.3086 |
1.6939 |
2.0369 |
2.4487 |
2.7385 |
33 |
1.3077 |
1.6924 |
2.0345 |
2.4448 |
2.7333 |
34 |
1.3070 |
1.6909 |
2.0322 |
2.4411 |
2.7284 |
35 |
1.3062 |
1.6896 |
2.0301 |
2.4377 |
2.7238 |
36 |
1.3055 |
1.6883 |
2.0281 |
2.4345 |
2.7195 |
37 |
1.3049 |
1.6871 |
2.0262 |
2.4314 |
2.7154 |
38 |
1.3042 |
1.6860 |
2.0244 |
2.4286 |
2.7116 |
39 |
1.3036 |
1.6849 |
2.0227 |
2.4258 |
2.7079 |
40 |
1.3031 |
1.6839 |
2.0211 |
2.4233 |
2.7045 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||