Unit-Root Tests and Excess Returns

  • Marie-Josée Godbout
  • Simon van Norden
Part of the Dynamic Modeling and Econometrics in Economics and Finance book series (DMEF, volume 1)

Abstract

When introducing students to the modem theory of financial markets, it is common to characterize the behavior of the log of asset prices as martingales, and their excess returns as being serially uncorrelated or even unpredictable. This is consistent with Fama’s (1970) characterization of weak, semi-strong, and strong market efficiency. To be sure, there is an extensive literature documenting the deviations of asset prices from this characterization. Despite this, most would accept the proposition that asset prices contain a unit root in their time-series representation and that excess returns do not. Put another way, the stylized fact is that asset prices are integrated of order one (I(1)) and excess returns are integrated of order zero (I(0)). However, a small number of prominent recent papers have presented evidence that appears to reject this characterization in a surprising way. They show that, according to some tests, some excess returns appear to contain a unit root.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baillie, R. T. and T. Bollerslev (1989). “Common Stochastic Trends in a System of Exchange Rates,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 44, 167–181.Google Scholar
  2. Baillie, R. T. and T. Bollerslev (1994). “The Long Memory of the Forward Premium,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 13, 565–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekaert, G. and R. J. Hodrick (1993). “On Biases in the Measurement of Foreign Exchange Risk Premiums,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 12, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenner, R. J. and K. F. Kroner (1995). “Arbitrage, Cointegration and Testing the Unbiasedness Hypothesis in Financial Markets,” Journal of Quantitative and Financial Analysis, 30, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. and P. Perron (1991). “Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots,” in O. Blanchard and S. Fischer (eds.) NBER Macroeconomics Annual. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cheung, Y. W. and K. S. Lai (1993). “Finite-Sample Sizes of Johansen’s Likelihood Ratio Tests for Cointegration,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 55, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochrane, J. H. (1991). “A Critique of the Application of Unit Root Tests,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 15, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowder, W. J. (1994). “Foreign Exchange Market Efficiency and Common Stochastic Trends,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 13, 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durlauf, S. (1989). “Output Persistence, Economic Structure and the Choice of Stabilization Policy,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 69–137.Google Scholar
  10. Edison, H. J., E. Gagnon, and W. R. Melick (1994). “Understanding the Empirical Literature on Purchasing Power Parity: the Post-Bretton Woods Era,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System International Finance Discussion Papers No. 465.Google Scholar
  11. Engle, R. F. and C. W. J. Granger (1987). “Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing,” Econometrica, 55, 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, M. D. D. and K. Lewis (1992). “Trends in Excess Returns in Currency and Bond Markets,” NBER working paper No. 4116.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, M. D. D. and K. Lewis (1993). “Trends in Excess Returns in Currency and Bond Markets,” European Economic Review, 37, 1005–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, M. D. D. and K. Lewis (1994). “Do Stationary Risk Premia Explain it All? Evidence from the Term Structure,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 3, 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, M. D. D. and K. Lewis (1995). “Do Long-Term Swings in the Dollar Affect Estimates of the Risk Premia?” Review of Financial Studies, 8, 709–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fama, E. F. (1970). “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work,” Journal of Finance, 25, 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godbout, M. and S. van Norden (1997). “Reconsidering Cointegration in International Finance: Three Case Studies of Size Distortion in Finite Samples,” working paper No. 97-1, Bank of Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Gonzalo, J. (1994). “A Comparison of Five Alternative Methods of Estimating Long Run Equilibrium Relationships,” Journal of Econometrics, 60, 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gonzalo, J. and T. Lee (1998). “Pitfalls in Testing for Long Run Relationships,” Journal of Econometrics, 86, 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gonzalo, J. and J. Pitarakis (1994). “Comovements in Large Systems,” discussion paper No. 9465, CORE.Google Scholar
  21. Gregory, A. (1994). “Testing for Cointegrating in Linear Quadratic Models,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 12, 347–360.Google Scholar
  22. Hendry, S. (1995). “Long-Run Demand for Ml,” working paper No. 95-11, Bank of Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Ho, M. S. and B. E. SØrenson (1996). “Finding Cointegration Rank in High Dimensional Systems Using the Johansen Test: An Illustration Using Data Based Monte Carlo Simulations,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, 726–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johanson, S. (1988). “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johansen, S. and K. Juselius (1990). “Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration with Applications to the Demand for Money,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meese, R. A. and K. Rogoff (1983). “Empirical Exchange Rate Models of the Seventies: Do They Fit Out of Sample?” Journal of International Economics, 14, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newey, W. K. and K. D. West (1987). “A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix,” Econometrica, 55, 703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osterwald-Lenum, M. (1992). “A Note with Quantiles of the Asymptotic Distribution of the Maximum Likelihood Cointegration Rank Test Statistics,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 54, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips, P. C. B., J. McFarland, and P. C. McMahon (1996). “Robust Tests of Forward Exchange Market Efficiency with Empirical Evidence from the 1920s,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reinsel, G. C. and S. H. Ahn (1988). “Asymptotic Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio Test for Cointegration in the Nonstationary Vector AR Case,” technical report, Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  31. Reinsel, G. C. and S. H. Ahn (1992). “Vector Autoregressive Models with Unit Roots and Reduced Rank Structure; Estimation, Likelihood Ratio Tests, and Forecasting,” Journal of Time Series Analysis, 13, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stock, J. H. and M. W. Watson (1993). “A Simple Estimator of Cointegrating Vectors in Higher Order Integrated Systems,” Econometrica, 61, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Toda, H. Y. (1994). “Finite Sample Properties of Likelihood Ratio Tests for Integration When Linear Trends are Present,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Toda, H. Y. (1995). “Finite Sample Performance of Likelihood Ratio Tests for Cointegrating Ranks in Vector Autoregressions,” Econometric Theory, 11, 1015–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Watson, M. W. (1995). “Vector Autoregressions and Cointegration,” in Engle, R.F. and D. McFadden (eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 4. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Josée Godbout
    • 1
  • Simon van Norden
    • 2
  1. 1.Bank of CanadaCanada
  2. 2.École des Hautes Études CommercialFrance

Personalised recommendations