Using the one-year information from 1955 to 1994 provided for Finnish sums, we are to gauge the following two theoretical accounts for misspecification trials and illation cogency and besides find theoretical account 3 that explains the theory that “ ingestion is positive related to income and negatively related to employment ( proxying income uncertainness and existent involvement rate ( intertemporal permutation ) ” .

Model 1 – LCFIt = I?1 + I’2LGFIt + I’3RFIt + I?4UFIt + Ut,

Model 2 – LCFIt = I?1 + I’2LGFIt + I’3RFIt + I?4UFIt + LCFIt + I’11LGFIt – 1 + I’3RFI T – 1 + I?4UFI T – 1 + Ut

## To: Chris Stewart

## From: Agnes Osagie Submission Date: 12 November 2012

## Course: MSc International Banking and Finance

## Year of Programme: 2008/2009 Word Count: 2,207

## LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

## Name

Agnes Osagie

## Student No LondonMet

05 011 796

## Module Title

## Module codification

## Submission Date

Quantitative Research Methods

ECP054C

9th December 2008

## Contentss

8 Appendix 13

8.1 Comupter Output 13

8.2 General analysis of computing machine end product 13

## List of Abbreviations and Glossary

DL, K ‘ , n, = ( DL lower edge, K ‘ is the figure of explanatory variable excepting the intercept ( the grades of freedom ) ) , N – Number of Observations, %

DU, K ‘ , N, % = ( DU Upper edge )

Eview – Computer Package, which is a utile tool for econometric analysis.

H0 – Nothing Hypothesis

OLS – Ordinary Least Square

Ut – Stochastic mistake term

tcrit – represent t – critical

tstat – Present T -statistic

& lt ; – represent less than

& gt ; – represent greater than or transcend

## Introduction

Using E-views package, the program is to gauge the following two theoretical accounts[ 1 ]by OLS for six misspecification trials and find whether they are valid for illation.

Therefore model-2b as a starting point, we will use the general-to-specific methodological analysis to happen a penurious theoretical account ( model-3 ) , that is valid for illation.

Overall the purpose is to look into that the favoured theoretical account is comparatively to the economic theory “ ingestion is positively related to income[ 2 ]and negatively related to unemployment[ 3 ]( proxying income uncertainness ) and existent involvement rates[ 4 ]( intertemporal permutation ) ” ,[ 5 ]and for pulling illation. Harmonizing to Keynes ; Consumption is positive during roars and negative in recession.

## Action-Plan

Section-1 Testing both theoretical accounts for six misspecification trials and find illation cogency,

Section-2 Using model-2 to happen a 3rd theoretical account that explains the economic theory.

## Summary of the salient estimated consequence

## Model 1

## Model 2

## Model 3

Intercept

-0.674520

( -21.9095 )

-0.214263

( 2.275909 )

-0.299426

( 3.296630 )

LGFIt

0.988854

( 93.46852 )

0.936248

( 7.740637 )

0.840465

( 11.14243 )

RFIt

-0.052366

( 0.564351 )

0.082467

( 0.987954 )

UFIt

0.003446

( 0.036035 )

0.206314

( 0.755914 )

LCFI T -1

0.614452

( 4.707345 )

0.550790

( 4317105 )

LGFI T -1

-0.541969

( 3.261696 )

-0.405966

( 2.437454 )

RFI T -1

0.008326

( 0.109676 )

UFI T -1[ 6 ]

-0.484757

( 1.520719 )

## Fit Measures

AdjRA?[ 7 ]

0.997020

0.998655

0.998410

Second[ 8 ]

0.019455

0.013071

0.014209

F ( RA? = 0 )[ 9 ]

4238.637

[ 0.00 ]

4031.041

[ 0.00 ]

7956.609

[ 0.00 ]

F ( 2 a†’ 3 )[ 10 ]

2.589857

[ 0.0560 ]

## Missecification

DW[ 11 ]

0.723270

1.823246[ 12 ]*

1.463949[ 13 ]*

LMSC ( 1 )

14.25826

[ 0.0002 ]

0.022552

[ 0.8802 ]

2.950629

[ 0.0858 ]

LRF ( 1 )

0.236544

[ 0.6267 ]

0.751370

[ 0.3860 ]

0.753120

[ 0.3855 ]

LMN ( 2 )

0.110588

[ 0.946207 ]

0.177124

[ 0.915246 ]

0.794720

[ 0.672092 ]

LMH

0.413027

[ 0.9375 ]

12.35706

[ 0.0894 ]

6.274306

[ 0.0990 ]

LMARCH ( 1 )

2.572096

[ 0.1088 ]

1.944518

[ 0.1632 ]

0.795460

[ 0.3725 ]

## Section-1

From the computing machine end product produced by E-views, this subdivision we are traveling to construe the consequences of all six misspecification trials for theoretical account 1[ 14 ]and 2, utilizing 5 % degree of significance, to look into their cogency for illation:

## The Durbin Watson trial for first-order autocorrelation[ 15 ]

Hypothesis= H0: P =0[ 16 ]( DW = 2 ) , HA: P a‰ 0 ( DW a‰ 2 )

DW statistic = 0.7233 & lt ; deciliter, 3, 39, 5 % – = Critical value 1.328

Harmonizing to the DW determination regulation and from the consequence of the trial statistic ( appendix-2a ) , DW trial statistic is significantly below the critical value ; hence we reject the void hypothesis connoting that there is apparent of positive autocorrelation.

## Breusch-Godfrey trial for 1st order autocorrelation

Hypothesis = H0: p1= 0, HA: P1 a‰ 0

LMA ( 1 ) = trial statistic 14.258 & gt ; the chi-square value ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % = 3.841

Harmonizing to the Breusch-Godfrey determination regulation and from the consequence of the trial statistic ( appendix-2b ) , this imply that test statistic exceed the critical value ( Alternatively the P-Value = 0.0002 & lt ; 0.05 ) therefore we reject the nothing of consecutive correlativity and conclude that consecutive correlativity is present.

## Ramsey ‘s RESET for non-linear functional signifier

Hypothesis = H0: Y = 0, HA: Y a‰ 0

LRFF ( 1 ) = 0.2365 & lt ; the chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 3.841

Harmonizing to the Ramsey ‘s determination regulation and from the consequence of the trial statistic ( appendix-2c ) , this implies that Ramsey ‘s trial statistic is less than the critical value ( or the P-Value = 0.6267 & gt ; 0.05 ) hence one bash non reject the void hypothesis, accordingly no evident of misspecification functional signifier ; hence non-linearity is undistinguished

## Jarque-Bera trial for non-normality distribution remainders

Hypothesis: H0: I±3 = 0 and I± 4 =3, HA: I± 3 a‰ 0 and or I± 4 a‰ 3

LMH ( 1 ) = 0.1106 & lt ; the chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) 5.991,

Harmonizing to the Jarque-Bera determination regulation and from the consequence of the trial statistic ( appendix-2d ) , this implies that Jarque-Bera trial statistic is less than the critical value ( Alternative the P-Value = 0.946 & gt ; 0.05 ) and one do non reject the void hypothesis therefore is no evident of non-normally distribution remainders and non-normality is undistinguished.

## White ‘s trial for heteroscedasticity ( without cross footings )

Hypothesis: H0: a?‚2 = 0 a?©aˆ¦a?©a?‚k =0 a?©I»A? =0 a?©aˆ¦a?©I»k =0a?©yA? =0 a?© … a?©I»h =0HA: a?‚2 a‰ 0 Uaˆ¦ U a?‚ k a‰ 0 UI»A? a‰ 0 Uaˆ¦UI»k a‰ 0UyA? a‰ 0 Uaˆ¦Uyh a‰ 0

LMH ( 1 ) = 0.4130 & lt ; chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 3.841,

Harmonizing to the White ‘s determination regulation and from the consequence of the trial statistic ( appendix-2e ) , this implies that white ‘s trial statistic is less than the critical value ( instead the P-Value = 0.9375 & lt ; 0.05 ) and we do non reject the void hypothesis therefore is no evident of heteroscedesticity.

## ARCH consequence ( First-order )

Hypothesis: H0: d1 = 0a?©d2 = 0a?© … a?©dq =0, HA: d1 a‰ 0Ud2 a‰ 0Uaˆ¦Udq a‰ 0

LMARCH ( 1 ) = 2.5721 & lt ; chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 3.841,

Harmonizing to the ARCH consequence determination regulation and from the consequence of the trial statistic ( appendix-2f ) , this implies that ARCH consequence trial statistic is less than the critical value ( instead the P-Value = 0.1088 & gt ; 0.05 ) and we do non reject the void hypothesis therefore is no evident of an ARCH mistake procedure presence.

After analysis model-1, there is apparent of autocorrelation and consecutive correlativity, hence model-1 is non valid for illation and demand to be re-specified[ 17 ].

Therefore OLS will give both indifferent and consistent but are inefficient so no longer the best linear indifferent calculator ( BLUE ) . Nevertheless the critical value for standard hypothesis trials might take to incorrect decision and invalid, Overall OLS appraisal evident of autocorrelation signifies that the model-1 is non BLUE.

## Model-2b[ 18 ]

## The DW trial for first-order autocorrelation

DW statistic is not-applicable, because it has the dependant variable in a lagged[ 19 ]signifier as an independent variable[ 20 ].

Overall the presence of lagged dependant variable means OLS will probably be biased in little samples but will be consistent.

## Breusch-Godfrey trial for 1st order autocorrelation

LMA ( 1 ) = trial statistic 0.02255 & lt ; the chi-square value ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % = 3.842

This imply that ( appendix-2h ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( alternate the P-value = 0.8806 & gt ; 0.5 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis, hence no evident of first-order autocorrelation.

## Ramsey ‘s RESET for non-linear functional signifier

LRFF ( 1 ) = 0.7541 & lt ; the chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 3.841

This implies that ( appendix-2i ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( instead the P-Value = 0.3860 & gt ; 0.05 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis, therefore is no evident of misspecification functional signifier hence non-linearity is undistinguished.

## Jarque-Bera trial for non-normality distribution remainders

LMH ( 1 ) = 0.17771 & lt ; the chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) 5.991,

This implies that ( appendix-2j ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( instead the P-Value =0.9152 & gt ; 0.05 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis, accordingly is no evident of non-normally distribution remainders.

## White ‘s trial for heteroscedasticity ( without cross footings )

LMH ( 1 ) = 12.3571 & lt ; chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 14.067,

This implies that ( appendix-2k ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( instead the P-Value =0.0894 & gt ; 0.05 ) , we do non reject the void hypothesis hence is no evident of heteroscedesticity.

## ARCH consequence ( First-order )

LMARCH ( 1 ) = 1.9445 & lt ; chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 3.841,

This implies that ( appendix-2l ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( instead the P-Value =0.1632 & gt ; 0.05 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis therefore is no evident of an ARCH mistake procedure presence hence Arch consequence is undistinguished.

Subsequently to the consequences, the chance values of all the 5-tests ( except for the DW ) are greater than 0.05 degree of important, which mean there are no evident of misspecification at 5 % , hence model-2b is valid for illation.

## Section-2

We are traveling to obtain a penurious theoretical account that is valid for illation preferred utilizing model-2b[ 21 ]as a general-to-specification methodological analysis[ 22 ]to acquire a model-3 explains the determiners variables.

H0: I?1=0 a?© I?2=0, HA: I?1a‰ 0 U I?2a‰ 0

First, Using t-ratios value & lt ; 2 in absolute value from theoretical account ( 2b ) to place possible redundant variables ; /t-stats/ & lt ; *5 % = 2, ( RFI, UFI, RFI ( -1 ) , UFI ( -1 ) )[ 23 ]– separately important for exclusion.

However, we do non excluded all four variables at one time, because other variables’t-ratios could lift, due to efficiency and decreased colinearity,

Therefore we decide to except RFI, UFI, and RFI ( -1 ) ,[ 24 ]and ground is because the t-Statistic & lt ; 1,[ 25 ]presuming the “ contemporary variables ” are more likely to be relevant.

Second, utilizing the F-tests, we determine if the variable should be kept in the theoretical account or they should be excluded.

H0: B4=B31=B41=0, HA: B4=B31=B41a‰ 0

The determination will be based on F-test whereby, if F-stat & lt ; F-critical, we do non reject HO, therefore excluded variables, intending that the variables are undistinguished. Similarly we find that the P-value ( F ) & gt ; 0.05 and we exclude the variable above.

F-test=0.908269 & lt ; F-critical value 2.61, or P-Value=0.4483 & gt ; 0.05

## However the above trials can be classified as the model-3, however, we want a high t-ratios & A ; high R2.

## Let ‘s presume the theoretical account above although had a t-ratios & gt ; 2, had a mark of misspecification, and we continue to prove the joint important of the variable where t-ratio & lt ; 2, with regard to the 4th ( RFI, UFI, RFIT-1, & A ; UFIT-1 ) t-ratios.

We repeat the proving procedure as lineation above ;

H0: B3=0 ; B4=0 ; B31=0 ; B41=0, H1: B3a‰ 0, B4a‰ 0 ; B31a‰ 0 ; B41a‰ 0

F-test=2.589857 & lt ; 2.84, or P-V=0.0560 & gt ; 0.05

We do non reject, hence we exclude variable, intending that the variable are undistinguished.

Overall excepting the redundant lagged RFI, UFI, RFIT-1, & A ; UFIT-1 gives model-3 B1 + B2LGFIt + B11LCFIt-1 + B21LGFI t-1 + Ut.

Based on the model-3 LCFIt = B1 + B2LGFIt + B11LCFIt-1 + B21LGFI t-1 + Ut[ 26 ], we need to prove & amp ; look into that it is free from misspecification and it is valid for illations.

C= B1=-0.299426 CO-EFF, LGFIt=B2=0.840465, LCFI ( -1 ) =B11=0.558790, LGFI ( -1 ) =B21=-0.405966[ 27 ]

This is based on the F-test carried out above for remotion of variables based on the theoretical account 2. This theoretical account carried an F-Statistic of 7956.609 & gt ; 7111.198, which was obtained from the other general to specific theoretical accounts.

## Model-3

## The Durbin Watson trial for first-order autocorrelation

From ( appendix-2g ) , DW statistic trial is not-applicable when a lagged dependant variable is used.

## Breusch-Godfrey trial for 1st order autocorrelation

LMA ( 1 ) = trial statistic 2.950629 & lt ; the chi-square value ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % = 3.841

This implies that ( appendix-3b ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( alternately the P-Value = 0.0858 & gt ; 0.05 ) and we do non reject the void hypothesis of first-order no autocorrelation.

## Ramsey ‘s RESET for non-linear functional signifier

LRFF ( 1 ) = 0.753120 & lt ; the chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) =3.841

This implies that ( appendix-3c ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( instead the P-Value = 0.3855 & gt ; 0.05 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis hence no evident of misspecification functional signifier.

## Jarque-Bera trial for non-normality distribution remainders

LMH ( 1 ) = 0.794720 & lt ; the chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) 5.991,

This implies that ( appendix-3d ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( Alternatively the P-Value =0.672092 & gt ; 0.05 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis hence no evident of non-normally distribution remainders

## White ‘s trial for heteroscedasticity ( without cross footings )

LMH ( 1 ) = 6.274306 & lt ; chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 7.815,

This implies that ( appendix-3e ) trial statistic & lt ; critical value ( Alternatively utilizing the P-Value = 0.090 & gt ; 0.05 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis therefore no evident of heteroscedesticity.

## ARCH consequence ( First-order )

LMARCH ( 1 ) = 0.795460 & lt ; chi-square ( XA? ( 1 ) 5 % ) = 3.841.

This implies that ( appendix-3f ) , test statistic & lt ; critical value ( Alternatively utilizing the P-Value = 0.3725 & gt ; 0.05 ) , and we do non reject the void hypothesis hence no evident of an ARCH mistake procedure presence

Subsequently to model-3, there is no evident of Misspecification trials at 5 % degree: all above possibilities trials exceed 5 % , hence model-3 represents the penurious theoretical account and is favorable for pulling illation.[ 28 ]

Besides all variables ‘ t-statistics transcending 2.0 in absolute value therefore should stay in the theoretical account.

Both ( adjusted R2 ) and ( R2 ) are equal to 99 % which translates to high explanatory power intending the theoretical account explains all fluctuation in the information

The F-statistic has important explanatory power F ( R2=0 ) =7956.6 & gt ; F ( 5 % , 3, 39 ) = 2.84 besides Pr [ F ( R2=0 ) =0.000 & lt ; 0.05, in order to reject the void hypothesis.

The value mean mistake of the arrested development ( S ) is 0.014209, meaning that ( S ) is about 0.014209 units.

By and large it has a comparatively big and positive coefficient of 0.84 for the LGFI variables, which relative to economics theory of ingestion, which is positively dependent on income, Keynes argues that ingestion chiefly a map of existent income however model-3[ 29 ]overlook the direct consequence on involvement rate and unemployment[ 30 ].

From Milton Friedman theory sing ingestion, forms are determined non by current income but by their longer-term income outlooks. From estimated Parsimonious Model, we see that ingestion is more comparative to income[ 31 ]( Consumers consume what they earn ) .

Using Long-run inactive solution, which is acquired by presuming that model-3 variables do non alter from period to period and enforcing the status gives the followers:

Y = [ B1/ ( 1-B11 ) ] + [ ( B2 + B21 ) / ( 1 – B11 ) ] Ten

Y = [ -0.299465/ ( 1-0.558790 ) ] + [ ( 0.840465 + 0.405966 ) / ( 1- 0.558790 ) ] Ten

Y = -0.678 + 0.986 Ten

Therefore, the penurious theoretical account is consistent with economic sciences theory in long-term ( equilibrium ) Solution ; hence Positive coefficient on X is consistent with economic theory in long-term. Model-3, ingestion is determined by income see above[ 32 ]and economically plausible in long term and short term.

However, our model-3 in comparing to the economic theory, there are some missing variables, in other to acquire consistent with sing above economic theory, we will necessitate to add other variable.

Overall after gauging and proving of theoretical account 1 & A ; 2 and utilizing model-2 to happen model-3, we conclude that model-3 give us more information, nevertheless LCFIt = LGFIt is “ economically plausible ” to theory.

Conversely RFI, UFI, did non hold direct consequence with the theory utilizing model-3. Besides Keynes argues income is Propensity to devour and the fringy leaning to devour.

Let ‘s state purportedly following twelvemonth we add some variables to our theoretical account, the consequences will change by reversal in footings of the economic theory.