EViews.com

Hello, Addressing your last point first, stochastic innovations do interact with ARMA errors as you'd expect. Add factors are the oddity. In effect, residuals/innovations are determined before add factors are applied, so add factors don't propagate through ARMA terms. Your approach for implementing ...

My apologies, I pasted a genr expression for the calculation instead of a scalar context expression. Just replace to two @date references with @now... %mydate = @datestr(@datefloor(@now, "y") + 6 - @mod(@datepart(@datefloor(@now, "y"), "w") + 1, 7), "mm/dd/yyyy&quo...

Hello,

I believe this will work:

A quick note, addin registration is available programmatically. You could for example, write your own addin that switched the registration of other addins between their official and development versions, or even use a git hook to trigger the switch.

Hello,

Sorry your post escaped my notice earlier. Unfortunately, add factors are not treated as innovation shocks even in stochastic solves and there are no options for altering this behavior.

Hello,

Using the message window, the parsing loop of two posts back could be modified to look for the individual "Dropped add factor series " lines and extract them all that way.

I knew you'd ask that. In which case, to avoid parsing each specification for the first variable name perhaps it's best to include an add factor on all equations, thus the set of dropped add factors will match the set of modified equations.

Another good candidate for a new data member. Otherwise, a brief loop can extract the information... logmode l create u 1 ' Create a trivial model with 50 equations. model m for !i = 1 to 50 m.append x!i = y!i next m.addassign @all ' We're going to flip the first 25 equations. for !i = 1 to 25 %tmp ...

Hello, In light of the limitations of the summary table, until such time as new convenience data members may be added I believe the easiest approach will be to utilize the existing data members for endogenous/exogenous/add-factor information to deduce the changes. Allow me to demonstrate: logmode l ...

Hello,

I notice that the error message "FOR !I=1 TO G_F@COUNT" is missing the period in "g_f.@count". Are you sure that the program you're running includes that period like the samples you've shown us?

Hello, The "Permissive error handling" global setting was introduced in EViews 11 to address discrepancies in error handling between the 32- and 64-bit editions of EViews. Depending on the edition used, a handful of specific errors either would or would not be reported, which was an undesi...

Hello,

This issue will be fixed in the next patch.

Hello, It's possible that overriding a variable while still using its previously solved values could produce different results for other endogenous series. I believe this outcome could arise if (1) the overridden variable were part of a recursive block of variables in the model, and (2) the system o...

Hello,

I'm afraid we're going to need more information. The single code line you've shared would seem fine for creating a 1/na dummy series based on the contents of the AGES series. What other code isn't working?

Hello,

A recent patch unfortunately introduced a bug into wildcard handling. The next EViews patch will correct the issue.