Hi all,
I understand that in deterministic environment add-factors are treated as exogenous variables, so that their effects are not propagated via ARMA errors - i.e. change in add-factor in given period will not have any effects past given period carried through ARMA errors*.
Does the same apply to stochastic simulations? That is, are the innovation shocks propagated via the ARMA errors in stochastic solves?
In either case, what is the best way to change this and allow add-factor shocks to be propagated through ARMA errors?
Thanks!
CrisisStudent
* Of course this does not apply to lagged dependent variables.
Simulations: Add-factor interaction with ARMA errors
Moderators: EViews Gareth, EViews Moderator
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:52 am
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:52 am
Re: Simulations: Add-factor interaction with ARMA errors
Hi guys, did you have time to consider this question?
-
- EViews Developer
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:48 pm
Re: Simulations: Add-factor interaction with ARMA errors
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:52 am
Re: Simulations: Add-factor interaction with ARMA errors
Thanks Mat.
Can I brainstorm with you an idea?
We had to develop our own stochastic simulation code in Eviews to give us flexible control over some of the functionalities, which means I could implement a solution to address the issue with ARMA errors propagation. That said, I am not sure how to best address the issue. The only thing that occurred to me was to manually adjust the stochastic innovation series our codes create - i.e. treat the innovations as innovations for ARMA process and then calculate the final innovations as result of the process - which I think could work. But maybe one could somehow adjust the model structure itself to achieve the same result in better way...? Just throwing out there in case you will have some smart idea.
CrisisStudent
Can I brainstorm with you an idea?
We had to develop our own stochastic simulation code in Eviews to give us flexible control over some of the functionalities, which means I could implement a solution to address the issue with ARMA errors propagation. That said, I am not sure how to best address the issue. The only thing that occurred to me was to manually adjust the stochastic innovation series our codes create - i.e. treat the innovations as innovations for ARMA process and then calculate the final innovations as result of the process - which I think could work. But maybe one could somehow adjust the model structure itself to achieve the same result in better way...? Just throwing out there in case you will have some smart idea.
CrisisStudent
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:52 am
Re: Simulations: Add-factor interaction with ARMA errors
Actually, now I re-read your reply and I just wanted to make sure one thing. You said "add factors are not treated as innovation shocks even in stochastic solves". But what about stochastic innovations themselves, do they interact with ARMA errors? (That is: If the stochastic innovations are treated as add-factors, then the answer is clear, but I am not sure if that is the case).
-
- EViews Developer
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:48 pm
Re: Simulations: Add-factor interaction with ARMA errors
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 such functionality seems reasonable to me. I have a vague idea that perhaps an ARMA equation could be split into two equations within a model to introduce the control you want, but I don't know if that idea would really pan out or even provide any advantage over what you're already developing. Perhaps your work would make a nice addin?
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 such functionality seems reasonable to me. I have a vague idea that perhaps an ARMA equation could be split into two equations within a model to introduce the control you want, but I don't know if that idea would really pan out or even provide any advantage over what you're already developing. Perhaps your work would make a nice addin?
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:52 am
Re: Simulations: Add-factor interaction with ARMA errors
Thanks Matt for your reply, this makes everything clear.
Unfortunately, these codes are developed as part of my formal employment, so can't share them with wider community as an add-in...
Unfortunately, these codes are developed as part of my formal employment, so can't share them with wider community as an add-in...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests