Granger Causality Analysis and testing assumptions
Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:46 am
I have a question regarding the Granger Causality Analysis.
I'm conducting a research about the influence of Twitter on the stock market. So I gathered tweets from 98 different stocks and matched them with the 98 stock quotes. I'm using intraday (by the hour) quotes. I performed the Augmented Dickey Fuller (levels) for all the tweets and the returns of the quotes and afterwards estimated the lags using the VAR and the lag length criteria. Now my question is, do I have to check for normality and heteroscedasticity? I tried it already but cannot find what the results exactly mean (as shown below). The results below is from 1 time serie of tweets and the matching returns. If I do have to test for normality and heteroscedasticity before running the GCA, could someone explain how to interpret the tables?
Thanks in advance for your time, very much appreciated!
VAR Residual Heteroskedasticity Tests: No Cross Terms (only levels and squares)
Date: 11/28/13 Time: 13:36
Sample: 10/07/2013 09:00 10/18/2013 16:00
Included observations: 75
Joint test:
Chi-sq df Prob.
20.55626 24 0.6647
Individual components:
Dependent R-squared F(8,66) Prob. Chi-sq(8) Prob.
res1*res1 0.059771 0.524456 0.8340 4.482806 0.8112
res2*res2 0.101858 0.935628 0.4936 7.639339 0.4695
res2*res1 0.062075 0.546012 0.8175 4.655617 0.7937
VAR Residual Normality Tests
Orthogonalization: Cholesky (Lutkepohl)
Null Hypothesis: residuals are multivariate normal
Date: 11/28/13 Time: 13:42
Sample: 10/07/2013 09:00 10/18/2013 16:00
Included observations: 75
Component Skewness Chi-sq df Prob.
1 8.049514 809.9335 1 0.0000
2 -0.039984 0.019984 1 0.8876
Joint 809.9535 2 0.0000
Component Kurtosis Chi-sq df Prob.
1 68.14146 13260.66 1 0.0000
2 3.087196 0.023760 1 0.8775
Joint 13260.68 2 0.0000
Component Jarque-Bera df Prob.
1 14070.59 2 0.0000
2 0.043744 2 0.9784
Joint 14070.63 4 0.0000
I'm conducting a research about the influence of Twitter on the stock market. So I gathered tweets from 98 different stocks and matched them with the 98 stock quotes. I'm using intraday (by the hour) quotes. I performed the Augmented Dickey Fuller (levels) for all the tweets and the returns of the quotes and afterwards estimated the lags using the VAR and the lag length criteria. Now my question is, do I have to check for normality and heteroscedasticity? I tried it already but cannot find what the results exactly mean (as shown below). The results below is from 1 time serie of tweets and the matching returns. If I do have to test for normality and heteroscedasticity before running the GCA, could someone explain how to interpret the tables?
Thanks in advance for your time, very much appreciated!
VAR Residual Heteroskedasticity Tests: No Cross Terms (only levels and squares)
Date: 11/28/13 Time: 13:36
Sample: 10/07/2013 09:00 10/18/2013 16:00
Included observations: 75
Joint test:
Chi-sq df Prob.
20.55626 24 0.6647
Individual components:
Dependent R-squared F(8,66) Prob. Chi-sq(8) Prob.
res1*res1 0.059771 0.524456 0.8340 4.482806 0.8112
res2*res2 0.101858 0.935628 0.4936 7.639339 0.4695
res2*res1 0.062075 0.546012 0.8175 4.655617 0.7937
VAR Residual Normality Tests
Orthogonalization: Cholesky (Lutkepohl)
Null Hypothesis: residuals are multivariate normal
Date: 11/28/13 Time: 13:42
Sample: 10/07/2013 09:00 10/18/2013 16:00
Included observations: 75
Component Skewness Chi-sq df Prob.
1 8.049514 809.9335 1 0.0000
2 -0.039984 0.019984 1 0.8876
Joint 809.9535 2 0.0000
Component Kurtosis Chi-sq df Prob.
1 68.14146 13260.66 1 0.0000
2 3.087196 0.023760 1 0.8775
Joint 13260.68 2 0.0000
Component Jarque-Bera df Prob.
1 14070.59 2 0.0000
2 0.043744 2 0.9784
Joint 14070.63 4 0.0000