Bias-corrected estimation for speculative bubbles in stock prices

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Bias-corrected estimation for speculative bubbles in stock prices. / Kruse, Robinson; Kaufmann, Hendrik; Wegener, Christoph.

in: Economic Modelling, Jahrgang 73, 01.06.2018, S. 354-364.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Kruse R, Kaufmann H, Wegener C. Bias-corrected estimation for speculative bubbles in stock prices. Economic Modelling. 2018 Jun 1;73:354-364. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.04.014

Bibtex

@article{23920e0c7eb94bdebeca1adbfb5d1536,
title = "Bias-corrected estimation for speculative bubbles in stock prices",
abstract = "We provide a comparison of different finite-sample bias-correction methods for possibly explosive autoregressive processes. We compare the empirical performance of the downward-biased standard OLS estimator with an OLS and a Cauchy estimator, both based on recursive demeaning, as well as a second-differencing estimator. In addition, we consider three different approaches for bias-correction for the OLS estimator: (i) bootstrap, (ii) jackknife and (iii) indirect inference. The estimators are evaluated in terms of bias and root mean squared errors (RMSE) in a variety of practically relevant settings. Our findings suggest that the indirect inference method clearly performs best in terms of RMSE for all considered levels of persistence. In terms of bias-correction, the jackknife works best for stationary and unit root processes, but with a typically large variance. For the explosive case, the indirect inference method is recommended. As an empirical illustration, we reconsider the “dot-com bubble” in the NASDAQ index and explore the usefulness of the indirect inference estimator in terms of testing, date stamping and calculations on overvaluation.",
keywords = "Economics, explosive behavior, Bias-correction, Indirect inference, Bubbles",
author = "Robinson Kruse and Hendrik Kaufmann and Christoph Wegener",
year = "2018",
month = jun,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.econmod.2018.04.014",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "354--364",
journal = "Economic Modelling",
issn = "0264-9993",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bias-corrected estimation for speculative bubbles in stock prices

AU - Kruse, Robinson

AU - Kaufmann, Hendrik

AU - Wegener, Christoph

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - We provide a comparison of different finite-sample bias-correction methods for possibly explosive autoregressive processes. We compare the empirical performance of the downward-biased standard OLS estimator with an OLS and a Cauchy estimator, both based on recursive demeaning, as well as a second-differencing estimator. In addition, we consider three different approaches for bias-correction for the OLS estimator: (i) bootstrap, (ii) jackknife and (iii) indirect inference. The estimators are evaluated in terms of bias and root mean squared errors (RMSE) in a variety of practically relevant settings. Our findings suggest that the indirect inference method clearly performs best in terms of RMSE for all considered levels of persistence. In terms of bias-correction, the jackknife works best for stationary and unit root processes, but with a typically large variance. For the explosive case, the indirect inference method is recommended. As an empirical illustration, we reconsider the “dot-com bubble” in the NASDAQ index and explore the usefulness of the indirect inference estimator in terms of testing, date stamping and calculations on overvaluation.

AB - We provide a comparison of different finite-sample bias-correction methods for possibly explosive autoregressive processes. We compare the empirical performance of the downward-biased standard OLS estimator with an OLS and a Cauchy estimator, both based on recursive demeaning, as well as a second-differencing estimator. In addition, we consider three different approaches for bias-correction for the OLS estimator: (i) bootstrap, (ii) jackknife and (iii) indirect inference. The estimators are evaluated in terms of bias and root mean squared errors (RMSE) in a variety of practically relevant settings. Our findings suggest that the indirect inference method clearly performs best in terms of RMSE for all considered levels of persistence. In terms of bias-correction, the jackknife works best for stationary and unit root processes, but with a typically large variance. For the explosive case, the indirect inference method is recommended. As an empirical illustration, we reconsider the “dot-com bubble” in the NASDAQ index and explore the usefulness of the indirect inference estimator in terms of testing, date stamping and calculations on overvaluation.

KW - Economics

KW - explosive behavior

KW - Bias-correction

KW - Indirect inference

KW - Bubbles

U2 - 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.04.014

DO - 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.04.014

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 73

SP - 354

EP - 364

JO - Economic Modelling

JF - Economic Modelling

SN - 0264-9993

ER -

DOI