On the importance of testing structural identification schemes and the potential consequences of incorrectly identified models

Anton Velinov; Anton Velinov

doi:10.3934/QFE.2018.1.106

Quantitative Finance and Economics

2018, Volume 2, Issue 1: 591-611. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.1.106

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

On the importance of testing structural identification schemes and the potential consequences of incorrectly identified models

Anton Velinov ^,

DIW Berlin and European University Institute, Florence Mohrenstr. 58, D-10117 Berlin, Germany

Received: 29 December 2017 Accepted: 27 November 2017 Published: 13 March 2018
JEL Codes: C22

Identification schemes are of essential importance in structural analysis. This paper focuses on testing a commonly used long-run structural parameter identification scheme claiming to identify fundamental and non-fundamental shocks to stock prices. Five related widely used structural models on assessing stock price determinants are considered. All models are either specified in vector error correction (VEC) or in vector autoregressive (VAR) form. A Markov switching in heteroskedasticity model is used to test the identifying restrictions. It is found that for two of the models considered, the long-run identification scheme appropriately classifies shocks as being either fundamental or nonfundamental. A small empirical exercise finds that the models with properly identified structural shocks deliver realistic conclusions, similar as in some of the literature. On the other hand, models with identification schemes not supported by the data yield dubious conclusions on the importance of fundamentals for real stock prices. This is because their structural shocks are not properly identified, making any shock labelling ambiguous. Hence, in order to ensure that economic shocks of interest are properly captured, it is important to test the structural identification scheme.
- markov switching model,
- vector autoregression,
- vector error correction,
- heteroskedasticity,
- stock prices
Citation: Anton Velinov. On the importance of testing structural identification schemes and the potential consequences of incorrectly identified models[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2018, 2(1): 591-611. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.1.106

Related Papers:

Abstract

Identification schemes are of essential importance in structural analysis. This paper focuses on testing a commonly used long-run structural parameter identification scheme claiming to identify fundamental and non-fundamental shocks to stock prices. Five related widely used structural models on assessing stock price determinants are considered. All models are either specified in vector error correction (VEC) or in vector autoregressive (VAR) form. A Markov switching in heteroskedasticity model is used to test the identifying restrictions. It is found that for two of the models considered, the long-run identification scheme appropriately classifies shocks as being either fundamental or nonfundamental. A small empirical exercise finds that the models with properly identified structural shocks deliver realistic conclusions, similar as in some of the literature. On the other hand, models with identification schemes not supported by the data yield dubious conclusions on the importance of fundamentals for real stock prices. This is because their structural shocks are not properly identified, making any shock labelling ambiguous. Hence, in order to ensure that economic shocks of interest are properly captured, it is important to test the structural identification scheme.

References

[1]	Allen D, Yang W (2004) Do UK stock prices deviate from fundamentals? Math comput simul 64: 373-383.
[2]	Allen DE, Yang WJ (2001) Variation of share prices due to fundamental and non-fundamental innovations. Int J Bus Stud 1-24.
[3]	Amisano G, Giannini C (1997) Topics in structural VAR econometrics. Berl/Heidelb.
[4]	Binswanger M (2000) Stock market booms and real economic activity: Is this time different? Int Rev Econ Financ 9: 387-415.
[5]	Binswanger M (2004a) How do stock prices respond to fundamental shocks? Financ Res Lett 1: 90-99.
[6]	Binswanger M (2004b) How important are fundamentals? Evidence from a structural VAR model for the stock markets in the US, Japan and Europe. J Int Financ Markets, Inst Money 14: 185-201.
[7]	Binswanger M(2004c) Stock returns and real activity in the g-7 countries: Did the relationship change during the 1980s? Q Rev Econ Financ 44: 237-252.
[8]	Blanchard O, Quah D (1989) The dynamic e ects of aggregate demand and supply disturbances. Am Econ Rev 79: 655-673.
[9]	Canova F, De Nicolo G (1995) Stock returns and real activity: A structural approach. European Econ Rev 39: 981-1015.
[10]	Cheung Y, Ng L (1998) International evidence on the stock market and aggregate economic activity. J Empir Financ 5: 281-296.
[11]	Chung H, Lee B (1998) Fundamental and nonfundamental components in stock prices of pacific-rim countries. Pac-Basin Financ J 6: 321-346.
[12]	Erceg CJ, Guerrieri L, Gust C (2005) Can long-run restrictions identify technology shocks? J European Econ Assoc 3: 1237-1278.
[13]	Fama EF (1990) Stock returns, expected returns, and real activity. J Financ 45: 1089-1108.
[14]	Gospodinov N (2010) Inference in nearly nonstationary SVAR models with long-run identifying restrictions. J Bus Econ Stat 28: 1-12.
[15]	Hamilton, J (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton Univ Pr.
[16]	Hatipoglu M, Uckun N, Terzi S (2014) The impact of fundamental shocks on stock prices: Evidence from turkey. Res Appl Econ 6: 61-72.
[17]	Herwartz H, Lütkepohl H (2014) Structural vector autoregressions with markov switching: Combining conventional with statistical identification of shocks. J Econom 183: 104-116.
[18]	Jean R, Eldomiaty T (2010) How do stock prices respond to fundamental shocks in the case of the United States? Evidence from NASDAQ and DJIA. Q Rev Econ Financ 50: 310-322.
[19]	Johansen S (1995) Likelihood-based inference in cointegrated vector autoregressive models. Oxford University Press, USA.
[20]	King R, Plosser C, Stock J, et al. (1991) Stochastic trends and economic fluctuations. Am Econ Re 81: 819-840.
[21]	Krolzig H (1997) Markov-Switching Vector Autoregressions-Modelling. Stat Inference Appl Bus Cycle Anal.
[22]	Lanne M, Lütkepohl H (2010) Structural vector autoregressions with nonnormal residuals. J Bus Econ Stat 28: 159-168.
[23]	Lanne M, Lütkepohl H, Maciejowska K (2010) Structural vector autoregressions with markov switching. J Econ Dyn Control 34: 121-131.
[24]	Laopodis N (2009) Are fundamentals still relevant for european economies in the post-euro period? Econ Model 26: 835-850.
[25]	Laopodis NT (2011) Equity prices and macroeconomic fundamentals: International evidence. J Int Financ Markets, Inst Money 21: 247-276.
[26]	Lee B (1995a) Fundamentals and bubbles in asset prices: Evidence from us and japanese asset prices. Asia-Pac Financ Markets 2: 89-122.
[27]	Lee B (1995b) The response of stock prices to permanent and temporary shocks to dividends. J Financ Quant Anal 30: 1-22.
[28]	Lee B (1998) Permanent, temporary, and non-fundamental components of stock prices. J Financ Quant Anal 33: 1-32.
[29]	Lee BS (1996) Comovements of earnings, dividends, and stock prices. J Empir Financ 3: 327-346.
[30]	Lütkepohl H (2005) New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Springer.
[31]	Nasseh A, Strauss J (2000) Stock prices and domestic and international macroeconomic activity: a cointegration approach. Q Rev Econ Financ 40: 229-245.
[32]	Pan MS (2007) Permanent and transitory components of earnings, dividends, and stock prices. Q Rev Econ Financ 47: 535-549.
[33]	Podstawski M, Velinov A (2018) The state dependent impact of bank exposure on sovereign risk. J Bank Fianc 88: 63-75.
[34]	Psaradakis Z, Spagnolo N (2006) Joint determination of the state dimension and autoregressive order for models with markov regime switching. J Time Ser Anal 27: 753-766.
[35]	Rapach D (2001) Macro shocks and real stock prices. J Econ Bus 53: 5-26.
[36]	Rigobon R (2003) Identification through heteroskedasticity. Rev Econ Stat 85: 777-792.
[37]	Saikkonen P, Lütkepohl H (2000) Testing for the cointegrating rank of a var process with structural shifts. J Bus Econ Stat 18: 451-464.
[38]	Schwert GW (1990) Stock returns and real activity: A century of evidence. J Financ 45: 1237-1257.
[39]	Shiller RJ (1981) Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends? Am Econ Rev 71: 421-436.
[40]	Summers LH (1986) Does the stock market rationally reflect fundamental values? J Financ 41: 591-601.
[41]	Swanson N, Granger C (1997) Impulse response functions based on a causal approach to residual orthogonalization in vector autoregressions. J Am Stat Assoc 92: 357-367.
[42]	Velinov A, Chen W (2015) Do stock prices reflect their fundamentals? new evidence in the aftermath of the financial crisis. J Econ Bus 80: 1-20.
[43]	Vlaar P (2004) On the asymptotic distribution of impulse response functions with long-run restrictions. Econom Theory 20: 891-903.
[44]	Waggoner DF, Zha T (2003) Likelihood preserving normalization in multiple equation models. J Econom 114: 329-347.
[45]	Zhong M, Darrat AF, Anderson DC (2003) Do US stock prices deviate from their fundamental values? Some new evidence. J Bank Financ 27: 673-697.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)