2
$\begingroup$

Given the simple regression $$Y_t = \beta X_t + e_t$$, with $$e_t = \epsilon_t + \theta_1 \epsilon_{t-1} + \theta_2 \epsilon_{t-2}, \epsilon_t \sim WN(0, \sigma^2)$$ and $$X_t iid, X_s \perp e_t \forall s,t$$ Is ${X_t e_t}$ a Martingale Difference Sequence w.r.t $F_{t-1}=(X_{t-1}, e_{t-1}, X_{t-2}, e_{t-2}, ...)$?

This is my attempt so far:

$E(X_t e_t | F_{t-1}) = E(X_t E(e_t|F_{t-1}, X_t)|F_{t-1})$

In the serially uncorrelated case, $E(e_t|F_{t-1}, X_t)=0$, leading to a MDS. In this serially correlated case, I suspect that it will be different from 0 but cannot calculate the expectation exactly. Ultimate it boils down to finding $E(\epsilon_{t-1}|F_{t-1})$ and $E(\epsilon_{t-2}|F_{t-1})$, which is where I am stuck.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

$$E[X_t e_t \mid F_{t-1}] = E[X_t(\epsilon_t + \theta_1 \epsilon_{t-1} + \theta_2 \epsilon_{t-2})\mid \{X_{t-1}, e_{t-1}, X_{t-2}, e_{t-2}, ...\}]$$

$$=E[X_t[\epsilon_t + X_t\theta_1 \epsilon_{t-1} + X_t\theta_2 \epsilon_{t-2})\mid \{X_{t-1}, e_{t-1}, X_{t-2}, e_{t-2}, ...\}]$$

$$=E[X_t]\cdot E[\epsilon_t] + \theta_1E[X_t]\cdot E[\epsilon_{t-1}\mid \{e_{t-1}\}] +\theta_2 E[X_t]\cdot E[\epsilon_{t-2}\mid \{e_{t-1}, e_{t-2}\}]$$

The first term is zero but the other two are not: $\epsilon_{t-1}$ is not independent of $e_{t-1}$ and $\epsilon_{t-2}$ is not independent of $(e_{t-1}, e_{t-2})$. But non-independence implies that

$$E[\epsilon_{t-1}\mid \{e_{t-1}\}] \neq E[\epsilon_{t-1}]=0,\;\; E[\epsilon_{t-2}\mid \{e_{t-1}, e_{t-2}\}] \neq E[\epsilon_{t-2}]=0$$

So $$E[X_t e_t \mid F_{t-1}] \neq 0$$ and therefore it is not a martingale-difference sequence. There is no need to actually calculate the expected values.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I do know that since $e_{t-1}$ and $e_{t-2}$ contains $\epsilon_{t-1}$ in it there is correlation. I remained dissatisfied precisely because I want to find $E[\epsilon_{t-1}|e_{t-1}, e_{t-2}]$ exactly. Could it be done? $\endgroup$
    – Heisenberg
    Commented May 1, 2014 at 1:57
  • $\begingroup$ Deriving the conditional expected values is irrelevant to the question as stated. Anyway, it appears you would need to make a distributional assumption on the white noises. The easiest one would be to assume that they are jointly normal. $\endgroup$ Commented May 1, 2014 at 2:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.