I am running a time-series regression. The Durbin-Watson statistics is very close to 2. In such a situation, would it still be better to use Newey-West standard errors, or is it ok to use OLS standard errors?


1 Answer 1


First, I would recommend to use a software package that not only reports the Durbin-Watson test statistics but also a p-value. That might give you more of an indication how close or far from 2 the statistic actually is. Furthermore, you may consider other tests for autocorrelation, e.g., Breusch-Godfrey etc. And if there is no evidence for autocorrelation (or heteroscedasticity) then the OLS standard errors are probably fine.

A pragmatic approach could also be to simply try whether using Newey-West standard errors makes a relevant difference. If the autocorrelations in the residuals are small, then Newey-West should lead to very similar results anyway.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1. Regarding the last paragraph: In small samples, as in below 50 or so observations, Newey West standard errors often give oversized tests though. $\endgroup$
    – KOE
    Apr 4, 2015 at 19:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, good point. With all HC and HAC standard errors one should also keep in mind that they are less efficient if the standard assumptions do hold. $\endgroup$ Apr 4, 2015 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks very much. The sample size is above 100 observations. I've checked Newey-West standard errors and they are indeed not too far from HC standard errors. $\endgroup$ Apr 6, 2015 at 10:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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