2
$\begingroup$

I have two processes:

  • integrated I(1) process: $x_t = x_{t-1} + u_t = \sum_{s=1}^t u_s$ with $x_0=0$ and $u_t \sim iid(0, \sigma_u^2)$.
  • an error term $v_t \sim iid(0, 1)$.

My objective is to show that an OLS estimator of $\beta$ in $y_t = \beta x_{t-1} + x_{t-1}^2 v_t$ is inconsistent. (think of it as $x_{t-1}^4$ being the variance of an error rewritten as $\nu_t = v_t x_{t-1}^2$)

Obviously, the error term is correlated with $x_{t-1}$ directly via the variance. However I thought the expectation $\mathbb{E}[ x_{t-1} x_{t-1}^2 v_t]$ would still be zero (by Law of Iterated Expectations).
But in this case, how would the estimator be inconsistent? Because it diverges/needs to be "shut down" by a rate which depends on $\sigma_u$ ?
I can't find why the LIE would not work here (can develop $x_{t-1}$ in any way, it still does not matter, I can t get rid of $v_t$), even though, in simulations (with gaussian noise), even with large sample size, the corresponding sample mean is generally 'far' from zero).

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

To demonstrate consistency we must show, as always, that the sampling error $\hat\beta-\beta$ goes to zero in probability. Recall $$ \hat\beta=\frac{\sum_tx_{t-1}y_t}{\sum_tx_{t-1}^2} $$ Plugging in for $y_t$ gives, after some manipulation, $$ \hat\beta-\beta=\frac{\sum_tx_{t-1}\nu_t}{\sum_tx_{t-1}^2}=\frac{\sum_tx_{t-1}^3v_t}{\sum_tx_{t-1}^2} $$ It shall prove useful to rewrite this as $$ \hat\beta-\beta=\frac{\frac{1}{T^2}\sum_tx_{t-1}^3v_t}{\frac{1}{T^2}\sum_tx_{t-1}^2} $$ From, e.g., Theorem 4.2 in Ibragimov and Phillips (2008), we may deduce that $$ \frac{1}{T^2}\sum_tx_{t-1}^3v_t\to_d\int_0^1W_u(r)^3dW_v(r) $$ Here $W_u(r)$ is the Brownian motion associated with $u_t$ and $W_v(r)$ that associated with $v_t$. That is $1/\sqrt{T}\sum_{t=1}^{[Tr]}u_t\to_dW_u(r)$.

It is a fairly standard result that $$ \frac{1}{T^2}\sum_tx_{t-1}^2\to_d\int_0^1W_u(r)^2dr $$ Hence, $$ \hat\beta-\beta\to_d\frac{\int_0^1W_u(r)^3dW_v(r)}{\int_0^1W_u(r)^2dr} $$ which is some nonstandard random variable, and hence $O_p(1)$. Thus, $\hat\beta-\beta$ is not $o_p(1)$ and hence does not converge to zero in probability.

As for the use of the LIE, recall that with nonstationary time series, expected values often do not exist, in which case the LIE cannot be applied.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. I basically got this result, except that I'm not so used to brownian motion and did not conclude that it was $O_p(1)$. That's why I tried to do it in 'classic' way (without use of brownian motion): but as explained above, when written 'classically', I don't see what drives the inconsistency here. I guess this kind of problem with I(1) regressors should not be solved classically anyhow but I would have liked to understand why. Now that I'm sure that my result with BM was actually write I can maybe start from there. Edit: Just saw your last edit which answer my point. Thanks again. $\endgroup$
    – G. Ander
    Commented Oct 27, 2016 at 9:18

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.