1
$\begingroup$

Let $\epsilon_n$ denote a real-valued discrete-time stochastic process of residuals, the ARCH($p$) specification is given by

\begin{equation} \label{1.1} \epsilon_n=Z_n\sqrt{\sigma_n} \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{1.2} \sigma_n=\alpha_0+\sum \limits_{i=1}^p\alpha_i\epsilon_{n-i}^2\,, \end{equation}

where $\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \dots,\alpha_p$ are scalar parameters to be estimated, $\mu_n$ is the fitted model. $Z_n$, are a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables with mean zero and variance one.

Now, can we say that $E(Z_n^2\sigma_n)=E(\sigma_n)$, since $E(Z_n^2)=1$?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ No problem. Do you have answer regarding this one? $\endgroup$
    – Anna
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Anna Please check if the answer below is satisfying for you. $\endgroup$
    – Emil
    Commented Feb 23, 2018 at 9:09

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Yes, you can say that, but you perhaps need to be a bit clear as to why that result holds. In other words, $\mathbb{E}[Z_n^2 \sigma_n] = 1\cdot\mathbb{E}[\sigma_n] $ because $\sigma_n$ is actually a function of the previous values of the process, i.e. $\sigma_n = \sigma_n(\epsilon_{n-1},\ldots,\epsilon_{n-p}) $, and $Z_n$ is by definition assumed to be independent of the previous values of the process, i.e. independent of $\epsilon_{n-1},\epsilon_{n-2},$ etc.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ The first equality (the "middle step") does not mean independence, it only means zero covariance. $\endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ You are absolutely right. My transgression was due to the fact that in Econometrics courses (where a question such as this one would usually pop up), there is a common, even if simply practical, motive where no covariance and independence are conflated. However, the set of dependent variables with zero covariance is, of course, non-empty :) $\endgroup$
    – Emil
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ Great. I am a little confused by your formulation, though. I guess you wanted to say that even though the first equation happens to hold it cannot be used in a proof, and so you propose an alternative proof. Do I get you right? $\endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ And you were completely correct in being confused, because my claim was in itself wrong (I have thus completely changed the answer). $Z_n$ is indeed independent from $\sigma_n$, and by design at that, since it's assumed in the model specifications that $Z_n$ is independent to the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{F}_{n-1}$ generated by the process up to time $n-1$. Thank you for noticing my mistake. $\endgroup$
    – Emil
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 19:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Finally. +1 now :) $\endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 20:02

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.