OLABİLİRLİK ORANI YÖNTEMİNE DAYALI, YAPISAL HOMOJEN OLMAYAN VARYANS TESTLERİNİN PİYASA MODELİ İÇİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Avrupa, Amerika ve Japonya borsalarında menkul kıymetler üzerine yapılan çalışmalarda hata terimlerinin sıklıkla homojen olmayan varyansa sahip oldukları gözlenmiştir. Menkul kıymet getirilerini modellemede piyasa modeli kullanıldığında, homojen olmayan varyans yapısının varlığı parametre tahmini ve parametrelerin anlamlılık testlerinde problemlere yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, homojen olmayan varyans yapısının olup olmadığının test edilmesi için kullanılan olabilirlik oran yöntemine dayalı testlerden genel olabilirlik oran testi, koşullu olabilirlik oran testi, artık olabilirlik oran testi, uyarlanmış olabilirlik oran testi ve Bartlett-düzeltilmiş olabilirlik oran testi ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca simülasyon çalışması ile bu testlerin performansları karşılaştırılmalı olarak incelenmiştir.

A MONTE CARLO COMPARISON OF LIKELIHOOD BASED CONSTRUCTIVE HETEROSCEDASTICITY TESTS FOR THE MARKET MODEL

The market model of Sharpe when applied to European, U.S.A. and Japan stock markets usually results with heteroscedastic error structure. Since heteroscedasticity in error terms cause inefficient parameter estimation, it should be tested before data analysis. The objective of this paper is to present five widely used likelihood based constructive heteroscedasticity tests which are the ordinary likelihood ratio test, the conditional likelihood ratio test, the corrected modified likelihood ratio test, the modified likelihood ratio test, the profile likelihood ratio test and the residual likelihood ratio test. Also simulation study is performed to compare these tests.

___

  • Amemiya, T. (1977), “A Note on a Heteroscedastic Model”, Journal of Econometrics, 6, 365-370.
  • Cordeiro, G.M.(1993), “Bartlett Corrections and Bias Correction for Two Heteroscedastic Regression Models”, Communications Statistics Theory Methods, 22, 169-188.
  • Cox, D.R. ve Reid, N. (1987), “Parameter Orthogonality and Approximate Conditional Inference”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 49, 1-39.
  • Edmonton, B.A. (1984), “Tests for Additive Hetoskedasticity”, Empirical Economics, 9, 199-216.
  • Ferrari, S.L.P. ve Cribari-Neto F. (2002), “Corrected Modified Profile Likelihood Heteroscedastcity Tests”, Statistics and Probability Letters, 57(4), 353-361.
  • Harvey, A.C. (1976), “Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity”, Econometrica, 44, 461-466.
  • Hildreth, C. ve Houck, J.P. (1968), “Some Estimators for a Lineer Model with Random Coefficients”, Journal of American Statistical Association, 63, 584-595.
  • Honda, Y. (1989), “On The Optimality of Some Tests of the Error Covariance Matrix in the Linear Regression Model”, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 51, 71-79.
  • Just, R.E. ve Pope, R.D. (1978), “Stochastic Specification of Production Functions and Economic Implications”, Journal of Econometrics, 7, 67-86.
  • Lyon, J.D., Tsai, C. (1996), “A Comparison of Tests for Heteroscedasticity”, The Statistician, 45, 337-349.
  • Sharpe, W. (1963), “A Simplified Model of Portfolio Analyisis”, Management Science, 9, 277-293.
  • Sharpe, W. (1964), “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk”, Journal of Finance,19(3), 425-442.
  • Verbyla, A.P. (1993), “Modelling Variance Heterogeneity: Residual Maximum Likelihood and Diagnostics”, J.R. Statist.Soc. B, 55 (2), 493-508.