Re: [Gretl-users] VAR roots plot

From: Sven Schreiber <svetosch(a)gmx.net&gt; Reply-To: Gretl list <gretl-users(a)ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu&gt; To: Gretl list <gretl-users(a)ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu&gt; Subject: Re: [Gretl-users] VAR roots plot Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:30:53 +0100 john w schrieb: > You are wrigt Jack. > At the end, it's better to work on completely new features rather than > spending time on cosmetics. Let it stay. > don't give up so quickly ;-) >> > >> > In VECM module the terminology is quite clear, but in VAR module a >> little >> > bit cunfuses me. >> > My suggestion for VAR module is: >> > 1. To include one more check option for including a trend (like for a >> > constant), >> >> The way the source code is now, that would be a little inconvenient, >> unless we're willing to add a "--trend" option to rhe "var" command. I >> wouldn't be against it, but adding a trend to a VAR is also very easy >> now, >> and such an option would be a tad gratuitous. Hence, I'm not either >> strongly pro nor against such a change. What do other list members think? I would (mildly) favor consistency for the interface of VARs and VECMs, but it's not terribly important. >> >> > 2. To replace "Deterministic variables" with "Exogenous variables". >> >> Any adjective you use in this context is rather arbitrary. The word >> "exogenous" may mean at least 4 different things in the econometrics >> literature, so my very personal preference is for using it as >> sparingly as >> possible, unless the context makes what I mean very clear. But others may >> disagree. In this context "deterministic" seems wrong, because you can add any variable you like. "Exogenous" may not be precise, but at least it's correct. So I think john w is right and it should be changed (that way it's also consistent with the vecm formulation). cheers, sven _______________________________________________ Gretl-users mailing list Gretl-users(a)ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-users