Am 15.10.2018 um 11:31 schrieb Yusuf Abduwahab Hassan:
 Can i safely conclude that there is no evidence of structural break in 
 the chosen dates? 
No I don't think so.
 ? SB_Tests(&bII)
 ===================================================================
 OUTPUT FROM THE TESTING PROCEDURES
 ===================================================================
 a) supF[Y.A.H1] <#_msocom_1>tests against a fixed number of breaks
 --------------------------------------------------------
 supF(1|0)supF(2|0)supF(3|0)
 11.43211.18910.897
 Critical values:
 supF(1|0)supF(2|0)supF(3|0)
 10%10.379.438.48
 5%12.2510.589.29
 2.5%13.8611.6310.14
 1%16.1912.9011.12
 
Testing none against 2 or 3 breaks is significant here at "conventional" 
levels. Against 1 break it is borderline (10%, but not 5%).
 --------------------------------------------------------
 b) Dmax tests against an unknown number of breaks
 --------------------------------------------------------
 UDmax test: 11.431741
 Crit. values:10%: 10.86 5%: 12.59 2.5%: 14.15 1%: 16.19
 ........................................................
 WDmax test(crit. val.)
 10%13.3311.71
 5%14.3713.66
 2.5%14.9015.33
 1%15.8717.80
 ********************************************************
 
Both UDmax and WDmax again borderline, and as it says, against an 
unspecified (unknown) number of breaks under the alternative hypothesis.
 supF(l+1|l) tests using global optimizers under the null
 --------------------------------------------------------
 supF(2|1) 10.931981
 supF(3|2) 10.701993
 --------------------------------------------------------
 Critical values:10%5%2.5%1%
 supF(2|1)12.19 13.83 15.51 17.58
 supF(3|2)13.20 14.73 16.55 18.31
 
These test results are not significant.
So taking these results together the evidence is mixed in my view.
cheers,
sven