On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 11:32, Sven Schreiber <svetosch(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Am 21.04.2020 um 21:54 schrieb robdans2(a)gmail.com:
> Thanks for the quick answer, what do you think would be a better fix?
Changing the variable (for example making it a log)?
All I'm saying is that we're talking about an outlier that is going to
be removed. I know that this affects the test outcome of a diagnostic
test for heteroskedasticity, but it is still a different topic, most of
the time.
cheers
sven
Failure of your heteroskedasticity test can be regarded as indicating
misspecification. Have you done any other misspecification tests (e.g.
autocorrelation, functional form, recursive residuals, etc.) and did any of
these indicate misspecification? Is your outlier the result of some policy
change, innovation, change in method of compilation of your time series, or
similar. If so, you can use a point, or step dummy or another intervention
variable to improve your model. Even if you have heteroscedasticity your
coefficient estimates are still consistent and you can use a robust
estimate of their standard deviations. What you do depends on your
economic model, your data, and the aim of your analysis.
When Sven says 'whether that would be a proper "fix" ' I would think
that
he was referring to considerations such as the above.
John C Frain
3 Aranleigh Park
Rathfarnham
Dublin 14
Ireland
www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/frainj/home.html
mailto:frainj@tcd.ie
mailto:frainj@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Gretl-users mailing list -- gretl-users(a)gretlml.univpm.it
To unsubscribe send an email to gretl-users-leave(a)gretlml.univpm.it
Website:
https://gretlml.univpm.it/postorius/lists/gretl-users.gretlml.univpm.it/