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