Testing Trend Stationarity in Time Series

  • Thread starter Thread starter womata
  • Start date Start date
womata
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have two sets of time series that I found to be I(1), so I went ahead with using cointegration methods to find a relation between the two variables.

Now I'm questioning if the series is trend-stationary, which would mean I'd need a deterministic time trend in my cointegration. I have done the ADF test on the series and found that even when including a time trend there, I still find that the series is non-stationary in level and stationary in first difference.

Does this mean my series is not trend-stationary and that my initial approach is still valid? If what I did is wrong, how does one test for trend-stationarity?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ADF and the large family of unit root tests check exactly for that, yet there are cases where trend-stationarity is obvious in a plot and yet the tests do not detect it.

Finance time series are typically I(1) and co-integrated of order zero. So if your time series have anything to do with finance that's the most likely scenario.
 
It is a series for energy demand. If the ADF test says it is non-stationary in level even if I include a trend, and that my series is I(1), is it valid to proceed without detrending since all the statistical tests don't show a time trend?
 
womata said:
It is a series for energy demand. If the ADF test says it is non-stationary in level even if I include a trend, and that my series is I(1), is it valid to proceed without detrending since all the statistical tests don't show a time trend?

Sometimes it is not easy to distinguish a trend stationary series from a difference stationary one, that is why it is always a good idea to think about what kind of time series you are dealing with, for example, in countries with cold winters there will be a higher demand in winter than summer since everyone will use energy to warm their houses, so you know that you have a trend here and you can safely ignore whatever the test say, that is, the higher demand in winter is not due to a random process.

Similarly in the stock market it's difficult to justify a trend and, unless it is a very special time series, you are better off assuming the existence of unit roots.
 
Thank you.
 
You're welcome :smile:
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top