Time Series: ARCH model properties

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
Consider an ARCH(1) model:
Xt = σtZt, where Zt~ i.i.d. N(0,1)
σt2 = w0 + w1 Xt-12
Find (i) E(Xt)
and (ii) the autocovariance function γX(h) for h=0,1,2,3,..., assuming the process is second-order stationary.

Solution:
(i) E(Xt) = E[E(Xtt2)] =E[E(σtZtt2)]
=E[σtE(Ztt2)] = E[σtE(Zt)] = E[σt * 0] = 0
(here I don't understand why E(Ztt2)=E(Zt).)

(ii) γX(0)=E(Xt2)
=E(σt2 Zt2)=E(σt2)E(Zt2)
=E(w0 + w1 Xt-12) * 1
= w0 + w1 γX(0)
Solve for γX(0) => γX(0) = w0/(1-w1)

γX(h)=E(XtXt+h)
=E[E(XtXt+h|Zt+h-1,...,Zt+1)] = E[XtE(Xt+h|Zt+h-1,...,Zt+1)]
(here I don't understand why we can pull the Xt out of the expectation.)
=E[XtE(σt+hZt+h|Zt+h-1,...,Zt+1)] = E[Xtσt+hE(Zt+h|Zt+h-1,...,Zt+1)]
(here I don't understand why we can pull the σt+h out of the expectation.)
=E[Xtσt+hE(Zt+h)] = E[Xtσt+h * 0] = 0 for all h>0.

I'm cannot follow the reasoning of the three equalities labelled in red above. Can someone explain why they are true?
Any help would be much appreciated! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kingwinner said:
(here I don't understand why E(Ztt2)=E(Zt).)

Z_t is independent of \sigma_t^2. I think this step is an example of the fact that if X and Y are independent random variables then E(X|Y) = E(X).

(here I don't understand why we can pull the Xt out of the expectation.)

The conditional expectation with respect to the sequence of values Z_{h+t-1}...Z_{t+1} amounts to an integration with respect to the joint density of a sequence of independent random variables. These are events that happen after time t and X_t doesn't depend on them. I think this step is an example of the idea that \int g(x_3) f(x_1,x_2)) dx_1 dx_2 = g( x_3) \int f(x_1,x_2) dx_1 dx_2


(here I don't understand why we can pull the σt+h out of the expectation.)

I don't understand that step yet. I wonder if the phrase "assuming the process is second-order stationary" tells us anything important. The definition of the process looks very specific, so it isn't clear to me what that phase adds to it.
 
kingwinner said:
=E[XtE(σt+hZt+h|Zt+h-1,...,Zt+1)] = E[Xtσt+hE(Zt+h|Zt+h-1,...,Zt+1)]
(here I don't understand why we can pull the σt+h out of the expectation.)
=E[Xtσt+hE(Zt+h)] = E[Xtσt+h * 0] = 0 for all h>0.

I could understand the above if it said:

E(X_t E(\sigma_{t+h} X_{t+h}| Z_{t+h-1}...Z_{t+1} ) = E(X_t E(\sigma_{t+h}|Z_{t+h-1}...Z_{t+1}) E(Z_{t+h}|Z_{t+h-1}...Z_{t+1}))

since Z_{t+h} is independent of \sigma_{t+h}. The result will follow because the factor of zero still appears.
 
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...
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...

Similar threads

Back
Top