Stress testing a complement of value-a-risk.

Rapport de stage (maîtrise en finance mathématique et computationnelle)

The Seemingly Unrelated Dynamic Cointegration Regression Model and Testing for Purching Power Parity.

This paper studies seemingly unrelated linear models with integrated regressors and stationary errors. By adding leads and lags of the first differences of the regressors and estimating this augmented dynamic regression model by feasible generalized least squares using the long-run covariance matrix, we obtain an efficient estimator of the cointegrating vector that has a limiting mixed normal distribution. Simulation results suggest that this new estimator compares favorably with others already proposed in the literature. We apply these new estimators to the testing of purchasing power parity (PPP) among the G-7 countries. The test based on the efficient estimates rejects the PPP hypothesis for most countries.

Testing Normality : A GMM Approach

In this paper, we consider testing marginal normal distributional assumptions. More precisely, we propose tests based on moment conditions implied by normality. These moment conditions are known as the Stein (1972) equations. They coincide with the first class of moment conditions derived by Hansen and Scheinkman (1995) when the random variable of interest is a scalar diffusion. Among other examples, Stein equation implies that the mean of Hermite polynomials is zero. The GMM approach we adopted is well suited for two reasons. It allows us to study in detail the parameter uncertainty problem, i.e., when the tests depend on unknown parameters that have to be estimated. In particular, we characterize the moment conditions that are robust against parameter uncertainty and show that Hermite polynomials are special examples. This is the main contribution of the paper. The second reason for using GMM is that our tests are also valid for time series. In this case, we adopt a Heteroskedastic-Autocorrelation-Consistent approach to estimate the weighting matrix when the dependence of the data is unspecified. We also make a theoretical comparison of our tests with Jarque and Bera (1980) and OPG regression tests of Davidson and MacKinnon (1993). Finite sample properties of our tests are derived through a comprehensive Monte Carlo study. Finally, three applications to GARCH and realized volatility models are presented.

Testing Mean-Variance Efficiency in CAPM with Possibly Non-Gaussian Errors : An Exact Simulation-Based Approach

In this paper we propose exact likelihood-based mean-variance efficiency tests of the market portfolio in the context of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), allowing for a wide class of error distributions which include normality as a special case. These tests are developed in the frame-work of multivariate linear regressions (MLR). It is well known however that despite their simple statistical structure, standard asymptotically justified MLR-based tests are unreliable. In financial econometrics, exact tests have been proposed for a few specific hypotheses [Jobson and Korkie (Journal of Financial Economics, 1982), MacKinlay (Journal of Financial Economics, 1987), Gib-bons, Ross and Shanken (Econometrica, 1989), Zhou (Journal of Finance 1993)], most of which depend on normality. For the gaussian model, our tests correspond to Gibbons, Ross and Shanken’s mean-variance efficiency tests. In non-gaussian contexts, we reconsider mean-variance efficiency tests allowing for multivariate Student-t and gaussian mixture errors. Our framework allows to cast more evidence on whether the normality assumption is too restrictive when testing the CAPM. We also propose exact multivariate diagnostic checks (including tests for multivariate GARCH and mul-tivariate generalization of the well known variance ratio tests) and goodness of fit tests as well as a set estimate for the intervening nuisance parameters. Our results [over five-year subperiods] show the following: (i) multivariate normality is rejected in most subperiods, (ii) residual checks reveal no significant departures from the multivariate i.i.d. assumption, and (iii) mean-variance efficiency tests of the market portfolio is not rejected as frequently once it is allowed for the possibility of non-normal errors.

Testing for a Unit Root in Panels with Dynamic Factors

This paper studies testing for a unit root for large n and T panels in which the cross-sectional units are correlated. To model this cross-sectional correlation, we assume that the data is generated by an unknown number of unobservable common factors. We propose unit root tests in this environment and derive their (Gaussian) asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis of a unit root and local alternatives. We show that these tests have significant asymptotic power when the model has no incidental trends. However, when there are incidental trends in the model and it is necessary to remove heterogeneous deterministic components, we show that these tests have no power against the same local alternatives. Through Monte Carlo simulations, we provide evidence on the finite sample properties of these new tests.

Finite-Sample Simulation-Based Inference in VAR Models with Applications to Order Selection and Causality Testing

Statistical tests in vector autoregressive (VAR) models are typically based on large-sample approximations, involving the use of asymptotic distributions or bootstrap techniques. After documenting that such methods can be very misleading even with fairly large samples, especially when the number of lags or the number of equations is not small, we propose a general simulation-based technique that allows one to control completely the level of tests in parametric VAR models. In particular, we show that maximized Monte Carlo tests [Dufour (2002)] can provide provably exact tests for such models, whether they are stationary or integrated. Applications to order selection and causality testing are considered as special cases. The technique developed is applied to quarterly and monthly VAR models of the U.S. economy, comprising income, money, interest rates and prices, over the period 1965-1996.

Whither Pediatric Research and Predisposition Genetic Testing?

Research in which children undergo genetic testing for predisposition to adult-onset diseases or disorders can lead to a better understanding of these conditions. It can possibly also help encourage early detection and the development of clinical and preventive interventions for those found to be at increased hereditary risk. Increasingly, predisposition testing is becoming part of pediatric genetic research. However, the paucity of normative texts about the conduct of pediatric research using predisposition genetic testing generates complex legal and ethical issues. Drawing on the current texts that govern predisposition genetic testing in research and the norms of pediatric research, we outline points of consensus and divergence as well as recommendations regarding predisposition genetic testing in pediatric research.

Providing Genetic Testing Through the Private Sector: A View From Canada

Genetic testing technologies are rapidly moving from the research laboratory to the market place. Very little scholarship considers the implications of private genetic testing for a public health care system such as Canada’s. It is critical to consider how and if these tests should be marketed to, and purchased by, the public. It is also imperative to evaluate the extent to which genetic tests are or should be included in Canada’s public health care system, and the impact of allowing a two-tiered system for genetic testing. A series of threshold tests are presented as ways of clarifying whether a genetic test is morally appropriate, effective and safe, efficient and appropriate for public funding and whether private purchase poses special problems and requires further regulation. These thresholds also identify the research questions around which professional, public and policy debate must be sustained: What is a morally acceptable goal for genetic services? What are the appropriate benefits? What are the risks? When is it acceptable that services are not funded under health care? And how can the harms of private access be managed?