“Ombro-cabeça-ombro”: testando a lucratividade do padrão gráfico de análise técnica no mercado de ações brasileiro

A partir de uma adaptação da metodologia de Osler e Chang (1995), este trabalho avalia, empiricamente, a lucratividade de estratégias de investimento baseadas na identificação do padrão gráfico de Análise Técnica Ombro-Cabeça-Ombro no mercado de ações brasileiro. Para isso, foram definidas diversas estratégias de investimento condicionais à identificação de padrões Ombro-Cabeça- Ombro (em suas formas padrão e invertida), por um algoritmo computadorizado, em séries diárias de preços de 47 ações no período de janeiro de 1994 a agosto de 2006. Para testar o poder de previsão de cada estratégia, foram construídos intervalos de confiança, a partir da técnica Bootstrap de inferência amostral, consistentes com a hipótese nula de que, baseado apenas em dados históricos, não é possível criar estratégias com retornos positivos. Mais especificamente, os retornos médios obtidos por cada estratégia nas séries de preços das ações, foram comparados àqueles obtidos pelas mesmas estratégias aplicadas a 1.000 séries de preços artificiais - para cada ação - geradas segundo dois modelos de preços de ações largamente utilizados: Random Walk e E-GARCH. De forma geral, os resultados encontrados mostram que é possível criar estratégias condicionais à realização dos padrões Ombro- Cabeça-Ombro com retornos positivos, indicando que esses padrões conseguem capturar nas séries históricas de preços de ações sinais a respeito da sua movimentação futura de preços, que não são explicados nem por um Random Walk e nem por um E-GARCH. No entanto, se levados em consideração os efeitos das taxas e dos custos de transação, dependendo das suas magnitudes, essas conclusões somente se mantêm para o padrão na sua forma invertida

Semiparametric estimation and inference using doubly robust moment conditions

We study semiparametric two-step estimators which have the same structure as parametric doubly robust estimators in their second step. The key difference is that we do not impose any parametric restriction on the nuisance functions that are estimated in a first stage, but retain a fully nonparametric model instead. We call these estimators semiparametric doubly robust estimators (SDREs), and show that they possess superior theoretical and practical properties compared to generic semiparametric two-step estimators. In particular, our estimators have substantially smaller first-order bias, allow for a wider range of nonparametric first-stage estimates, rate-optimal choices of smoothing parameters and data-driven estimates thereof, and their stochastic behavior can be well-approximated by classical first-order asymptotics. SDREs exist for a wide range of parameters of interest, particularly in semiparametric missing data and causal inference models. We illustrate our method with a simulation exercise.

Forecasting Brazilian inflation by its aggregate and disaggregated data: a test of predictive power by forecast horizon

This work aims to compare the forecast efficiency of different types of methodologies applied to Brazilian Consumer inflation (IPCA). We will compare forecasting models using disaggregated and aggregated data over twelve months ahead. The disaggregated models were estimated by SARIMA and will have different levels of disaggregation. Aggregated models will be estimated by time series techniques such as SARIMA, state-space structural models and Markov-switching. The forecasting accuracy comparison will be made by the selection model procedure known as Model Confidence Set and by Diebold-Mariano procedure. We were able to find evidence of forecast accuracy gains in models using more disaggregated data

Bayesian analysis of extreme events with threshold estimation

The aim of this paper is to analyze extremal events using Generalized Pareto Distributions (GPD), considering explicitly the uncertainty about the threshold. Current practice empirically determines this quantity and proceeds by estimating the GPD parameters based on data beyond it, discarding all the information available be10w the threshold. We introduce a mixture model that combines a parametric form for the center and a GPD for the tail of the distributions and uses all observations for inference about the unknown parameters from both distributions, the threshold inc1uded. Prior distribution for the parameters are indirectly obtained through experts quantiles elicitation. Posterior inference is available through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Simulations are carried out in order to analyze the performance of our proposed mode1 under a wide range of scenarios. Those scenarios approximate realistic situations found in the literature. We also apply the proposed model to a real dataset, Nasdaq 100, an index of the financiai market that presents many extreme events. Important issues such as predictive analysis and model selection are considered along with possible modeling extensions.

Inference in differences-in-differences with few treated groups and heteroskedasticity

Differences-in-Differences (DID) is one of the most widely used identification strategies in applied economics. However, how to draw inferences in DID models when there are few treated groups remains an open question. We show that the usual inference methods used in DID models might not perform well when there are few treated groups and errors are heteroskedastic. In particular, we show that when there is variation in the number of observations per group, inference methods designed to work when there are few treated groups tend to (under-) over-reject the null hypothesis when the treated groups are (large) small relative to the control groups. This happens because larger groups tend to have lower variance, generating heteroskedasticity in the group x time aggregate DID model. We provide evidence from Monte Carlo simulations and from placebo DID regressions with the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) datasets to show that this problem is relevant even in datasets with large numbers of observations per group. We then derive an alternative inference method that provides accurate hypothesis testing in situations where there are few treated groups (or even just one) and many control groups in the presence of heteroskedasticity. Our method assumes that we can model the heteroskedasticity of a linear combination of the errors. We show that this assumption can be satisfied without imposing strong assumptions on the errors in common DID applications. With many pre-treatment periods, we show that this assumption can be relaxed. Instead, we provide an alternative inference method that relies on strict stationarity and ergodicity of the time series. Finally, we consider two recent alternatives to DID when there are many pre-treatment periods. We extend our inference methods to linear factor models when there are few treated groups. We also derive conditions under which a permutation test for the synthetic control estimator proposed by Abadie et al. (2010) is robust to heteroskedasticity and propose a modification on the test statistic that provided a better heteroskedasticity correction in our simulations.

Inference in differences-in-differences with few treated groups and heteroskedasticity

Differences-in-Differences (DID) is one of the most widely used identification strategies in applied economics. However, how to draw inferences in DID models when there are few treated groups remains an open question. We show that the usual inference methods used in DID models might not perform well when there are few treated groups and errors are heteroskedastic. In particular, we show that when there is variation in the number of observations per group, inference methods designed to work when there are few treated groups tend to (under-) over-reject the null hypothesis when the treated groups are (large) small relative to the control groups. This happens because larger groups tend to have lower variance, generating heteroskedasticity in the group x time aggregate DID model. We provide evidence from Monte Carlo simulations and from placebo DID regressions with the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) datasets to show that this problem is relevant even in datasets with large numbers of observations per group. We then derive an alternative inference method that provides accurate hypothesis testing in situations where there are few treated groups (or even just one) and many control groups in the presence of heteroskedasticity. Our method assumes that we know how the heteroskedasticity is generated, which is the case when it is generated by variation in the number of observations per group. With many pre-treatment periods, we show that this assumption can be relaxed. Instead, we provide an alternative application of our method that relies on assumptions about stationarity and convergence of the moments of the time series. Finally, we consider two recent alternatives to DID when there are many pre-treatment groups. We extend our inference method to linear factor models when there are few treated groups. We also propose a permutation test for the synthetic control estimator that provided a better heteroskedasticity correction in our simulations than the test suggested by Abadie et al. (2010).