Log File

Assigment 2 Thursday September 28 16:56:28 2017 Page 1
___ ____ ____ ____ ____(R)

/__ / ____/ / ____/
___/ / /___/ / /___/
Statistics/Data Analysis
User: Assignment 2
___ ____ ____ ____ ____ (R)

/__ / ____/ / ____/
___/ / /___/ / /___/ 14.1 Copyright 1985-2015 StataCorp LP
Statistics/Data Analysis StataCorp
4905 Lakeway Drive
College Station, Texas 77845 USA
800-STATA-PC http://www.stata.com
979-696-4600 stata@stata.com
979-696-4601 (fax)
50-student Stata lab perpetual license:

Serial number: 301406216314
Licensed to: User
Nova SBE
Notes:
1. Unicode is supported; see help unicode_advice .
1 . log using "C:\Users\21964\Desktop\LOGF.smcl"
name: <unnamed>
log: C:\Users\21964\Desktop\LOGF.smcl
log type: smcl
opened on: 28 Sep 2017, 16:55:30
2 . doedit~
3 . do "C:\Users\21964\AppData\Local\Temp\STD00000000.tmp"
4 . * Assignment 2
5 .
6 . *Ins Patrcio, 22225
7 . *Joo Berberan, 30296
8 . *Jos Paula, 23805
9 . *Matilde Aires Mateus, 21964
10 . *Pedro Pinto Coelho, 20220
11 .
12 .
13 . clear all
14 .
15 . import excel "C:\Users\21964\Desktop\exxonmobil.xlsx", sheet("Worksheet") fir
> strow
16 .
17 . * Exercise 1
18 .
19 . * a)
20 .
21 . summarize // The mean of usunemployment is 6,17
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
date 70 17849.76 1858.439 14700 21000

xom 70 68.44114 20.56509 31.9 101.2
sp500 70 1408.247 403.8126 797.87 2423.41
usgdp 70 14474.98 2641.86 10031 19246.7
usunemploy~t 70 6.17 1.759887 3.9 9.9
uscpi 70 210.4879 22.8056 171 243.79

ustbill10y 70 3.498236 1.236061 1.4697 6.031
eurusdfx 70 1.22214 .1769119 .8473 1.5809
oilprice 70 62.772 28.25614 19.84 140
year 70 2008.257 5.092437 2000 2017
quarter 70 2.471429 1.125739 1 4

22 . * or
23 .
24 . mean usunemployment // The mean of usunemplyment is 6,17
Mean estimation Number of obs = 70
Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]
usunemployment 6.17 .2103468 5.75037 6.58963
25 .
26 . * b)
27 .
28 . summarize // The maximum value of eurusdfx is 1,5809 and the minimum value of
> that variable is 0,8473
Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
date 70 17849.76 1858.439 14700 21000

xom 70 68.44114 20.56509 31.9 101.2
sp500 70 1408.247 403.8126 797.87 2423.41
usgdp 70 14474.98 2641.86 10031 19246.7
usunemploy~t 70 6.17 1.759887 3.9 9.9
uscpi 70 210.4879 22.8056 171 243.79

ustbill10y 70 3.498236 1.236061 1.4697 6.031
eurusdfx 70 1.22214 .1769119 .8473 1.5809
oilprice 70 62.772 28.25614 19.84 140
year 70 2008.257 5.092437 2000 2017
quarter 70 2.471429 1.125739 1 4
29 .
30 . * c)
31 .
32 . list // The 25th observation for the following variables is: xom=60,86; sp500=
> 1294,83; ustbill10y=4,8472; oilprice=73,93.
1. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

3/31/2000 38.9912 1498.58 10031 4 171
ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

6.004 .9574 26.9 2000 1

6/30/2000 39.2412 1454.6 10278.3 3.9 172.2

6.031 .9553 32.5 2000 2

9/29/2000 44.5427 1436.51 10357.4 4 173.6

5.802 .8831 30.84 2000 3

12/29/2000 43.459 1320.28 10472.3 3.9 174.6

5.112 .9395 26.8 2000 4

3/30/2001 40.4909 1160.33 10508.1 4.2 176.1

4.917 .8798 26.29 2001 1

6/29/2001 43.675 1224.42 10638.4 4.4 177.7

5.412 .8473 26.25 2001 2

9/28/2001 39.4 1040.94 10639.5 4.8 178.1

4.588 .9105 23.43 2001 3

12/31/2001 39.3 1148.08 10701.3 5.5 177.4

5.051 .8903 19.84 2001 4

3/28/2002 43.83 1147.39 10834.4 5.7 178.5

5.396 .8712 26.31 2002 1

6/28/2002 40.92 989.81 10934.8 5.8 179.6

4.7965 .9895 26.86 2002 2

9/30/2002 31.9 815.28 11037.1 5.7 180.8

3.5942 .9879 30.45 2002 3

12/31/2002 34.94 879.82 11103.8 5.8 181.8

3.816 1.0504 31.2 2002 4

3/31/2003 34.95 848.18 11230.1 5.9 183.9

3.796 1.0902 31.04 2003 1

6/30/2003 35.91 974.5 11370.7 6.2 183.1

3.5133 1.1483 30.19 2003 2

9/30/2003 36.6 995.97 11625.1 6.1 185.1

3.9376 1.1667 29.2 2003 3

12/31/2003 41 1111.92 11816.8 5.8 185.5

4.2455 1.2564 32.52 2003 4

3/31/2004 41.59 1126.21 11988.4 5.7 187.1

3.8348 1.2295 35.76 2004 1

6/30/2004 44.41 1140.84 12181.4 5.6 188.9

4.5806 1.2169 37.05 2004 2

9/30/2004 48.33 1114.58 12367.7 5.4 189.8

4.1194 1.2428 49.64 2004 3

12/31/2004 51.26 1211.92 12562.2 5.4 191.7

4.2182 1.3556 43.45 2004 4

3/31/2005 59.6 1180.59 12813.7 5.3 193.1

4.4815 1.2968 55.4 2005 1

6/30/2005 57.47 1191.33 12974.1 5.1 193.7

3.913 1.2094 56.5 2005 2

9/30/2005 63.54 1228.81 13205.4 5 198.8

4.324 1.203 66.24 2005 3

12/30/2005 56.17 1248.29 13381.6 5 198.1

4.3911 1.1833 61.04 2005 4

3/31/2006 60.86 1294.83 13648.9 4.7 199.7

4.8472 1.2139 66.63 2006 1

6/30/2006 61.35 1270.2 13799.8 4.7 201.8

5.1364 1.2785 73.93 2006 2

9/29/2006 67.1 1335.85 13908.5 4.6 202.8

4.6276 1.2686 62.91 2006 3

12/29/2006 76.63 1418.3 14066.4 4.5 203.1

4.7022 1.3189 61.05 2006 4

3/30/2007 75.45 1420.86 14233.2 4.5 205.288

4.6443 1.3371 65.87 2007 1

6/29/2007 83.88 1503.35 14422.3 4.5 207.234

5.0244 1.3538 70.68 2007 2

9/28/2007 92.56 1526.75 14569.7 4.7 208.547

4.5865 1.4235 81.66 2007 3

12/31/2007 93.69 1468.36 14685.3 4.8 211.445

4.0232 1.4583 95.98 2007 4

3/31/2008 84.58 1322.7 14668.4 5 213.448

3.4096 1.5809 101.58 2008 1

6/30/2008 88.13 1280 14813 5.3 217.463

3.969 1.5736 140 2008 2

9/30/2008 77.66 1166.36 14843 6 218.877

3.8234 1.4066 100.64 2008 3

12/31/2008 79.83 903.25 14549.9 6.9 211.398

2.2123 1.3953 44.6 2008 4

3/31/2009 68.1 797.87 14383.9 8.3 212.495

2.6629 1.3229 49.66 2009 1

6/30/2009 69.91 919.32 14340.4 9.3 214.79

3.5326 1.405 69.89 2009 2

9/30/2009 68.61 1057.08 14384.1 9.6 215.861

3.3053 1.4643 70.61 2009 3

12/31/2009 68.19 1115.1 14566.5 9.9 217.347

3.8368 1.4331 79.36 2009 4

3/31/2010 66.98 1169.43 14681.1 9.8 217.353

3.8257 1.3533 83.76 2010 1

6/30/2010 57.07 1030.71 14888.6 9.7 217.199

2.9311 1.2257 75.63 2010 2

9/30/2010 61.79 1141.2 15057.7 9.5 218.275

2.5098 1.362 79.97 2010 3

12/31/2010 73.12 1257.64 15230.2 9.5 220.472

3.2935 1.3366 91.38 2010 4

3/31/2011 84.13 1325.83 15238.4 9 223.046

3.4703 1.419 106.72 2011 1

6/30/2011 81.38 1320.64 15460.9 9.1 224.806

3.16 1.451 95.42 2011 2

9/30/2011 72.63 1131.42 15587.1 9 226.597

1.9154 1.3449 79.2 2011 3

12/30/2011 84.76 1257.6 15785.3 8.7 227.223

1.8762 1.296 98.83 2011 4

3/30/2012 86.73 1408.47 15973.9 8.3 228.807

2.2088 1.3332 103.02 2012 1

6/29/2012 85.57 1362.16 16121.9 8.2 228.524

1.6449 1.2651 84.96 2012 2

9/28/2012 91.45 1440.67 16227.9 8 231.015

1.6335 1.2876 92.19 2012 3

12/31/2012 86.55 1426.19 16297.3 7.8 231.221

1.7574 1.3197 91.82 2012 4

3/28/2013 90.11 1569.19 16475.4 7.7 232.299

1.8486 1.2819 97.23 2013 1

6/28/2013 90.35 1606.28 16541.4 7.5 232.374

2.4857 1.3005 96.56 2013 2

9/30/2013 86.04 1681.55 16749.3 7.3 233.632

2.61 1.3531 102.33 2013 3

12/31/2013 101.2 1848.36 16999.9 7 234.723

3.0282 1.3789 98.42 2013 4

3/31/2014 97.68 1872.34 17031.3 6.6 235.978

2.718 1.3772 101.58 2014 1

6/30/2014 100.68 1960.23 17320.9 6.2 237.029

2.5304 1.369 105.37 2014 2

9/30/2014 94.05 1972.29 17622.3 6.1 237.486

2.4888 1.2629 91.16 2014 3

12/31/2014 92.45 2058.9 17735.9 5.7 236.29

2.1712 1.21 53.27 2014 4

3/31/2015 85 2067.89 17874.7 5.6 235.989

1.9231 1.0728 47.6 2015 1

6/30/2015 83.2 2063.11 18093.2 5.4 237.419

2.3531 1.1153 59.47 2015 2

9/30/2015 74.35 1920.03 18227.7 5.1 237.467

2.0368 1.1182 45.09 2015 3

12/31/2015 77.95 2043.94 18287.2 5 237.846

2.2694 1.0866 37.04 2015 4

3/31/2016 83.59 2059.74 18325.2 5 238.078

1.7687 1.1381 38.34 2016 1

6/30/2016 93.74 2098.86 18538 4.9 239.842

1.4697 1.1073 48.33 2016 2

9/30/2016 87.28 2168.27 18729.1 4.9 241.006

1.5944 1.1228 48.24 2016 3

12/30/2016 90.26 2238.83 18905.5 4.7 242.821

2.4443 1.0547 53.72 2016 4

3/31/2017 82.01 2362.72 19057.7 4.7 243.752

2.3874 1.0697 50.6 2017 1

6/30/2017 80.73 2423.41 19246.7 4.4 243.79

2.3037 1.1413 46.04 2017 2
33 .
34 . * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------
35 .
36 . * Exercise 2
37 .
38 . * a)
39 .
40 . gen logxom = log(xom)
41 . gen logsp500 = log(sp500)
42 . gen logusgdp = log(usgdp)
43 . gen loguscpi = log(uscpi)
44 .
45 . * Making log transformations on the variables is a possible way of manipulatin
> g the data in order to make it more normally distributed (mitigates skewness o
> f variables).
46 .
47 . * b)
48 .
49 . tsset date // declare data to be time series
time variable: date, 3/31/2000 to 6/30/2017, but with gaps
delta: 1 day
50 .
51 . gen date2=yq(year,quarter) // quarterly data
52 .
53 . format date2 %tq
54 .
55 . drop date
56 . rename date2 date
57 .
58 . line logusgdp date // plotting logusgdp overtime // Annex 1
59 .
60 . * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------
61 .
62 . * Exercise 3
63 .
64 . * a)
65 .
66 . correlate logxom logsp500 logusgdp loguscpi usunemployment ustbill10y eurusdfx
> oilprice
(obs=70)
logxom logsp500 logusgdp loguscpi usunem~t ustb~10y eurusdfx
logxom 1.0000
logsp500 0.6429 1.0000
logusgdp 0.9007 0.7104 1.0000
loguscpi 0.9079 0.6568 0.9899 1.0000
usunemploy~t 0.2613 -0.2999 0.2703 0.3767 1.0000
ustbill10y -0.6495 -0.4200 -0.8277 -0.8511 -0.4528 1.0000
eurusdfx 0.6162 -0.0397 0.4579 0.4969 0.5119 -0.3151 1.0000
oilprice 0.7486 0.2018 0.5614 0.6266 0.5074 -0.3882 0.8103
oilprice
oilprice 1.0000
67 .
68 . * This matrix provides the correlations between each two variables. Looking at
> variables loguscpi and logusgdp, we can observe that they have a strong posit
> ive correlation (0,9899), thus, movements of logusgdp will usually be followed
> by movements of loguscpi in the same direction.
69 . * Although we cannot state that these variables drive each other, historically
> , we can observe that periods characterized by a higher GDP usually make the c
> ost of living, measured by CPI, higher.
70 . * Considering the variables logxom and ustbill10y, one can see that there is
> a negative correlation (-o,6495), meaning that these variables will usually mo
> ve in opposite directions.
71 . * In theory, this is a reasonable behaviour, given that as treasury bills' yie
> lds icnrease, we will usually observe a departure from investment in stocks to
> wards investment in bonds, which will decrease the price of stocks overall.
72 . * b)
73 .
74 . scatter logxom logsp500 // Annex 2
75 .
76 . * Scatter plots are useful data visualization tools for illustrating a trend.
77 . * Besides showing the extent of correlation, a scatter plot shows the sense of
> the correlation: If logxom (or y-axis) increases as logsp500(or x-axis) incre
> ases, the correlation is positive, as seen in the matrix above (0,6429).
78 .
79 . * c)
80 .
81 . reg logxom logsp500 logusgdp usunemployment loguscpi ustbill10y eurusdfx oilpr
> ice
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 70

F(7, 62) = 110.39
Model 7.20853697 7 1.029791 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual .578365483 62 .009328476 R-squared = 0.9257
Adj R-squared = 0.9173
Total 7.78690246 69 .112853659 Root MSE = .09658
logxom Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
logsp500 .1028391 .1153511 0.89 0.376 -.1277444 .3334226

logusgdp -.705858 .9412046 -0.75 0.456 -2.587299 1.175583
usunemploym~t -.0355467 .0158905 -2.24 0.029 -.0673113 -.0037821
loguscpi 3.815626 1.816277 2.10 0.040 .1849409 7.446312
ustbill10y .0463221 .0245868 1.88 0.064 -.0028262 .0954703
eurusdfx .3325805 .155344 2.14 0.036 .0220523 .6431087
oilprice .0022052 .0011368 1.94 0.057 -.0000673 .0044776
_cons -10.69337 1.892267 -5.65 0.000 -14.47596 -6.910784
82 .
83 . * Looking at the p-values, we can conclude that only usunemployment, loguscpi
> and eurusdfx are statistically significant variables.
84 .
85 . * usunemployment: if usunemployment increases by 1 unit, logxom decreases by 3
> ,55467%, on average, ceteris paribus.
86 .
87 . * loguscpi: if loguscpi increases by 1%, logxom increases by 3,815626%, on ave
> rage, ceteris paribus.
88 .
89 . * eurusdfx: if eurusdfx increases by 1 unit, logxom increases by 33,25805%, on
> average, ceteris paribus.
90 .
91 . * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------
92 .
93 . * Exercise 4
94 .
95 . * a)
96 .
97 . test logusgdp // The F-statistic is 0,56.
( 1) logusgdp = 0
F( 1, 62) = 0.56
Prob > F = 0.4561
98 .
99 . * b)
100 .
101 . * We know that F stat=(t stat)^2 , hence tstat= sqroot (0,56)
102 .
103 . display 0.56^0.5
.74833148
104 .
105 . * tstat=0,74833148
106 . * Using a 5% level of significance, we fail to reject the null once 0,748<1,96
> (critical value of a standar normal distribution), which means the variable i
> s not statistically significant.
107 .
108 . * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------
109 .
110 . * Exercise 5
111 .
112 . * H0: Beta(eurusdfx)=25
113 . * Ha: Beta(eurusdfx) 25 (two-sided)

114 .
115 . test eurusdfx=25
( 1) eurusdfx = 25
F( 1, 62) = 25214.97
Prob > F = 0.0000
116 .
117 . * Once the p-value is 0,0000 we reject the null that the coefficient on eurusd
> fx is not equal to 25.
118 .
119 . * b)
120 .
121 . * H0: Beta(cons)=0
122 . * Ha: Beta(cons) 0 (two-sided)
123 .
124 . test _cons
( 1) _cons = 0
F( 1, 62) = 31.93
Prob > F = 0.0000
125 .
126 . * Once the p-value is 0,0000 we reject the null and conclude that the constant
> term is statistically significant.
127 .
128 . * c)
129 .
130 . * H0: Beta(usunemployment)=-2*Beta(loguscpi)=-7,631252
131 . * Ha: Beta(usunemployment) -2*Beta(loguscpi) -7,631252
132 .
133 . test usunemployment=-7.631252
( 1) usunemployment = -7.631252
F( 1, 62) = 2.3e+05
Prob > F = 0.0000
134 .
135 . * Once the p-value is 0,0000 we reject the null and conclude that the coeffici
> ent on usunemploymeny is not equal to -2 times the coefficient on loguscpi.
136 .
137 . * d)
138 .
139 . * H0: Beta(usunemployment)=-1
140 . * Ha: Beta(usunemployment) -1
141 .
142 . test usunemployment=-1
( 1) usunemployment = -1
F( 1, 62) = 3683.74
Prob > F = 0.0000
143 .
144 . * Once the p-value is 0,0000 we reject the null and conclude that the coeffici
> ent on usunemploymeny is not equal to -1.
145 .
146 . * H0: Beta(loguscpi)=4
147 . * Ha: Beta(loguscpi) 4
148 .
149 . test loguscpi=4
( 1) loguscpi = 4
F( 1, 62) = 0.01
Prob > F = 0.9195
150 .
151 . * Once the p-value is 0,9195 we fail to reject the null and conclude that the
> coefficient on usunemploymeny is not different than 4.
152 .
153 . * e)
154 .
155 . test logsp500 logusgdp usunemployment loguscpi ustbill10y eurusdfx oilprice
( 1) logsp500 = 0
( 2) logusgdp = 0
( 3) usunemployment = 0
( 4) loguscpi = 0
( 5) ustbill10y = 0
( 6) eurusdfx = 0
( 7) oilprice = 0
F( 7, 62) = 110.39
Prob > F = 0.0000
156 .
157 . * Once the p-value is 0,0000 we reject the null and conclude that the model is
> overall statistically significant.
158 .
159 . * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------
160 .
161 . * Exercise 6
162 .
163 . * a)
164 .
165 . reg logxom logsp500 logusgdp loguscpi usunemployment ustbill10y eurusdfx oilpr
> ice
Source SS df MS Number of obs = 70

F(7, 62) = 110.39
Model 7.20853697 7 1.029791 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual .578365483 62 .009328476 R-squared = 0.9257
Adj R-squared = 0.9173
Total 7.78690246 69 .112853659 Root MSE = .09658
logsp500 .1028391 .1153511 0.89 0.376 -.1277444 .3334226

logusgdp -.705858 .9412046 -0.75 0.456 -2.587299 1.175583
loguscpi 3.815626 1.816277 2.10 0.040 .1849409 7.446312
usunemploym~t -.0355467 .0158905 -2.24 0.029 -.0673113 -.0037821
ustbill10y .0463221 .0245868 1.88 0.064 -.0028262 .0954703
eurusdfx .3325805 .155344 2.14 0.036 .0220523 .6431087
oilprice .0022052 .0011368 1.94 0.057 -.0000673 .0044776
_cons -10.69337 1.892267 -5.65 0.000 -14.47596 -6.910784
166 .
167 . // In order to test for Heteroskedasticity, we will perform a White test:
168 .
169 . * H0: Homoskedasticity
170 . * Ha: No homoskedasticity
171 .
172 . estat imtest, white
White's test for Ho: homoskedasticity

against Ha: unrestricted heteroskedasticity
chi2( 35) = 56.13

Prob > chi2 = 0.0132
Cameron & Trivedi's decomposition of IM-test
Source chi2 df p
Heteroskedasticity 56.13 35 0.0132

Skewness 15.45 7 0.0306
Kurtosis 0.00 1 0.9543
Total 71.58 43 0.0040
173 .
174 . * LM=56,13
175 . * Once the approximate critical value of a Chi-square distribution with 35 deg
> rees of freedom is equal to 24,825, we reject the null and conclude that there
> is evidence that the residuals are heteroscedastic.
176 .
177 . // In order to test for Autocorrelation, we will perform a Breusch-Godfrey:
178 .
179 . * H0: No autocorrelation
180 . * Ha: Autocorrelation
181 .
182 . * Since we have quarterly data, we will include 4 lags.
183 .
184 . estat bgodfrey, lags(1 2 3 4)
Breusch-Godfrey LM test for autocorrelation
lags( p) chi2 df Prob > chi2
1 21.753 1 0.0000
2 23.449 2 0.0000
3 23.451 3 0.0000
4 23.495 4 0.0001
H0: no serial correlation
185 .
186 . * Once the p-values are lower than the level of significance, we reject the nu
> ll and conclude that there is a problem of autocorrelation.
187 .
188 . * b)
189 .
190 . predict e if e(sample), resid
191 .
192 . scatter e logsp500, yline(0)
193 . scatter e loguscpi, yline(0)
194 . scatter e usunemployment, yline(0)
195 . scatter e ustbill10y, yline(0)
196 . scatter e eurusdfx, yline(0)
197 . scatter e oilprice, yline(0)
198 .
199 .
200 . * We plotted the residuals against the independent variables // Annex 3
201 . * Looking at the plot with residuals on the vertical axis and usunemployment o
> n horizontal axis (Annex 3.3), we can observe that the points are at widely va
> rying distances from the line (this line represents the assumption that the ex
> pected mean of the residuals is zero), therefore, the non-existence of a clear
> pattern leads us to believe that there is heteroskedasticity.
202 .
203 .
204 . * c)
205 .
206 . // In order to mitigate the problem of heteroskedasticity we could use robust
> standard errors.
207 .
208 . // In order to mitigate the problem of autocorrelation, we could include lags
> of the dependent variable.
209 .
210 . gen logxomt1=L.logxom // generating one lag of logxom (logxom(t-1))
(1 missing value generated)
211 .
212 . reg logxom logsp500 logusgdp loguscpi usunemployment ustbill10y eurusdfx oilp
> rice logxomt1, robust
Linear regression Number of obs = 69

F(8, 60) = 239.92
Prob > F = 0.0000
R-squared = 0.9595
Root MSE = .07129
Robust
logsp500 .2395408 .094489 2.54 0.014 .0505346 .4285469

logusgdp .5283849 .7640403 0.69 0.492 -.9999232 2.056693
loguscpi -.5968454 1.464436 -0.41 0.685 -3.526154 2.332464
usunemploym~t .0097865 .0130529 0.75 0.456 -.0163233 .0358962
ustbill10y .0150775 .0189327 0.80 0.429 -.0227934 .0529484
eurusdfx .2309423 .1423633 1.62 0.110 -.0538267 .5157113
oilprice .0011935 .000969 1.23 0.223 -.0007448 .0031319
logxomt1 .6289752 .0784066 8.02 0.000 .4721387 .7858117
_cons -2.505378 1.571261 -1.59 0.116 -5.648368 .6376117
213 .
214 . * After correcting for heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation, we were able to

> make inference and concluded that variable logsp500 is statistically signific
> ant and variables usunemployment, loguscpi and eurusdfx are no longer statisti
> cally significant(considering a critical value of 1,96).
215 .
216 . * d)
217 .
218 . // If there is a problem of heretoskedasticity we will have inefficient estima
> tors and, tehreofre, we cannot make inference.
219 . // If there is a problem with autocorrelation, and considering this is a dynam
> ic model, we would have inconsistent estimators.
220 .
221 .
222 .
223 .
end of do-file
224 .

Log File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Log File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assigment 2 Thursday September 28 16:56:28 2017 Page 1

___ ____ ____ ____ ____(R)

___ ____ ____ ____ ____ (R)

50-student Stata lab perpetual license:

1 . log using "C:\Users\21964\Desktop\LOGF.smcl"

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

date 70 17849.76 1858.439 14700 21000

uscpi 70 210.4879 22.8056 171 243.79

quarter 70 2.471429 1.125739 1 4

Mean estimation Number of obs = 70

Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]

usunemployment 6.17 .2103468 5.75037 6.58963

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

date 70 17849.76 1858.439 14700 21000

uscpi 70 210.4879 22.8056 171 243.79

quarter 70 2.471429 1.125739 1 4

1. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

2. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

3. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

4. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

5. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

6. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

7. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

8. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

9. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

10. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

11. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

12. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

13. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

14. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

15. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

16. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

17. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

18. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

19. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

20. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

21. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

22. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

23. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

24. date xom sp500 usgdp usunem~t uscpi

ustb~10y eurusdfx oilprice year quarter

_ __(R)

_ __ (R)