-31-
Table 6 - Andrews-Quandt breakpoint tests for factor loadings
_________Relation between ...________ |
______US______ |
_____EMU_____ |
______Japan______ |
______UK______ |
_____Canada_____ |
global and national GDP___________ |
12.63*** (1994 Q4) |
10.45** (1990 Q2) |
11.55** (1989 Q3) |
8.37* (1995 Q2) |
2.40 (2000 Q2) |
global inflation and national CPI |
4.53 (2003 Q4) |
0.81 (1989 Q2) |
5.88 (1994 Q1) |
7.59* (1990 Q3) |
5.87 (1988 Q2) |
global and national house prices |
62.79*** (2004 Q1) |
2.38 (1988 Q4) |
9.52** (1991 Q2) |
1.91 (1990 Q1) |
18.77*** (1999 Q1) |
global and national money__________ |
9.67** (2001 Q1) |
14.81*** (1994 Q2) |
8.02* (1992 Q4) |
2.03 (1997 Q3) |
3.42 (1999 Q1) |
global and national 3M interest rates |
14.07*** (2001 Q1) |
4.81 (1992 Q4) |
1.22 (2001 Q3) |
14.38*** (1993 Q2) |
3.41 (1990 Q1) |
global and national share prices |
2.78 (1998 Q4) |
5.45 (1990 Q3) |
5.91 (1992 Q3) |
7.19* (1994 Q3) |
9.94** (1993 Q4) |
Note 1: Heteroskedasticity-robust version of Maximum LR test
Note 2: *** Indicates significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, * at 10% level
However, as already noted, the Andrews-Quandt test focuses on rather simple
one-off breaks. Such an assumption is not justified, if gradual changes in coefficients and
residuals occur. In addition, there can be temporary outbursts of volatility. Tests for a
single change in volatility are then misleading, as the one-off break will be dated either at
the beginning or at the end of the extremely volatile time period. We therefore estimate
rolling regressions for factor loadings, concentrating on GDP, money and house prices.
Given that our sample covers a comparatively short time span of 24 years, we opted for a
rolling 12-year window.
Selected results can be found in the following charts in which the solid line equals
the factor loading and the two dashed lines are the 95 percent intervals obtained by a
simple residual bootstrap with 500 draws (see also Tables A3 to A5 in the Appendix). For
example, the figures for Q1 2000 are the results based on the rolling regression from Q1
1988 to Q4 1999. A clear-cut pattern across countries and variables does not emerge. In
some cases, the factor loadings increase over time, in some not or even decline.
Concerning global liquidity, the factor loading for EMU M3 more than doubles, whereas
the impact on US M2 also rises but less markedly. The same diverse pattern also holds
for the relation between national and global GDP and national and global house prices,
respectively.
Interestingly enough, US variables in general seem to be influenced increasingly
by common forces. For example, the US factor loadings both for global GDP and house
prices have risen significantly. However, at this point, it is not clear whether the US has
really become more prone to influences from abroad. We will deal with this issue in the
next chapter by conducting several robustness checks.11 In contrast, the effect from
11 Given the fact that our common forces for money, GDP and house prices are estimated on the basis of
only five variables, the reverse causality may hold, i.e. development in the US has recently become more
important for the global economy.