On the Existence of the Moments of the Asymptotic Trace Statistic



Finally, to bound E[tr(AT1)]4 uniformly, we recall U ~ Wds(m,Id) and use results of von
Rosen (1988, 1997) on moments for the inverted Wishart distribution. In particular it is
known that the
qth moments of UT1 exist if m - d - 2q + 1 > 0. Consequently,

E[tr(U T1)]4 ≤ c2 < ∞ for m ≥ d + 8,                      (14)

so that an application of inequality (10) for m = d+ 8 (assuming T > m) together with (11),
(14) and Lemma 1 yields the desired result.

The proof of (ii) is analogous to that of (i) and thus only sketched. First, the Cauchy-
Schwarz inequality provides, using (7),

E(ZT,d) E £tr(AT 1)tr(BtB't)]4 ©E[tr(AT 1)]8E[tr(BτBT)]8}1 /2 .

It is easy to see that E[tr(BT BT0 )]8 is uniformly bounded in T, since supT E(αi1j6) < ∞.
Finally, E[tr(
ATT1)]8 is uniformly bounded by choosing m = d+ 16 and applying (10) together
with (11), because then E[tr(
U T1)]8 ≤ c3 < ∞. This completes the proof.                 ¥

Theorem. It holds that E(Zd2) < ∞ and lim E(ZTq d) = E(Zdq) for q = 1, 2.

T→∞    ,

Proof. Recalling that ZT,d converges weakly to the asymptotic trace statistic Zd (Jo-
hansen, 1995), the result follows if
{ZT2,d} is uniformly integrable (see Theorem A on p.14 in
Serfling, 1980). A sufficient condition for the uniform integrability of
{ZTd} is that EZτ,d2+δ
is uniformly bounded for some δ > 0, i.e supτ EZτ,d2+δ < ∞. But this is an immediate
consequence of Lemma 2 (ii), completing the proof.                                    
¥

3 Discussion

Several authors have used the first two moments of the asymptotic trace statistic to base
panel cointegration tests on a standardized average of individual cointegration test statistics;
see, for instance, Larsson et al. (2001), Groen & Kleibergen (2003) and Breitung (2005).
Our Theorem provides a theoretical justification for such an approach. To the best of our
knowledge, the only attempt to establish this result is due to Larsson et al. (2001). However,
the proof of their Lemma 1, which coincides with our Lemma 2, is incorrect and has thus
initiated this note. In what follows, we comment in more detail on the proof by Larsson et
al. (2001).

In our notation, Larsson et al. (2001) assumed εt ~ Nd(0, Ω) i.i.d for defining Zτ,d in (3).
This seems to be unnecssary, but would not lead to complications in our proof. Moreover,
they used the spectral decomposition of the (random) positive definite (
d × d) matrix AT (see
(4)), i.e.

1T

At = t^ ∑X-1 Xt-1 = GΓG,
T
t=1

where G is an orthogonal (d × d) matrix and Γ = diag(γ 1, ...,γd), and defined ε by ε = εG.
Then they rewrote (3) as

d

ZT,d = tr(BT0 G0Γ-1GBT) = XHiiγi-1,

i=1



More intriguing information

1. Examining the Regional Aspect of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries
2. The name is absent
3. Om Økonomi, matematik og videnskabelighed - et bud på provokation
4. The WTO and the Cartagena Protocol: International Policy Coordination or Conflict?
5. ¿Por qué se privatizan servicios en los municipios (pequeños)? Evidencia empírica sobre residuos sólidos y agua.
6. The name is absent
7. Handling the measurement error problem by means of panel data: Moment methods applied on firm data
8. Infrastructure Investment in Network Industries: The Role of Incentive Regulation and Regulatory Independence
9. The Integration Order of Vector Autoregressive Processes
10. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
11. THE EFFECT OF MARKETING COOPERATIVES ON COST-REDUCING PROCESS INNOVATION ACTIVITY
12. The name is absent
13. Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries: The Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education
14. The name is absent
15. Alzheimer’s Disease and Herpes Simplex Encephalitis
16. The name is absent
17. Strategic Effects and Incentives in Multi-issue Bargaining Games
18. The name is absent
19. Road pricing and (re)location decisions households
20. The Provisions on Geographical Indications in the TRIPS Agreement