The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation and inference in dynamic models with time-varying covariances
Abstract
We study the properties of the quasi-maximum likelihood estimator (QMLE) and related test statistics in dynamic models that jointly parameterize conditional means and conditional covariances, when a normal log-likelihood os maximized but the assumption of normality is violated. Because the score of the normal log-likelihood has the martingale difference property when the forst two conditional moments are correctly specified, the QMLE is generally Consistent and has a limiting normal destribution. We provide easily computable formulas for asymptotic standard errors that are valid under nonnormality. Further, we show how robust LM tests for the adequacy of the jointly parameterized mean and variance can be computed from simple auxiliary regressions. An appealing feature of these robyst inference procedures is that only first derivatives of the conditional mean and variance functions are needed. A monte Carlo study indicates that the asymptotic results carry over to finite samples. Estimation of several AR and AR-GARCH time series models reveals that in most sotuations the robust test statistics compare favorably to the two standard (nonrobust) formulations of the Wald and IM tests. Also, for the GARCH models and the sample sizes analyzed here, the bias in the QMLE appears to be relatively small. An empirical application to stock return volatility illustrates the potential imprtance of computing robust statistics in practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Engle, R. F. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912773 · Cited by 20,795
A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911963 · Cited by 5,647
Cited by
Answering the Skeptics: Yes, Standard Volatility Models do Provide Accurate Forecasts
Andersen, T. G., & Bollerslev, T. (1998) · International Economic Review · doi:10.2307/2527343 · Cited by 3,375
Self-citationPredicting excess stock returns out of sample: Can anything beat the historical average?
Campbell, J. Y., & Thompson, S. B. (2008) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhm055 · Cited by 2,919
Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns
BROCK, W., LAKONISHOK, J., & LeBARON, B. (1992) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04681.x · Cited by 2,301
Modeling and pricing long memory in stock market volatility
Bollerslev, T., & Ole Mikkelsen, H. (1996) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(95)01736-4 · Cited by 1,208
Self-citationValue-at-Risk Prediction: A Comparison of Alternative Strategies
Kuester, K. (2005) · Journal of Financial Econometrics · doi:10.1093/jjfinec/nbj002 · Cited by 632
Metadata
- Authors
- Bollerslev, T., & Wooldridge, J. M.
- Venue
- Econometric Reviews
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 143-172
- ISSN
- 0747-4938 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-4168
- OpenAlex
- W2054477007
- Cited by
- 3,217
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 39.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation and inference in dynamic models with time-varying covariances. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07474939208800229
- The paper
- Bollerslev, T., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1992). Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation and inference in dynamic models with time-varying covariances. Econometric Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474939208800229
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.