# Detecting Common Bubbles in Multivariate Mixed Causal–Noncausal Models

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Multivariate Mixed Causal–Noncausal Models

#### 2.1. Common Bubbles in VMAR(r,s)

**Definition**

**1.**

**Proposition**

**1.**

#### 2.2. Testing for Common Bubbles

## 3. Monte Carlo Analysis

## 4. Common Bubbles in Commodity Indices?

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Notes

1 | This is the restricted linear form that is used in the ML estimation. Gourieroux and Jasiak (2017) have proposed an alternative approach based on roots inside and outside the unit circle of an autoregressive polynomial. |

2 | The “axLik” package in R offers a routine for maximizing a given likelihood function with various optimization algorithms. We used the Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno (BFGS) algorithm. |

3 | Optimization algorithms to maximize the Student’s t multivariate likelihood function are known to be sensitive to starting values and might easily reach local maxima. Since our focus is not on accurate estimation of the models but instead on the detection of commonalities, in order to speed up convergence, we follow previous contributions by employing either the true coefficient matrices when the estimated model correctly imposes k CBs; otherwise, we use an approximation of them with a rank different from $(n-k)$. |

4 | Results for other tests, such as 1 vs. 2 when the true rank is 2 for instance, are available upon request. |

5 | Recall from footnote 3 that we employ as starting values an approximation of the true coefficient matrices when the estimated model has a wrong number of CBs. This entails that when the true rank is 3, estimating the restricted models with rank 1 or 2 might encounter convergence issues. This could imply an overestimation of the frequencies displayed in the 2 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 3 when the true rank is 3. |

6 | Note that Hannan-Quin information criterion $HQC=2Kln\left(ln\left(T\right)\right)-2\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{L}\right)$ performs exactly in between BIC and AIC both under the null and under the alternative. We thus omitted this to save space, but results are available upon request. |

7 | Including agricultural raw materials, such as includes timber, cotton, wool, rubber, and leather. |

8 | Includes crude oil, natural gas, coal and propane. |

9 | Data are retrieved from the IMF database. They are price indices with base year 2016. |

10 | We used various starting values to account for the bimodality of the coefficients (see Bec et al. 2020, for more details). |

11 | We fixed the starting values for the correlation matrix $\Sigma $ and the degrees of freedom $\lambda $ and performed 100 MLEs based on random lead and lag coefficient matrices fulfilling stationary conditions. |

12 | We also used 100 combinations of starting values to make sure we obtained the best-fitting models. |

## References

- Bec, Frédérique, Heino Bohn Nielsen, and Sarra Saïdi. 2020. Mixed causal–noncausal autoregressions: Bimodality issues in estimation and unit root testing 1. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 82: 1413–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardini, Emmanuela, and Gianluca Cubadda. 2015. Macroeconomic forecasting and structural analysis through regularized reduced-rank regression. International Journal of Forecasting 31: 682–91. [Google Scholar]
- Cubadda, Gianluca, Alain Hecq, and Sean Telg. 2019. Detecting co-movements in non-causal time series. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 81: 697–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cubadda, Gianluca, and Alain Hecq. 2001. On non-contemporaneous short-run co-movements. Economics Letters 73: 389–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cubadda, Gianluca, and Alain Hecq. 2011. Testing for common autocorrelation in data-rich environments. Journal of Forecasting 30: 325–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cubadda, Gianluca, and Alain Hecq. 2022a. Dimension reduction for high dimensional vector autoregressive models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 84: 1123–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cubadda, Gianluca, and Alain Hecq. 2022b. Reduced rank regression models in economics and finance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engle, Robert F., and Clive W. J. Granger. 1987. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 55: 251–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engle, Robert F., and Raul Susmel. 1993. Common volatility in international equity markets. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 11: 167–76. [Google Scholar]
- Engle, Robert F., and Sharon Kozicki. 1993. Testing for common features. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 11: 369–80. [Google Scholar]
- Engle, Robert F., and Svend Hylleberg. 1996. Common seasonal features: Global unemployment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 58: 615–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engsted, Tom, and Bent Nielsen. 2012. Testing for rational bubbles in a coexplosive vector autoregression. The Econometrics Journal 15: 226–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giancaterini, Francesco, Alain Hecq, and Claudio Morana. 2022. Is climate change time reversible? Econometrics 10: 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gourieroux, Christian, and Joann Jasiak. 2017. Noncausal vector autoregressive process: Representation, identification and semi-parametric estimation. Journal of Econometrics 200: 118–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouriéroux, Christian, and Jean-Michel Zakoïan. 2017. Local explosion modelling by non-causal process. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 79: 737–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hecq, Alain, and Elisa Voisin. 2022. Predicting bubble bursts in oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic with mixed causal-noncausal models. arXiv arXiv:1911.10916. [Google Scholar]
- Hendry, David F., and Michael Massmann. 2007. Co-breaking: Recent advances and a synopsis of the literature. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 25: 33–51. [Google Scholar]
- Issler, Joao Victor, and Farshid Vahid. 2001. Common cycles and the importance of transitory shocks to macroeconomic aggregates. Journal of Monetary Economics 47: 449–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanne, Markku, and Pentti Saikkonen. 2013. Noncausal vector autoregression. Econometric Theory 29: 447–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vahid, Farshid, and Robert F. Engle. 1993. Common trends and common cycles. Journal of Applied Econometrics 8: 341–60. [Google Scholar]

$\mathsf{\Phi}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.5& 0.1\\ 0.2& 0.3\end{array}\right]$ | $\mathsf{\Sigma}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}4& 0.5\\ 0.5& 1\end{array}\right]$ |

$T=\left\{500,\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}1\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}000\right\}$ | |

$\lambda =\left\{1.5,\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}3\right\}$ | |

$\mathsf{\Psi}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.3& 0.25\\ 0.6& 0.5\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.3& 0.25\end{array}\right]\hfill & ({H}_{0}:\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathrm{CB})\hfill \\ \\ \left[\begin{array}{cc}0.1& 0.4\\ 0.6& 0.5\end{array}\right]\hfill & ({H}_{1}:\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathrm{no}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{CB})\hfill \end{array}\right.$ |

$\lambda =3$ | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

T = 500 | T = 1000 | ||||||

DGP | LR test | BIC | AIC | LR test | BIC | AIC | |

With CB (rank 1) | 0.946 | 0.989 | 0.838 | 0.944 | 0.993 | 0.834 | |

Without CB (rank 2) | 0.999 | 0.994 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |

$\lambda =1.5$ | |||||||

T = 500 | T = 1000 | ||||||

DGP | LR test | BIC | AIC | LR test | BIC | AIC | |

With CB (rank 1) | 0.913 | 0.968 | 0.779 | 0.914 | 0.977 | 0.783 | |

Without CB (rank 2) | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |

$\mathsf{\Phi}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.5& 0.1& 0.2\\ 0.2& 0.3& 0.1\\ 0.1& 0.4& 0.6\end{array}\right]$ | $\Sigma =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2& 0.5& 0.5\\ 0.5& 1& 0.5\\ 0.5& 0.5& 4\end{array}\right]$ |

$T=\left\{500,\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}1\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}000\right\}$ | |

$\lambda =\left\{1.5,\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}3\right\}$ | |

$\mathsf{\Psi}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.3& 0.1& 0.1\\ 0.2& 0.3& 0.4\\ 0.7& 0.35& 0.4\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\\ 2& 0.5\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.3& 0.1& 0.1\\ 0.2& 0.3& 0.4\end{array}\right]\hfill & ({H}_{0}:\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}1\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{CB}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{feature})\hfill \\ \\ \left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.15& 0.25& 0.4\\ 0.3& 0.5& 0.8\\ 0.075& 0.125& 0.2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\\ 0.5\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.15& 0.25& 0.4\end{array}\right]\hfill & ({H}_{0}:\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}2\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{CB}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{features})\hfill \\ \\ \left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.3& 0.2& 0.1\\ 0.2& 0.5& 0.4\\ 0.7& 0.125& 0.2\end{array}\right]\hfill & ({H}_{1}:\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathrm{no}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{CB}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}\mathrm{feature})\hfill \end{array}\right.$ |

$\lambda =3$ | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

T = 500 | T = 1000 | ||||||||

$rank\left(\mathsf{\Psi}\right)$ | Rank test | LR | BIC | AIC | LR | BIC | AIC | ||

2 | 2 vs 3 | 0.944 | 0.984 | 0.817 | 0.951 | 0.992 | 0.843 | ||

1 | 1 vs 3 | 0.919 | 1.000 | 0.871 | 0.933 | 1.000 | 0.883 | ||

3 | 2 vs 3 | 0.695 | 0.481 | 0.855 | 0.932 | 0.802 | 0.970 | ||

1 vs 3 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||

$\lambda =1.5$ | |||||||||

T = 500 | T = 1000 | ||||||||

$rank\left(\mathsf{\Psi}\right)$ | Rank test | LR | BIC | AIC | LR | BIC | AIC | ||

2 | 2 vs. 3 | 0.915 | 0.972 | 0.775 | 0.907 | 0.978 | 0.776 | ||

1 | 1 vs 3 | 0.857 | 0.998 | 0.774 | 0.860 | 0.999 | 0.783 | ||

3 | 2 vs. 3 | 0.997 | 0.994 | 0.999 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||

1 vs. 3 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |

Variable | Estimated Coefficients | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Multiplicative | Linear | ||||

$\mathit{\varphi}$ | $\mathit{\psi}$ | $\mathit{\lambda}$ | ${\mathit{b}}_{1}$ | ${\mathit{b}}_{2}$ | |

Food & Beverage | 0.38 | 0.85 | 3.70 | 0.29 | 0.64 |

log(Food & Beverage) | 0.34 | 0.86 | 5.47 | 0.26 | 0.67 |

Industrial inputs | 0.43 | 0.87 | 1.66 | 0.31 | 0.63 |

log(Industrial inputs) | 0.42 | 0.89 | 4.62 | 0.31 | 0.65 |

Fuel (energy) | 0.87 | 0.44 | 2.20 | 0.63 | 0.32 |

log(Fuel) | 0.83 | 0.48 | 4.95 | 0.59 | 0.34 |

${B}_{1}$ | ${B}_{-1}$ | $\Omega $ | $\lambda $ |
---|---|---|---|

Food and Indus | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.28& 0.01\\ 0.26& 0.27\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.65& -0.02\\ -0.11& 0.65\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}1.32& 0.16\\ 0.16& 3.35\end{array}\right]$ | 2.49 |

Food and Fuel | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.35& 0.05\\ 0.47& 0.52\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.55& -0.04\\ -0.40& 0.40\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}1.42& 0.87\\ 0.87& 12.90\end{array}\right]$ | 3.01 |

Indus and Fuel | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.29& 0.01\\ -0.11& 0.47\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.63& 0.03\\ 0.09& 0.48\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}2.22& 1.50\\ 1.50& 7.17\end{array}\right]$ | 1.67 |

Food, Indus, and Fuel | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.27& 0.01& 0.03\\ 0.27& 0.25& 0.02\\ 0.30& -0.10& 0.56\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.64& -0.02& -0.02\\ -0.16& 0.66& -0.01\\ -0.27& 0.12& 0.37\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1.34& 0.12& 0.55\\ 0.12& 3.29& 2.20\\ 0.55& 2.20& 10.02\end{array}\right]$ | 2.28 |

${B}_{1}$ | ${B}_{-1}$ | ${10}^{3}\Omega $ | $\lambda $ |

Food and Indus | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.25& 0.01\\ 0.22& 0.24\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.69& -0.03\\ -0.12& 0.70\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.27& 0.03\\ 0.03& 0.46\end{array}\right]$ | 6.30 |

Food and Fuel | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.25& 0.02\\ 0.16& 0.38\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.67& -0.02\\ -0.14& 0.55\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.25& 0.06\\ 0.06& 1.21\end{array}\right]$ | 5.23 |

Indus and Fuel | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.26& 0.04\\ -0.09& 0.56\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.67& -0.01\\ 0.09& 0.37\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{cc}0.42& 0.24\\ 0.24& 1.19\end{array}\right]$ | 4.77 |

Food, Indus, and Fuel | |||

$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.88& -0.17& -0.02\\ -0.04& 0.27& 0.07\\ -0.04& 0.06& 0.58\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.21& 0.15& 0.00\\ 0.13& 0.76& -0.08\\ 0.02& 0.05& 0.33\end{array}\right]$ | $\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.32& 0.02& 0.07\\ 0.02& 0.51& 0.26\\ 0.07& 0.26& 1.35\end{array}\right]$ | 6.15 |

Levels | ||||||

Food | Indus | Fuel | Rank test | LRT | BIC | AIC |

∎ | ∎ | 1 vs. 2 | 25.93 | 20.04 | 23.93 | |

∎ | ∎ | 1 vs. 2 | 59.96 | 54.07 | 57.96 | |

∎ | ∎ | 1 vs. 2 | 70.49 | 64.59 | 68.49 | |

∎ | ∎ | ∎ | 2 vs. 3 | 16.26 | 10.37 | 14.26 |

1 vs. 3 | 88.12 | 64.55 | 80.12 | |||

Logs | ||||||

Food | Indus | Fuel | Rank test | LRT | BIC | AIC |

∎ | ∎ | 1 vs. 2 | 16.04 | 10.15 | 14.04 | |

∎ | ∎ | 1 vs. 2 | 34.36 | 28.47 | 32.36 | |

∎ | ∎ | 1 vs. 2 | 46.05 | 40.16 | 44.05 | |

∎ | ∎ | ∎ | 2 vs. 3 | 15.81 | 9.92 | 13.81 |

1 vs. 3 | 75.01 | 51.44 | 67.01 |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Cubadda, G.; Hecq, A.; Voisin, E.
Detecting Common Bubbles in Multivariate Mixed Causal–Noncausal Models. *Econometrics* **2023**, *11*, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics11010009

**AMA Style**

Cubadda G, Hecq A, Voisin E.
Detecting Common Bubbles in Multivariate Mixed Causal–Noncausal Models. *Econometrics*. 2023; 11(1):9.
https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics11010009

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Cubadda, Gianluca, Alain Hecq, and Elisa Voisin.
2023. "Detecting Common Bubbles in Multivariate Mixed Causal–Noncausal Models" *Econometrics* 11, no. 1: 9.
https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics11010009