5

I am running a time-series regression. The Durbin-Watson statistics is very close to 2. In such a situation, would it still be better to use Newey-West standard errors, or is it ok to use OLS standard errors?

financial theory
  • 111
  • 2
  • 11

1 Answers1

8

First, I would recommend to use a software package that not only reports the Durbin-Watson test statistics but also a p-value. That might give you more of an indication how close or far from 2 the statistic actually is. Furthermore, you may consider other tests for autocorrelation, e.g., Breusch-Godfrey etc. And if there is no evidence for autocorrelation (or heteroscedasticity) then the OLS standard errors are probably fine.

A pragmatic approach could also be to simply try whether using Newey-West standard errors makes a relevant difference. If the autocorrelations in the residuals are small, then Newey-West should lead to very similar results anyway.

Achim Zeileis
  • 13,510
  • 1
  • 29
  • 53
  • 1
    +1. Regarding the last paragraph: In small samples, as in below 50 or so observations, Newey West standard errors often give oversized tests though. – ekvall Apr 04 '15 at 19:49
  • 2
    Yes, good point. With all HC and HAC standard errors one should also keep in mind that they are less efficient if the standard assumptions do hold. – Achim Zeileis Apr 04 '15 at 21:46
  • Thanks very much. The sample size is above 100 observations. I've checked Newey-West standard errors and they are indeed not too far from HC standard errors. – financial theory Apr 06 '15 at 10:18