Introduction
Cointegration is an important tool for modeling the longrun relationships in time series data. If you work with time series data, you will likely find yourself needing to use cointegration at some point.
This blog provides an indepth introduction to cointegration and will cover all the nuts and bolts you need to get started. In particular, we will look at:
 The fundamentals of cointegration.
 The error correction model.
 How to prepare for cointegration testing.
 What cointegration tests to use with and without structural breaks.
 How to interpret cointegration tests.
 How to perform cointegration tests in GAUSS.
Though not necessary, you may find it helpful to review the blogs on time series modeling and unit root testing before continuing with this blog.
What is Cointegration?
Economic theory suggests that many time series datasets will move together, fluctuating around a longrun equilibrium. In econometrics and statistics, this longrun equilibrium is tested and measured using the concept of cointegration.
Cointegration occurs when two or more nonstationary time series:
 Have a longrun equilibrium.
 Move together in such a way that their linear combination results in a stationary time series.
 Share an underlying common stochastic trend.



Field  Supporting Theory  Time Series 
Economics  The permanent income hypothesis describes how agents spread their consumption out over their lifetime based on their expected income.  Consumption and income. 
Economics  Purchasing power parity is a theory that relates the prices of a basket of goods across different countries.  Nominal exchange rates and domestic and foreign prices. 
Finance  The present value model of stock prices implies a longrun relationship between stock prices and their dividends or earnings.  Stock prices and stock dividends/earnings. 
Epidemiology  Joint mortality models imply a longrun relationship between mortality rates across different demographics.  Male and female mortality rates. 
Medicine  Time series methodologies have been used to examine comorbidities of different types of cancers and trends in medical welfare.  Occurrence rates of different types of cancer. 
The Mathematics of Cointegration
To understand the mathematics of cointegration, let's consider a group of time series, $Y_t$, which is composed of three separate time series:
$$y_1 = (y_{11}, y_{12}, \ldots, y_{1t})$$ $$y_2 = (y_{21}, y_{22}, \ldots, y_{2t})$$ $$y_3 = (y_{31}, y_{32}, ..., y_{3t})$$
All three series are nonstationary time series.
Cointegration implies that while $y_1$, $y_2$, and $y_3$ are independently nonstationary, they can be combined in a way that their linear combination is stationary :
$$\beta Y_t = \beta_1 y_{1t} + \beta_2 y_{2t} + \beta_3 y_{3t} \sim I(0)$$
The Cointegrating Vector
In the context of cointegration, $\beta$ is commonly known as the cointegrating vector. This vector:
 Dictates how cointegrating series are combined.
 Does not have to be unique  there can be multiple ways of cointegrating.
Normalization Because there can be multiple cointegrating vectors that fit the same economic model, we must impose identification restrictions to normalize the cointegrating vector for estimation.
A common normalization of the cointegrating vector is to set $\beta = ( 1, \beta_2, \ldots, \beta_N)$. For example, applying these restrictions to our earlier system yields
$$\beta Y_t = y_{1t}  \beta_2 y_{2t}  \beta_3 y_{3t} \sim I(0)$$
Part of the appeal of this normalization is that it can be rewritten in a standard regression form
$$y_{1t} = \beta_2 y_{2t} + \beta_3 y_{3t} + u_t$$
where $u_t$ is a stationary cointegrating error component. Intuitively, $u_t$ can be thought of as shortterm deviations from the longrun equilibrium.
While the regression format is a common normalization, it is important to remember that economic theory should inform our identifying restrictions.
What is the Error Correction Model?
Cointegration implies that time series will be connecting through an error correction model. The error correction model is important in time series analysis because it allows us to better understand longrun dynamics. Additionally, failing to properly model cointegrated variables can result in biased estimates.
The error correction model:
 Reflects the longrun equilibrium relationships of variables.
 Includes a shortrun dynamic adjustment mechanism that describes how variables adjust when they are out of equilibrium.
 Uses adjustment coefficients to measure the forces that push the relationship towards longrun equilibrium.
The Mathematics of the Error Correction Model
Let's assume that there is a bivariate cointegrated system with $Y_t = (y_{1t}, y_{2t})$ and a cointegrating vector $\beta = (1, \beta_2)$ such that
$$\beta Y_{t} = y_{1t}  \beta_2 y_{2t}$$
The error correction model depicts the dynamics of a variable as a function of the deviations from longrun equilibrium
$$\Delta y_{1t} = c_1 + \alpha_1 (y_{1,t1}  \beta_2 y_{2,t1}) + \sum_j \psi^j_{11} \Delta y_{1, tj} + \sum_j \psi^j_{12} \Delta y_{2, tj} + \epsilon_1t$$ $$\Delta y_{2t} = c_2 + \alpha_2 (y_{1,t1}  \beta_2 y_{2,t1}) + \sum_j \psi^j_{21} \Delta y_{1, tj} + \sum_j \psi^j_{22} \Delta y_{2, tj} + \epsilon_2t$$
Term  Description  Intuition 

$y_{1,t1}  \beta_2 y_{2,t1}$  Cointegrated longrun equilibrium  Because this is an equilibrium relationship, it plays a role in dynamic paths of both $y_{1t}$ and $y_{2t}$. 
$\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$  Adjustment coefficients  Captures the reactions of $y_{1t}$ and $y_{2t}$ to disequilibrium. 
$\sum_j \psi^j_{11} \Delta y_{1, tj} + \sum_j \psi^j_{12} \Delta y_{2, tj}$  Autoregressive distributed lags  Captures additional dynamics. 
Estimating the Error Correction Model
If the cointegrating vector has been previously estimated, then standard OLS or DOLS can be used to estimate the error correction relationship. In this case:
 The estimate of the cointegrating vector can be treated like a known variable.
 The estimated disequilibrium error can be treated like a known variable.
The ECM relationship can be estimated using OLS, seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR), or maximum likelihood estimation.
The Vector Error Correction Model (VECM)
The vector error correction model (VECM) is the multivariate extension of the ECM. If we are working in a vector autoregressive context, cointegration implies a VECM such that
$$\Delta Y_t = \Phi D_t + \Pi Y_{t1} + \Gamma_1 \Delta Y_{t1} + \cdots + \Gamma_{p1} \Delta Y_{tp+1} + \epsilon_t$$
Like the ECM, the VECM parameters reflect the longrun and shortrun dynamics of system as shown in the table below:
Term  Description  Intuition 

$\Pi$  Longrun impact matrix.  $\Pi = \Pi_1 + \Pi_2 + \cdots + \Pi_p  I_n$, captures adjustments towards the longrun equilibrium and contains the cointegrating relationships. 
$\Gamma_k$  Shortrun impact matrix.  The shortrun impact matrix is constructed from $\sum_{j=k+1}^p \Pi_j$ and captures shortrun deviations from the equilibrium. 
$D_t$  Deterministic terms.  These terms take the form $D_t = u_0 + u_1 t$ where $u_0$ is the constant component and $u_1 t$ is the trend component. 
Estimating the VECM
The VECM model can be estimated using the Johansen method:
 Estimate the appropriate VAR(p) model for $Y_t$.
 Determine the number of cointegrating vectors, using a likelihood ratio test for the rank of $\Pi$.
 Impose identifying restrictions to normalize the cointegrating vector.
 Using the normalized cointegrating vectors, estimate the resulting VECM by maximum likelihood.
Preparing For Cointegration Tests
Before jumping directly to cointegration testing, there are a number of other time series modeling modeling steps that we should consider first.
Establishing Underlying Theory
One of the key considerations prior to testing for cointegration, is whether there is theoretical support for the cointegrating relationship. It is important to remember that cointegration occurs when separate time series share an underlying stochastic trend. The idea of a shared trend should be supported by economic theory.
As an example, consider growth theory which suggests that productivity is a key driver of economic growth. As such, it acts as the common trend, driving the comovements of many indicators of economic growth. Hence, this theory implies that consumption, investment, and income are all cointegrated.
Time Series Visualization
One of the first steps in time series modeling should be data visualization. Time series plots provide good preliminary insights into the behavior of time series data:
 Is a series meanreverting or has explosive behavior?
 Does it have a time trend?
 Is there seasonality?
 Are there structural breaks?
Unit Root Testing
We've established that cointegration occurs between nonstationary, I(1), time series. This implies that before testing for or estimating a cointegrating relationship, we should perform unit root testing.
Our previous blog, "How to Conduct Unit Root Testing in GAUSS", provides an indepth look at how to perform unit root testing in GAUSS.
GAUSS tools for performing unit root tests are available in a number of libraries, including the Time Series MT (TSMT), the opensource TSPDLIB, and the coint libraries. All of these can be directly located and installed using the GAUSS package manager.
Full example programs for testing for unit roots using TSMT procedures and TSPDLIB procedures are available on our Aptech GitHub page.
Panel Data Unit Root Test  TSMT procedure  TSPDLIB procedure 

Hadri  hadri  
Im, Pesaran, and Shin  ips  
LevinLuChin  llc  
Schmidt and Perron LM test  lm  
Breitung and Das  breitung  
Crosssectionally augmented IPS test (CIPS)  cips  
Panel analysis of nonstationary and idiosyncratic and common (PANIC)  bng_panic 
Time Series Unit Root Test  TSMT procedure  TSPDLIB procedure 

AugmentedDickey Fuller  vmadfmt  adf 
PhillipsPerron  vmppmt  pp 
KPSS  kpss  lmkpss 
Schmidt and Perron LM test  lm  
GLSADF  dfgls  dfgls 
Quantile ADF  qr_adf 
Testing for structural breaks
A complete time series analysis should consider the possibility that structural breaks have occurred. In the case that structural breaks have occurred, standard tests for cointegration are invalid.
Therefore, it is important to:
 Test whether structural breaks occur in the individual series.
 In the case that there is evidence of structural breaks, employ cointegration tests that allow for structural breaks.
The GAUSS sbreak
procedure, available in TSMT, is an easy to use tool for identifying multiple, unknown structural breaks.
Cointegration Tests
In order to test for cointegration, we must test that a longrun equilibrium exists for a group of data. There are a number of things that need to be considered:
 Are there multiple cointegrating vectors or just one?
 Is the cointegrating vector known or does it need to be estimated?
 What deterministic components are included in the cointegrating relationship?
 Do we suspect structural breaks in the cointegrating relationship?
In this section, we will show how to use these questions to guide cointegration testing without structural breaks.
The EngleGranger Cointegration Test
The EngleGranger cointegration test considers the case that there is a single cointegrating vector. The test follows the very simple intuition that if variables are cointegrated, then the residual of the cointegrating regression should be stationary.
Forming the cointegrating residual
How to form the cointegrating residual depends on if the cointegrating vector is known or must be estimated:
If the cointegrating vector is known, the cointegrating residuals are directly computed using $u_t = \beta Y_t$. The residuals should be stationary and:
 Any standard unit root tests, such as the ADF or PP test, can be used to test the residuals. The test statistics follow the standard distributions.
 The test compares the null hypothesis of no cointegration against the alternative of cointegration.
 The cointegrating residuals should be examined for the presence of a constant or trend, and the appropriate unit root test should be utilized.
If the cointegrating vector is unknown, OLS is used to estimate the normalized cointegrating vector from the regression $$y_{1t} = c + \beta y_{2t} + u_{t}$$
 The residuals from the cointegrating regression are estimated $$\hat{u_t} = y_{1t}  \hat{c}  \hat{\beta_2}y_{2t}$$
 Any standard unit root test, such as the ADF or PP test, can be used to test the residuals. The test statistics follow the nonstandard PhillipsOuliaris (PO) distributions.
 The PO distribution depends on the trend behavior of the data.
The Johansen Tests
There are two Johansen cointegrating tests for the VECM context, the trace test and the maximal eigenvalue test. These tests hinge on the intuition that in the VECM, the rank of the longrun impact matrix, $\Pi$, determines if the VAR(p) variables are cointegrated.
Since the rank of the longrun impact matrix equals the number of cointegrating relationships:
 A likelihood ratio statistic for determining the rank of $\Pi$ can be used to establish the number of cointegrating relationships.
 Sequential testing can be used to test the number, $k$, of the cointegrating relationships.
The Johansen testing process has two general steps:
 Estimate the VECM model using maximum likelihood under various assumptions:
 With and without trend.
 With and without constant.
 With varying number, $k$, of cointegrating vectors.
 Compare the models using likelihood ratio tests.
The Johansen Trace Statistics
The Johansen trace statistic:
 Is a likelihood ratio test of an unrestricted VECM against the restricted VECM with $k$ cointegrating vectors, where $k = m1, \ldots, 0$.
 Is formed from the trace of a diagonal matrix of generalized eigenvalues from $\Pi$.
 As the $LR_{trace}(k)$ statistic gets closer to zero, we are less likely to reject the null hypothesis.
 If the $LR_{trace}(k)>CV$, then the null hypothesis is rejected.
The Johansen testing procedure sequentially tests the null hypothesis that the number of cointegrating vectors, $k = m$ against the alternative that $k > m$.
Stage  Null Hypothesis  Alternative  Conclusion 

One  $H_0: k = 0$  $H_A: k>0$  If $H_0$ cannot be rejected, stop testing, and $k = 0$. If null is rejected, perform next test. 
Two  $H_0: k \leq 1$  $H_A: k>1$  If $H_0$ cannot be rejected, stop testing, and $k \leq 1$. If null is rejected, perform next test. 
Three  $H_0: k \leq 2$  $H_A: k>2$  If $H_0$ cannot be rejected, stop testing, and $k \leq 2$. If null is rejected, perform next test. 
m1  $H_0: k \leq m1$  $H_A: k>m1$  If $H_0$ cannot be rejected, stop testing, and $k \leq m1$. If null is rejected, perform next test. 
The test statistic follows a nonstandard distribution and depends on the dimension and the specified deterministic trend.
The Johansen Maximum Eigenvalue Statistic
The maximal eigenvalue statistic:
 Considers the null hypothesis that the cointegrating rank is $k$ against the alternative hypothesis that the cointegrating rank is $k + 1$.
 The statistic follows a nonstandard distribution.
Cointegration Test with Structural Breaks
In the case that there are structural breaks in the cointegrating relationship, the cointegration tests in the previous station should not be used. In this section we look at three tests for cointegration with structural breaks:
 The Gregory and Hansen (1996) test for cointegration with a single structural break.
 The HatemiJ test (2009) for cointegration with two structural breaks.
 The Maki test for cointegration with multiple structural breaks.
The Gregory and Hansen Cointegration Test
The Gregory and Hansen (1996) cointegration test is a residualbased cointegration test which tests the null hypothesis of no cointegration against the alternative of cointegration in the presence of a single regime shift.
The Gregory and Hansen (1996) test:
 Is an extension of the ADF and PP residual tests for cointegration.
 Allows for unknown regimes shifts in either the intercept or the coefficient vector.
 Is valid for three different model cases: level shift with trend, regime shifts (changes in coefficients), regime shift with a shift in trend.
Because the structural break date is unknown, the test computes the cointegration test statistic for each possible breakpoint, and the smallest test statistics are used.
Gregory and Hansen (1996) suggest running their tests in combination with the standard cointegration tests:
 If the standard ADF test and the Gregory and Hansen ADF test both reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration, there is evidence in support of cointegration.
 If the standard ADF test does not reject the null hypothesis but the Gregory and Hansen ADF does, structural change in the cointegrating vector may be important.
 If the standard ADF test and the Gregory and Hansen ADF both reject the null hypothesis, there is no evidence from this test that structural change has occurred.
The HatemiJ Cointegration Test with Two Structural Breaks
The HatemiJ cointegration test is an extension of the Gregory and Hansen cointegration test. It allows for two possible structural breaks with unknown timing.
The Maki Cointegration Test
The Maki cointegration test builds on the Gregory and Hansen and the HatemiJ cointegration tests to allow for an unknown number of structural breaks.
Where to Find Cointegration Tests for GAUSS
GAUSS tools for performing cointegration tests and estimating VECM models are available in a number of libraries, including the Time Series MT (TSMT) library, TSPDLIB, and the coint libraries. All of these can be directly located and installed using the GAUSS package manager.
Cointegration test  Null Hypothesis  Decision Rule  GAUSS library 

EngleGranger (ADF)  No cointegration.  Reject the null hypothesis if the $ADF$ test statistic is less than the critical value.  TSMT, tspdlib, coint 
Phillips  No cointegration.  Reject the null hypothesis if the $Z$ test statistic is less than the critical value.  coint, tspdlib 
Stock and Watson common trend  $Y$ is a noncointegrated system after allowing for the pth order polynomial common trend.  Reject the null hypothesis if the $SW$ test statistic is less than the critical value.  coint 
Phillips and Ouliaris  $Y$ and $X$ are not cointegrated.  Reject the null hypothesis if the $P_u$ or $P_z$ statistic is greater than the critical value.  coint, tspdlib 
Johansen trace  Rank of $\Pi$ is equal to $r$ against the alternative that the rank of $\Pi$ is greater than $r$.  Reject the null hypothesis if $LM_{max}(k)$ is greater than the critical value.  TSMT, coint 
Johansen maximum eigenvalue  Rank of $\Pi$ is equal to $r$ against the alternative that the rank of $\Pi$ is equal to $r+1$.  Reject the null hypothesis if $LM(r)$ is greater than the critical value.  TSMT, coint 
Gregory and Hansen  No cointegration against the alternative of cointegration with one structural break.  Reject the null hypothesis if $ADF$, $Z_{\alpha}$, or $Z_t$ are less than the critical value.  tspdlib 
HatemiJ  No cointegration against the alternative of cointegration with two structural breaks.  Reject the null hypothesis if $ADF$, $Z_{\alpha}$, or $Z_t$ are less than the critical value.  tspdlib 
Shin test  Cointegration.  Reject the null hypothesis if the test statistic is less than the critical value.  tspdlib 
How to Test for Cointegration using GAUSS
In this section, we will test for cointegration between monthly gold and silver prices, using historic monthly price date starting in 1915. Specifically, we will work through several stages of analysis:
 Graphing the data and checking deterministic behavior.
 Testing each series for unit roots.
 Testing for cointegration without structural breaks.
 Testing for cointegration with structural breaks.
Graphing the Data
As a first step, we will create a time series graph of our data. This allows us to visually examine the deterministic trends in our data.
From our graphs, we can draw some preliminary conclusions about the dynamics of gold and silver prices over our time period:
 There appears to be some foundation for the comovement of silver and gold prices.
 Neither gold nor silver prices appear to have a time trend.
Testing Each Series for Unit Roots
Before testing if silver and gold prices are cointegrated, we should test if the series have unit roots. We can do this using the unit roots tests available in the TSMT and tspdlib libraries.
Gold monthly closing prices (20152020)  

Time Series Unit Root Test  Test Statistic  Conclusion 
AugmentedDickey Fuller  1.151  Cannot reject the null hypothesis of unit root. 
PhillipsPerron  1.312  Cannot reject the null hypothesis of unit root. 
KPSS  2.102  Reject the null hypothesis of stationarity at the 1% level. 
Schmidt and Perron LM test  2.399  Cannot reject the null hypothesis of unit root. 
GLSADF  0.980  Cannot reject the null hypothesis of unit root. 
Silver monthly closing prices (20152020)  

Time Series Unit Root Test  Test Statistic  Conclusion 
AugmentedDickey Fuller  5.121  Reject the null hypothesis of unit root at the 1% level. 
PhillipsPerron  5.446  Reject the null hypothesis of unit root at the 1% level. 
KPSS  0.856  Reject the null hypothesis of stationarity at the 1% level. 
Schmidt and Perron LM test  4.729  Reject the null hypothesis of unit root at the 1% level. 
GLSADF  4.895  Reject the null hypothesis of unit root at the 1% level. 
These results provide evidence that gold prices are nonstationary but suggest that the silver prices are stationary. At this point, we would not likely proceed with cointegration testing or we may wish to perform additional unit root testing. For example, we may want to perform unit root tests that allow for structural breaks.
The GAUSS code for the tests in this section is available here.
Testing for Cointegration
Now, let's test for cointegration without structural breaks using two different tests, the Johansen tests and the EngleGranger test.
The Johansen Tests
We will use the vmsjmt
procedure from the TSMT library. This procedure should be used with the vmc_sjamt
and vmc_sjtmt
procedures, which find the critical values for the Maximum Eigenvalue and Trace statistics, respectively.
The vmsjmt
procedure requires four inputs:
 y
 Matrix, contains the data to be tested for cointegration.
 p
 Scalar, the order of the time polynomial in the fitted regression. Set to $p=1$ for no deterministic component, $p=0$ for a constant only, $p=1$ for a constant and trend.
 k
 Scalar, the number of lagged differences to use when computing the estimator.
 no_det
 Scalar, set $no\_det = 1$ to suppress the constant term from the fitted regression and include it in the cointegrating regression.
The vmsjmt
procedure returns both the Johansen Trace and the Johansen Maximum Eigenvalue statistic. In addition, it returns the associated eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
new;
// Load tsmt library
library tsmt;
// Set filename (with path) for loading
fname2 = __FILE_DIR $+ "commodity_mon.dat";
// Load real prices data
y_test_real = loadd(fname2, "P_gold_real + P_silver_real");
// No deterministic component
// the fitted regression
p = 1;
// Set number of lagged differences
// for computing estimator
k = 2;
// No determinant
no_det = 0;
{ ev, evec, trace_stat, max_ev } = vmsjmt(y_test_real, p, k, no_det);
cv_lr2 = vmc_sjamt(cols(y), p);
cv_lr1 = vmc_sjtmt(cols(y), p);
Both trace_stat
and max_ev
will contain statistics for all possible ranks of $\Pi$.
For example, since we are testing for cointegration of just two time series, there will be at most one cointegrating vector. This means trace_stat
and max_ev
will be 2 x 1 matrices, testing both null hypotheses that $r=0$ and $r=1$.
Test  Test Statistic  10% Critical Value  Conclusion 

Johansen Trace Statistic  $$H_0: r=1, 56.707$$ $$H_0: r=0, 0.0767$$  10.46  Cannot reject the null hypothesis that $r=0$. 
Johansen Maximum Eigenvalue  $$H_0: r=1, 56.631$$ $$H_0: r=0, 0.0766$$  9.39  Cannot reject the null hypothesis that $r=0$. 
These results indicate that there is no cointegration between monthly gold and silver prices. This should not be a surprise, given the results of our unit root testing.
vmsjmt
. However, the Johansen tests are sequential tests and since we cannot reject the null that $k=0$ for either test, we technically do not need to continue testing for any higher rank. The EngleGranger
Since there is only one possible cointegrating vector for this system, we could have also used the EngleGranger test for cointegration. This test can be implemented using the coint_egranger
procedure from the TSPDLIB library.
The coint_egranger
procedure requires five inputs:
 y
 Vector, independent variable in the testing regression. This is the variable the cointegrating variable is normalized to.
 X
 Matrix, dependent variable(s) in the testing regression. This should contain all other variables.
 model
 Scalar, specifies which deterministic components to include in the model. Set equal to 0 to include no deterministic components, 1 to include a constant, and 2 to include a constant and trend.
 pmax
 Scalar, the maximum number of lags to include in the cointegrating vector.
 ic
 Scalar, which information criteria to use to select the lags included in the ADF regression. Set equal to 1 for the AIC, 2 for the SIC.
The coint_egranger
procedure returns the test statistic along with the 1%, 5% and 10% critical values.
Using the data already loaded in the previous example:
/*
** Information Criterion:
** 1=Akaike;
** 2=Schwarz;
** 3=tstat sign.
*/
ic = 2;
// Maximum number of lags
pmax = 12;
// No constant or trend
model = 0
{ tau0, cvADF0 } = coint_egranger(y_test_real[., 1], y_test_real[., 2], model, pmax, ic);
// Constant
model = 1
{ tau1, cvADF1 } = coint_egranger(y_test_real[., 1], y_test_real[., 2], model, pmax, ic);
// Constant and trend
model = 2
{ tau2, cvADF2 } = coint_egranger(y_test_real[., 1], y_test_real[., 2], model, pmax, ic);
Test  Test Statistic  10% Critical Value  Conclusion 

EngleGranger, no constant  3.094  2.450  Reject the null of no cointegration at the 10% level. 
EngleGranger, constant  1.609  3.066  Cannot reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration. 
EngleGranger, constant and trend  2.327  3.518  Cannot reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration. 
These results provide evidence for our conclusion that there is no cointegration between gold and silver prices. Note, however, that these results are not conclusive and depend on whether we include a constant. This sheds light on the importance of including the correct deterministic components in our model.
Testing for Cointegration with Structural Breaks
To be thorough we should also test for cointegration using tests that allow for a structural break. As an example, let's use the GregoryHansen test to compare the null hypothesis of no cointegration against the alternative that there is cointegration with one structural break.
This test can be implemented using the coint_ghansen
procedure from the TSPDLIB library.
The coint_ghansen
procedure requires eight inputs:
 y
 Vector, dependent variable in the testing regression. This is the variable the cointegrating variable is normalized to.
 X
 Matrix, independent variable(s) in the testing regression. This should contain all other variables.
 model
 Scalar, specified what type of regime shifts to include. Set equal to 1 for a level shift (C model), 2 for level shift with trend (C/T model), 3 for regime shift (C/S model), and 4 for regime and trend shifts.
 bwl
 Scalar, Bandwidth for kernel estimator for PhillipsPerron type test.
 pmax
 Scalar, the maximum number of lags to include in the cointegrating vector.
 ic
 Scalar, which information criteria to use to select the lags included in the ADF regression. Set equal to 1 for the AIC, 2 for the SIC.
 varm
 Scalar, longrun consistent variance type to use for the PhillipsPerron type test: 1 = iid, 2 = Bartlett, 3 = Quadratic Spectral (QS), 4 = SPC with Bartlett /see (Sul, Phillips & Choi, 2005), 5 = SPC with QS, 6 = Kurozumi with Bartlett, 7 = Kurozumi with QS.
 trimm
 Scalar, amount to trim from consideration as break date.
/*
** Information Criterion:
** 1=Akaike;
** 2=Schwarz;
** 3=tstat sign.
*/
ic = 2;
//Maximum number of lags
pmax = 12;
// Trimming rate
trimm= 0.15;
// Longrun consistent variance estimation method
varm = 3;
// Bandwidth for kernel estimator
T = rows(y_test_real);
bwl = round(4 * (T/100)^(2/9));
// Level shift
model = 1;
{ ADF_min1, TBadf1, Zt_min1, TBzt1, Za_min1, TBza1, cvADFZt1, cvZa1 }=
coint_ghansen(y_test_real[., 1], y_test_real[., 2], model, bwl, ic, pmax, varm, trimm);
// Level shift with trend
model = 2;
{ ADF_min2, TBadf2, Zt_min2, TBzt2, Za_min2, TBza2, cvADFZt2, cvZa2 }=
coint_ghansen(y_test_real[., 1], y_test_real[., 2], model, bwl, ic, pmax, varm, trimm);
// Regime shift
model = 3;
{ ADF_min3, TBadf3, Zt_min3, TBzt3, Za_min3, TBza3, cvADFZt3, cvZa3 }=
coint_ghansen(y_test_real[., 1], y_test_real[., 2], model, bwl, ic, pmax, varm, trimm);
// Regime shift with trend
model = 4;
{ ADF_min4, TBadf4, Zt_min4, TBzt4, Za_min4, TBza4, cvADFZt4, cvZa4 }=
coint_ghansen(y_test_real[., 1], y_test_real[., 2], model, bwl, ic, pmax, varm, trimm);
The coint_ghansen
has eight returns:
 ADFmin
 Scalar, the minimum $ADF$ test statistic across all breakpoints.
 TBadf
 Scalar, the breakpoint associated with the minimum $ADF$ statistic.
 Ztmin
 Scalar, the minimum $Z_t$ test statistic across all breakpoints.
 TBzt
 Scalar, the breakpoint associated with the minimum $Z_t$ statistic.
 Zamin
 Scalar, the minimum $Z_{\alpha}$ test statistic across all breakpoints.
 TBza
 Scalar, the breakpoint associated with the minimum $Z_{\alpha}$ statistic.
 cvADFZt
 Vector, the 1%, 5%, and 10% critical values for the $ADF$ and $Z_t$ statistics.
 cvZa
 Vector, the 1%, 5%, and 10% critical values for the $Z_{\alpha}$ statistic.
Test  $ADF$ Test Statistic  $Z_t$ Test Statistic  $Z_{\alpha}$ Test Statistic  10% Critical Value $ADF$,$Z_t$  10% Critical Value $Z_{\alpha}$  Conclusion 

GregoryHansen, Level shift  3.887  4.331  39.902  4.34  36.19  Cannot reject the null of no cointegration for $ADF$ and $Z_t$. Reject the null of no cointegration at the 10% level for $Z_{\alpha}$. 
GregoryHansen, Level shift with trend  3.915  5.010  50.398  4.72  43.22  Reject the null of no cointegration at the 10% level for $Z_{\alpha}$ and $Z_t$. Cannot reject the null for $ADF$ test. 
GregoryHansen, Regime change  5.452  6.4276  80.379  4.68  41.85  Reject the null of no cointegration at the 10% level. 
GregoryHansen, Regime change with trend  6.145  7.578  106.549  5.24  53.31  Reject the null of no cointegration at the 10% level. 
Note that our test for cointegration with one structural break is inconsistent and depends on which type of structural breaks we include in our model. This provides some indication that further exploration of structural breaks is needed.
Some examples of additional steps that we could take:
 Perform more complete structural breaks testing to inform if structural breaks are valid, how many structural breaks should be included, and which structural break model is most appropriate.
 Perform cointegration tests that are most consistent with the structural breaks analysis.
Conclusion
Congratulations! You now have an established guide for cointegration and the background you need to perform cointegration testing.
In particular, today's blog covered:
 The fundamentals of cointegration.
 The error correction model.
 How to prepare for cointegration testing.
 What cointegration tests to use with and without structural breaks.
 How to interpret cointegration tests.
 How to perform cointegration tests in GAUSS.
Erica has been working to build, distribute, and strengthen the GAUSS universe since 2012. She is an economist skilled in data analysis and software development. She has earned a B.A. and MSc in economics and engineering and has over 15 years combined industry and academic experience in data analysis and research.