š¤ AI Summary
This study addresses the failure of conventional asymptotic inference for autoregressive conditional duration (ACD) models under a fixed calendar span, where the random number of events and heavy-tailed interarrival times invalidate standard assumptions. To overcome this, the authors propose two recursive bootstrap schemes: one conditioning on a fixed calendar span and the other on a fixed event count. They establish, for the first time, the consistency of the fixed-event-count bootstrap when the tail index Īŗ ā„ 1, and demonstrate that although the estimator converges to a mixed normal limit for 0 < Īŗ < 1, the bootstrap still accurately replicates its conditional Gaussian component, ensuring first-order validity of percentile-based confidence intervals. Drawing on mixed normal limit theory, tail index analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations, the method exhibits strong finite-sample performance under both finite and infinite mean scenarios. An empirical application to cryptocurrency ETF transaction durations reveals pronounced persistence and highlights practical discrepancies between the two inferential frameworks.
š Abstract
This paper develops bootstrap inference for autoregressive conditional duration (ACD) models observed over a fixed calendar span, so that the number of durations is random. We study recursive schemes that either fix the calendar span or the realized event count. For the fixed-count bootstrap, we establish consistency when the duration tail index satisfies $Īŗ\geq1$. When $0<Īŗ<1$, classical consistency fails because the estimator has a mixed-normal limit, but the bootstrap reproduces its conditional Gaussian component. Consequently, basic percentile intervals remain first-order valid and bootstrap $t$-statistics are asymptotically standard normal. Monte Carlo experiments show accurate finite-sample inference across finite- and infinite-mean regimes and robustness to non-exponential innovations. An application to cryptocurrency ETF transaction durations finds strong persistence and illustrates the practical difference between fixed-count and random-count inference.