Part VI · Chapter 17

Spurious Regression

Two independent random walks can produce R² > 0.9 and "significant" t-stats — but the relationship is entirely accidental. Granger–Newbold (1974) made this famous.

Learning objectives

Reproduce a spurious regression from two random walks.
Spot the symptoms: high R², low DW, persistent residuals.
Apply the Granger-Newbold rule R² > DW.
Fix by differencing or testing cointegration.

Fake Regression Generator

Seed:

Regression output

Estimated β:
R²:
t-stat (β):
Durbin-Watson:

📐 Symptoms of spurious regression

\[ R^2 > DW \;\Rightarrow\; \text{Granger-Newbold spurious-regression flag} \]
High R² could just be shared drift
Low DW (≪ 2) residuals highly autocorrelated
Non-stat residuals ADF fails to reject
Phillips (1986) t-stat diverges as n grows

🔍 What to look for

⚠️ Pro Tip: What to Avoid

Student says

"R² = 0.94 and t = 18 — the relationship is real."

Why this is wrong

With I(1) variables, standard inference breaks down. High R² can be entirely from coincidental trending; DW near 0 betrays the trap.

Correct interpretation

Check DW, residual stationarity (ADF), apply Granger-Newbold rule. If spurious, difference both series or test for cointegration.

📝 Mini-quiz

📋 Key Takeaways

SymptomSpurious indicator
> 0.7 with I(1) regressors
DW< 1 (strong positive AC)
R² > DWGranger-Newbold flag
Residual ADFFails to reject = non-stationary
FixDifference or test cointegration