[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
st: RE: check results of xtabond2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> Vivian Sibbaluca
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:48 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: st: check results of xtabond2
> I was wondering if anyone has verified the validity of the
> results of xtabond2. I have simulated a data and performed
> xtabond and xtabond2. The results of xtabond is very close to
> my specified vector of parameters in the simulated data.
> Unfortunately, this is not the case for xtabond2. The
> resulting parameters were simply far from my specification
> and also with the results of xtabond. As far as I know,
> Blundell and Bond estimator is better than the Arellano and
> BOnd estimator.
It isn't clear what the problem is here. Are you comparing the xtabond
and xtabond2 results using the *same* estimator, e.g., Arellano-Bond?
Then I agree, the two estimators should agree, and I believe they do.
But maybe you are complaining that xtabond2 using Blundell-Bond doesn't
agree with xtabond using Arellano-Bond? Then results of the two
estimators will, of course, differ. If you think Arellano-Bond (using
xtabond) performs better than Blundell-Bond (using xtabond2), then this
is an AB vs. BB issue, not an xtabond vs. xtabon2 issue.
> It seems that there is something wrong with
> xtabond2. I know that this is not part of Stata's functions
> and that Stata is not liable for it. I hope that somebody
> could verify the results of xtabond2 especially that there
> are a lot of Stata users using this procedure. If somebody is
> interested, I could send my data and the results.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
> around http://mail.yahoo.com
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
* For searches and help try: