Statalist The Stata Listserver


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: xtabond2 (nolevel option) versus ivreg2 (gmm option)


From   [email protected]
To   [email protected]
Subject   st: xtabond2 (nolevel option) versus ivreg2 (gmm option)
Date   Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:45:07 +0200

dear all,
I estimated a dynamic equation:
yt= a +b*y(t-1)+c*xt+et
 using xtabond2  (with the nolevel option) and ivreg2 (with the gmm option). I 
have used the same number of IVs for the endogenous variables (x is a vector 
of endogenous and exogenous variables).
I am aware that the first command implies the adoption of an Arellano- Bond 
(difference GMM) estimator, while the other the use of a two-step feasible GMM 
estimator. However, I don't understand why I get an estimation sample rather 
different for the two commands: the ivreg2 sample is half that of the xtabond2 
(4108 vs 8467 obs).
Thank you in advance
Best
Mariarosaria


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

*
*   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/



© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index