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

From |
"Zou Hong" <hzou@ln.edu.hk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: truncreg problem and the reasons |

Date |
Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:02:11 +0800 |

Dear lister,

I am investigating the insurance consumption issue using Cragg's (1971) model, which is a first-stage probit plus a second-stage truncated model at zero (using only firms buying insurance). My sample is quite big around 60,000 observations rougly with 50% of firms buying insurance.

In fitting the simple truncated model, the estimation fails to converge, see message below:

truncreg ins1 size1 tang, ll(0)

(note: 34659 obs. truncated)

Fitting full model:

Iteration 0: log likelihood = 75318.141

Iteration 1: log likelihood = 77212.052

Iteration 2: log likelihood = 78769.215

Iteration 3: log likelihood = 79118.637 (backed up)

Iteration 4: log likelihood = 79289.237 (backed up)

Iteration 5: log likelihood = 79373.336 (backed up)

Iteration 6: log likelihood = 79415.173 (backed up)

Iteration 7: log likelihood = 79416.478 (backed up)

Iteration 8: log likelihood = 79417.13 (backed up)

Iteration 9: log likelihood = 79417.456 (backed up)

Iteration 10: log likelihood = 79417.619 (backed up)

Iteration 11: log likelihood = 79417.701 (backed up)

Iteration 12: log likelihood = 79417.741 (backed up)

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

Iteration 13: log likelihood = 79417.762 (backed up)

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

Iteration 14: log likelihood = 79417.772 (backed up)

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

Iteration 15: log likelihood = 79417.775 (backed up)

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

Iteration 16: log likelihood = 79417.777 (not concave)

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

Iteration 17: log likelihood = 79417.777

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

Iteration 18: log likelihood = 79417.779 (not concave)

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

Iteration 19: log likelihood = 79417.779 (not concave)

numerical derivatives are approximate

nearby values are missing

could not calculate numerical derivatives

missing values encountered

r(430);

I then find "ins1", the dependent variable defined as insurance expense/total assets, is higly skewed with a high kurtosis (see descriptive statistics below). I suspect this is the source of the problem. To mitigate the skewness, I create a variable "lnins1" (= ln (1+ins1*1000)) that is truncated at 0. I multiply ins1 by 1000 since ins1 is a very small ratio variable. I then reestimated the truncated variable and the model did converge (see below).

. tabstat ins1 ins2 lnins* ,stats(mean median sd min max sk kurtosis n ) casewise

stats | ins1 ins2 lnins0 lnins1

---------+----------------------------------------

mean | .0029195 .0030478 1.730176 .6079098

p50 | 0 0 0 0

sd | .0147884 .014874 2.216399 .9260294

min | 0 0 0 0

max | .7857143 .7407407 12.05861 6.667865

skewness | 23.16256 21.60987 .8706521 1.712282

kurtosis | 796.7301 694.4615 2.549835 5.961717

N | 60543 60543 60543 60543

--------------------------------------------------

. truncreg lnins1 size1 tang, ll(0)

(note: 34659 obs. truncated)

Fitting full model:

Iteration 0: log likelihood = -29082.919

Iteration 1: log likelihood = -27996.755

Iteration 2: log likelihood = -27960.392

Iteration 3: log likelihood = -27960.347

Iteration 4: log likelihood = -27960.347

Truncated regression

Limit: lower = 0 Number of obs = 25884

upper = +inf Wald chi2(2) =6320.92

Log likelihood = -27960.347 Prob > chi2 = .0000

---------------------------------------------------------

lnins1 | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z|

---------------------------------------------------------

eq1 |

size1 | -.431 .006154 -70.04

tang | -1.843424 .0377302 -48.86

_cons | 6.314259 .0626349 100.81

---------------------------------------------------------

sigma |

_cons | .966854 .0065755 147.04 0.000

------------------------------------------------------

I wonder whether my above transformation makes a sense. I think it does preserve the interpretation of the direction of independent variables on "ins1".

Any and suggestions comments are welcome

Joe

*

* 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: truncreg problem and the reasons***From:*"Austin Nichols" <austinnichols@gmail.com>

**st: Possible windowing problem with Stata 10***From:*Fred Wolfe <fwolfe@arthritis-research.org>

**References**:**st: What is wrong with this syntax?***From:*Kyle Hood <kyle.hood@yale.edu>

**Re: st: What is wrong with this syntax?***From:*Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Unbalanced panel, count number of incidents** - Next by Date:
**st: Possible windowing problem with Stata 10** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: What is wrong with this syntax?** - Next by thread:
**st: Possible windowing problem with Stata 10** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |