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

From |
"Austin Nichols" <austinnichols@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: truncreg problem and the reasons |

Date |
Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:20:51 -0400 |

Zou Hong <hzou@ln.edu.hk>: Your problem seems ideal for -poisson- (or -glm- or -zip-); see http://www.statacorp.com/statalist/archive/2007-04/msg00549.html and related posts for some relevant discussion. Suppose "ins" is insurance and "asset" is value of insurable assets--then you should . g lna=ln(asset) . poisson ins lna size1 tang, r to get an estimate of the elasticity of insurance with respect to assets. Your current model *assumes* the elasticity is one, i.e. the model with the coef on lna constrained to one is equivalent to . g ratio=ins/asset . poisson ratio size1 tang, r but you do not know that the coef is equal to one, right? As an example, consider: webuse nlswork, clear keep if year>78 bys id (year): drop if _n<_N gen total=wks_work*hours gen wage=exp(ln_w) gen earn=wage*total gen lntot=ln(total) poisson earn lntot grade tenu, r test lntot=1 poisson wage grade tenu, r Note that just because you can't reject the null hypothesis that the coef on the "denominator" variable is one, doesn't mean you should blindly accept the null. (There is a positive association between higher hours and higher wages in the example, and there likely is a similar pattern in your insurance and assets data.) It just makes sense to estimate the parameter IMHO. On 7/22/07, Zou Hong <hzou@ln.edu.hk> wrote:

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.

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).

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:*"Zou Hong" <hzou@ln.edu.hk>

**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>

**st: truncreg problem and the reasons***From:*"Zou Hong" <hzou@ln.edu.hk>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: Unbalanced panel, count number of incidents** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: -warning: variables in at() list not found in model after mfx or mfx2** - Previous by thread:
**st: Possible windowing problem with Stata 10** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: truncreg problem and the reasons** - Index(es):

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