Statalist


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

Re: st: RE: Suest and Sureg


From   Alvaro Monge Zegarra <A.G.Monge-Zegarra@sussex.ac.uk>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: RE: Suest and Sureg
Date   Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:30:15 +0100

Thanks Mark, now things are much more clear. 




Quoting "Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>:

> Alvaro,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu 
> > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] 
> > Sent: 07 August 2007 18:18
> > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> > Subject: st: Suest and Sureg
> > 
> > Dear Stata list,
> > 
> > maybe this a very basic question. I`m trying to estimate a 
> > model using SUR, this technique is new for me. My problem is 
> > that command sureg maybe is not taking into account posible 
> > heteroskedasticity. Then I have tried suest after regress 
> > (someone told me that with this command is possible to run a 
> > sur under heterosk on each equation). I notice that the 
> > standard errors have change and are very similar to my 
> > independent equations regression once adjusted using robust
> option.
> > However, i dont know if this command is really doing a sur 
> > regression allowing for correlations among unobservables. I 
> > have read some applications that say that is the "correct" 
> > way to run that kind of regression (sur model corrected by 
> > white). However in other applications i have read that this 
> > command is not properly a sur regression. A previous post I 
> > have read the following
> > 
> > "Just to add a bit to Maarten's suggestion: -suest- will let 
> > you combine two or more "seemingly unrelated" equations so 
> > that you can test cross-equation restrictions and the like.  
> > But it won't do "seemingly-unrelated estimation" a la Zellner 
> > and -sureg-, i.e., you won't get the efficiency gains 
> > possible from estimating the equations as a system. The 
> > coefficients reported by -suest- are just the original ones"
> > 
> > So, my doubt now is bigger. I only want to obtain the correct 
> > variance covariance matrix in order to test corss equation 
> > hypothesis under to kind of models. The first one uses the 
> > same covariates for all the equations and the second one 
> > different covariates. Both are OLS-type.
> 
> The comment above was by me.
> 
> The way to understand what is going on is to think in terms of
> efficiency vs. robustness. You get efficiency by modelling the
> heteroskedasticity, cross-equation correlations, etc. correctly, and
> incorporating these into GLS-type estimates of your coefficients. 
> You
> get robustness by using a covariance estimator that is robust to
> heteroskedasticity etc.
> 
> -sureg- does traditional SUR.  This is GLS-type estimation that
> takes
> account of cross-equation correlations to get more efficiency. 
> Since
> the cross-equation correlations are modelled, you can test cross-eqn
> restrictions and the like.  But -sureg- assumes homoskedasticity, and
> if
> the errors are heteroskedastic, then the SEs reported by -sureg- will
> be
> wrong.
> 
> -suest- applies an Eicker-Huber-White-sandwich covariance estimator
> to a
> set of equations estimated by, in your case, OLS.  You don't get the
> efficiency that you would get if you modelled the cross-eqn
> correlations
> (like SUR), or for that matter, the efficiency that you would get if
> you
> modelled the heteroskedasticity and did GLS.  But your SEs will be
> valid
> whatever the cross-equation correlations or heteroskedasticity that
> you
> face.
> 
> Maybe you want to combine these, or perhaps do SUR with with
> modelled
> heteroskedasticity.  I suppose this is possible, but not with the
> canned
> estimators available in official Stata.  You would have to program
> them
> yourself or find someone else that has already programmed them.
> 
> Your options in brief: if you are worried about heteroskedasticity,
> then
> -suest- is your only choice; if you aren't worried about
> heteroskedasticity, then both -suest- and -sureg- generate valid
> SEs,
> but -sureg- is more efficient.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> > hope someone can answear me more and if you need more 
> > information I can explain the details of my model.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot
> > 
> > Alvaro
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > *
> > *   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:
> *   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:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index