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

Re: st: RE: Clustered Robust Standard Errors or Robust Standard Errors?

From   "Austin Nichols" <>
Subject   Re: st: RE: Clustered Robust Standard Errors or Robust Standard Errors?
Date   Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:10:00 -0400

emanuele --
I would say rather that the reason to use the CRSE is to allow for
arbitrary serial correlation of errors within panel, and generally I
would trust the CRSE more than the het-robust SE.  Normally, you would
want 50 clusters or more to ensure that the downward bias of the CRSE
estimator is negligible, but with 30 balanced clusters, I doubt the
bias is a problem.  So use the CRSE.

On 7/1/08, Rodrigo Alfaro A. <> wrote:
> It is understood to take crse in panels. The reason is simple, you want
> to consider both the time and cross-sectional variation in the
> computation of the se's.

> -----Mensaje original-----
emanuele canegrati
> Dear all,
> I am currently writing an econometric paper on the relation between
> market returns and financial technical indicators (MACD, Relative
> Strenght Index...). Since the database I am using is a panel of listed
> companies (around 30 companies; daily observations from January 2003 to
> March 2008), I decided to use the STATA's option "Clustered Robust
> Standard Errors". I also run the regressions with normal robust standard
> errors, obtaining very different results as for the significance of
> indicators. I wish to ask if you can kindly give me an opinion about
> which one of the two techniques to use: RSE or CRSE? It seems that by
> using CRSE I obtain results very similar to those I obtain by performing
> regressions without robust option.
*   For searches and help try:

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