Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: RE: RE: AW: correlate lag variables


From   Julia <j.statalist@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: RE: RE: AW: correlate lag variables
Date   Tue, 11 May 2010 12:51:19 +0200

Dear Nick and Martin,

thank you for the usefull comments! Indeed I have a panel data, so the
more lags I include in the correlate command, less data is being used,
as the two of you have explained.

Best regards,

Julia

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Yes; and I conjectured that the loss of 40 obs reflected a use of panel data. The original poster has yet to respond.
>
> Nick
> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
>
> Lachenbruch, Peter
>
> I'm coning into this a little late, but did anyone notice that when you include lag 2 you have 225 observations and when you include only lag 1, you have 265.  Setting es=e(sample) after the lag 2 analysis and rerunning the correlation for lag 1 if es==1 might shed some light on the problem.
>
> Martin Weiss
>
> Try -pwcorr- instead:
>
> *************
> clear*
> set obs 100
> gen y=1
> replace y =.6*y[_n-1]+rnormal() in 2/l
> gen byte time=_n
> tsset time
> corr y L.y L2.y
> pwcorr y L.y
> pwcorr y L.y L2.y
> *************
>
> Julia
>
> I would like to calculate the correlation between a variable and its
> past values. Thus, I use the following command:
>
> . correlate BI L1.BI L2.BI
> (obs=225)
>
>              |           L.      L2.
>              | BI       BI      BI
> -------------+---------------------------
>           BI|
>          --. |   1.0000
>          L1. |   0.0111   1.0000
>          L2. |   0.0647   0.0161   1.0000
>
>
> However, if I only ask the correlation for the first lag, my result
> differs....
>
> . correlate BI L1.BI
> (obs=265)
>
>              |             L.
>              |    BI     BI
> -------------+------------------
>           BI|
>          --. |   1.0000
>          L1. |   0.0174   1.0000
>
>  Why does excluding the second lag affect the correlation between the
> variable and its first lag?
>
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   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   |   Site index