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 on April 23, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


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

RE: st: xtabond2 year dummies


From   Humaira Asad <humairaasad@hotmail.com>
To   STATA HELP <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: xtabond2 year dummies
Date   Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:31:27 +0000

 
Yes! you are absolutely right, so what should I do. I mean what should I report as the results?




Humaira Asad
PhD Research Scholar

UoE Business School

University of Exeter, England


----------------------------------------
> From: kitbaum@me.com
> Subject: re:RE: st: xtabond2 year dummies
> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:05:19 -0400
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
>
> <>
> > I am adding them in ivstyle() adding them makes all my regressors insignificant.
>
>
> I imagine if you -xtreg, fe- your dependent variable on a set of time dummies, you will find that it fits quite well. This suggests that the additional regressors do not have much to say once you have removed unobserved heterogeneity and the macro effects which the time dummies represent.
>
> Kit Baum
> kitbaum@me.com
>
>
>
> *
> * 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