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]

st: pooled regression vs fixed effects


From   Ozgur Ozdemir <ozdemirozgur@hotmail.com>
To   Stata <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: pooled regression vs fixed effects
Date   Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:04:27 +0000

Hi,
I am trying to address the multiple directorships association with firm performance however having difficulties to find which method to use. for example, when I do the following test on my panel data which has companies and years as index.
xi : areg tobin_q market_value logboard_size average_directorships_per_director i.year, robust absorb(industry)
I got all the independent variables significant however when I use the fixed effect model which seems more convient than the random effects based on the hausman test, 

xi : xtreg tobin_q market_value logboard_size average_directorships_per_director  i.icb_suprsectr_code i.year, robust fe

I got most of them insignificant. I am having difficulties to understand the reason and any help will be appreciated. I expect that the results should be similar in both cases as I have the same dummies across the year. however, do not have sufficient information about what areg really do ?   kind regardsOzgur Ozdemir 		 	   		  
*
*   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