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]

From |
owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
st: From: Mario Jose <mariojose276@gmail.com> |

Date |
Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:38:53 +0000 |

Dear Statalisters, I have ran a panel model with fixed effects (xtreg, fe) to a sample with about 80.000 firms, firstly using only one interaction between a continuous (x1) and a binary variable (d). The model is like this: xtreg y x1 d x1*d control i.year, i(id) fe The output obtained is as follows (standard erros in parenthesis): Y = -1.171*x1+0.457*d+0.413*x1*d+control var+years dummies (0.227) (0.057) (0.202) ... As expected, the combined effect of x1 on y is lower for group taking d=1. (at this stage I was very happy) I ran again my model including another dummy - b - taking 0 for the first years of the sample period (3 years) and 1 for the last years (5 years). I have interacted x1 ## d ## b. The rationale was to test whether the x1*d change significantly from the beginning of the period to end. I obtained the following estimates: Y = -1.895*x1 + 0.468*d + 0.201*x1*d + -0.417*b + 0.131*x1*b (0.418) (0.133) (0.420) (0.116) (0.332) - 0. 198 * x1 * b + 1.014 *x1 * d * b + control + year dummies (0.124) (0.389) ... Now the interaction between x1*d is no longer significant and the x1 * d * b is significant at any level. Under this results, one would say that the different effect of x1 found in the 1st equation between the subsamples is due to what happened in the second part of my sample period. However, what made me split the sample cross-sectionally (d), was the literature and thinking that the subsamples would 'behave' differently independently of the period taken. When I replace the Y by another proxy, I find the results changing significantly, in the sense that the signs obtained for dummies are opposite to what is expected.. Is there anyone who can say whether this strategy is reasonable? and whether it is normal obtaining such instability in models with interaction variables? Any help on my questions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, MJ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**st: import txt file with spwmatrix** - Next by Date:
**st: Interaction variables in a panel model** - Previous by thread:
**st: import txt file with spwmatrix** - Next by thread:
**st: Interaction variables in a panel model** - Index(es):