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]

From |
Arthur Boman <boman@berkeley.edu> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: RE: how do we jointly test coefficients (fuller specification) from diff |

Date |
Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:41:25 -0700 |

David (Jorge can check first part and think if it jives with the code he sent), ____ Thank you. This got me thinking more about the model. Here is my model: y1= a*x1 + f*x2 + e1 y2= b*x1 + g*x2 + e2 y3= c*x1 + h*x2 + e3 e1, e2, e3 are independent, normal, and mean-zero. They have different variances, but it would be okay to assume the variances do not change with time. Then the null is a=b=c=0. ( When I say independent I mean both cross-sectionally (e1 at any time is independent of e2 at any time) and independent across time as well, no serial correlation. Constant variance across time is okay, i.e. not heteroscedastic. If it is easy to allow heteroscedasticity and correct for this, then okay. ) ____ Bonferroni: Yes I had thought of this but I am not sure whether it is accurate. It seems like it should not be far off, or maybe it is accurate. What I wondered is whether the x's can be considered predetermined for subsequent models, as they are the same for all. I also wonder if I did the tests separately and allowed for heteroscedasticity, would Bonferroni work same way? ____ The fact that "3" is actually 25 makes all of this more "interesting." ( -: ____ Don't worry about the priced factor thing. Testing if coeff on x1's are all zero with the other x's in there. Yes, there are x2, x3, and x4. ____ Sounds complicated: > The suggestion of stacking y1, y2, and y3 into a column vector seems > to be headed toward a multiple regression (in which the "design" > matrix also stacks x1 and x2 for each of the y's) and then perhaps a > likelihood-ratio test. It may be appropriate (or necessary) to take > into account correlation among y1, y2, and y3; that would turn the > analysis into a multivariate regression with (y1, y2, y3) as the > vector dependent variable. Even without correlation, y1, y2, and y3 > may not have the same variance. > > The fact that "3" is actually 25 makes all of this more "interesting." > And maybe your asset-pricing model involves other factors besides x2. > * * 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/

**References**:**st: how do we jointly test coefficients from different regressions?***From:*Arthur Boman <boman@berkeley.edu>

**Re: st: how do we jointly test coefficients from different regressions?***From:*David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: QMLE** - Next by Date:
**st: Using Estout to make a wide table** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: how do we jointly test coefficients from different regressions?** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: how do we jointly test coefficients (fuller specification) from diff** - Index(es):