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 |
Federico Belotti <f.belotti@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Inefficiency measures greater than one for frontier commands |

Date |
Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:54:19 +0200 |

Dear Reut, in the stochastic frontier framework, "inefficiency" scores ranges from 0 to infinity, while "efficiency" scores are restricted between 0 and 1 by construction since TE = exp{-E[su|e]} following Jondrow et al., 1982, or, TE = E{exp(s*u)|e} following Battese and Coelli, 1988, where s = 1 (s = -1) in the cost frontier (production frontier) case. Hope this helps. Federico On Apr 21, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Reut Levi wrote: > Dear Statalist members, > > I am using the xtfrontier command to estimate inefficiency levels for the U.S banking industry. My data comprised of information from the FFIEC Call Report for the year 2012. It is a large data set with over 29,000 observations. I broke it down by asset size in order to reduce the number of observation and also because the literature suggests that asset size peer group will produce more appropriate inefficiency measures. After breaking down the dataset, the average number of banks in each peer group data set is 650, with observations for 4 quarters, totaling in 2700 data points. All of my variable are in natural logs. > > I am using the xtfrontier command with the options ti and cost. I then predict the inefficiency measures using predict with the option u, but some of my inefficiency predications are greater than one. How is it possible? The manual says that the inefficiency measures are restricted to be between 0 and 1. Am I doing something wrong? Or what could explain those measures greater than 1? > > I am relatively new to STATA so please take it into consideration in your response. > Thank you very much, > Reut > > > * > * 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/ -- Federico Belotti, PhD Research Fellow Centre for Economics and International Studies University of Rome Tor Vergata tel/fax: +39 06 7259 5627 e-mail: federico.belotti@uniroma2.it web: http://www.econometrics.it * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: Inefficiency measures greater than one for frontier commands***From:*Reut Levi <rlevi2@student.gsu.edu>

**References**:**st: Inefficiency measures greater than one for frontier commands***From:*Reut Levi <rlevi2@student.gsu.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Hierarchical CFA problem** - Next by Date:
**st: disequilibrium model** - Previous by thread:
**st: Inefficiency measures greater than one for frontier commands** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: Inefficiency measures greater than one for frontier commands** - Index(es):