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: Failing to reject Arellano-Bond test for AR(1) in first differences imply a random walk?


From   Evan Markel <markelev@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Failing to reject Arellano-Bond test for AR(1) in first differences imply a random walk?
Date   Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:29:54 -0700

Dearlistservers,

I think I may understand why I fail to reject the Arellano-Bond test
for AR(1) in first differences. In the model I've described below, I
assume heteroskedasticity and in fact use a two-step GMM estimation
where errors are already robust and the use Windmeijer correction. In
the presence of heteroskedasticity errors are not independent and
identically distributed (iid).



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index