Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: Re: st: Problematic Result with two-step System GMM.


From   "Grant Peter Kabango" <g.kabango.1@research.gla.ac.uk>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: Re: st: Problematic Result with two-step System GMM.
Date   Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:25:05 +0000

Thank you statalist, this worked.

Grant.

-----Original Message-----
From: nicola.baldini2@unibo.it
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:51 +0100
Subject: Re: st: Problematic Result with two-step System GMM.

You may find a reply if you provide exactly the command-line you used and the output from which you guessed that you have too many instruments. From your e-mail, I guess you are using -xtabond2- and you need to work with lag() option to reduce the number of instruments, or collapse option. Read carefully the help file and author's working paper referenced in there.

Nicola

At 02.33 11/12/2007 -0500, Grant Peter Kabango wrote:
>I am using two-step System GMM for my estimation, with a panel which has 20 industries observed over 35 years (i.e.T=35 and N=20). However, the results show that I have too many instruments. I have been trying to collapse the data but I do not know how to go about it. Pleasehelp.
>
>Further, my estimated coefficients carry opposite signs in levels and in the first lag, for each variable. Is this normal or there is something I could be doing wrongly.
>
>Please Help
>
>Grant Kabango 

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/




*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2021 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index