On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Raphael Fraser
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I think I found the solution but while the covariance for the random
> effects parameters are the same the variances are not. I can't imagine
> that they are using different methods! BUT some thing is off here. The
> coefficients and standard error for the fixed effects are exactly the
> same. Is there a reasonable explanation?
Different approximations are a very plausible one. The fixed effects
are much easier to estimate, and you can get some very reasonable
answers even with -regress, cluster-. With random effects, you might
have some weird parameterizations, where covariances are estimated
separately from variances, and may happen to have different
multipliers like 1/N or 1/(N-1) -- I am just thinking aloud here.
Bobby G. might provide a better explanation, if there is one :)).
--
Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name
Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
