I am very sorry for the layout, it seems very hard to get it aligned
in the e-mail system. But you can simply copy and paste my program
into STATA and play with it. Many many thanks!
Robin
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:50:55 -0800, Robin Luo <[email protected]> wrote:
> I got really confused by this problem: I want to use a lagged variable
> in my analysis but instead of lagging based on some pre-existing
> value, this lag actually comes from certain calculation. My data is a
> panel data (grouped by "firmid") with a structure like:
>
> firmid year age_a age_b weight_a weight_b
> 100 1960 10
> 100 1961 11 2 .9 .1
> 100 1962 12
> 100 1963 13 10 .7 .3
> 100 1964 14
> 100 1965 15
> 100 1966 16 5 .8 .2
> 101 1940 1
> 101 1941 2 10 .6 .4
> 101 1942 3
>
> The goal is to calculate an adjusted age for each firm-year. In the
> data, age_a is the natural age of the firm, while age_b comes from
> certain event (say, an acquisition). Before there is any event, the
> firm's adjusted age is simply the natural age (age_a). When there is
> an event, the new adjusted age is the weighted sum of the adjusted age
> and age_b (weight_a is the weight for adjusted age while weight_b for
> age_b). When there is no event, the firm's adjusted age simply
> increase by 1 for each year. I thus wrote the following program:
> clear
>
> input firmid year age_a age_b weight_a weight_b
> 100 1960 10 . . .
> 100 1961 11 2 0.9 0.1
> 100 1962 12 . . .
> 100 1963 13 10 0.7 0.3
> 100 1964 14 . . .
> 100 1965 15 . . .
> 100 1966 16 5 0.8 0.2
> 101 1940 1 . . .
> 101 1941 2 10 0.6 0.4
> 101 1942 3 . . .
> end
>
> sort firmid year
>
> gen age=0
>
> by firmid: replace age=age_a if _n==1 & age_b==.
> by firmid: replace age=(age_a*weight_a + age_b*weight_b) if _n==1 & age_b~=.
>
> by firmid: replace age=(age[_n-1]+1)*weight_a + age_b*weight_b if
> _n~=1 & age_b~=.
> by firmid: replace age=(age[_n-1]+1) if _n~=1 & age_b==.
>
> The result, however, came quite strange:
>
> firmid year age_a age_b weight_a weight_b age
> 100 1960 10 10
> 100 1961 11 2 .9 .1 10.1
> 100 1962 12 11.1
> 100 1963 13 10 .7 .3 3.7
> 100 1964 14 4.7
> 100 1965 15 5.7
> 100 1966 16 5 .8 .2 1.8
> 101 1940 1 1
> 101 1941 2 10 .6 .4 5.2
> 101 1942 3 6.2
>
> For the 4th and 7th observations (where "year" are 1963 and 1966
> respectively), the correct ages should be about 11
> ([11.1+1]*0.7+10*0.3) and 6 ([5.7+1]*0.8+5*0.2). Obviously, instead of
> getting the actual last "age" values, STATA took the very original
> ones - the generated 0s. I could not figure it out and really
> appreciate any help on this.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Robin Luo
> *
> * 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/
