|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
st: Re: comparing xtgls and xtreg,re
Nicola,
-xtreg, re- allows to have an unobserved component in the error term which
is random, then the loglikelihood has a composed error term that requires
assumptions on the distribution of u(i) and e(i,t)... convention says that
both are normal. Similar approach is applied in frontier models, but there
the distribution of u(i) is half-normal or gamma.
-xtgls- is GLS for panel data, asumming some structure for the distribution
of e(i,t). For example, in terms of variances, correlations
(cross-sectional) or autocorrelations (time series). The default is no
correlation accross panels, homoscedastic errors and no autocorrelation, ie
iid errors across panels and time... the latter is the same assumption of
the standard LS (-reg-). You can get the same standard errors than -reg-
adding the option -nmk- to xtlgs as follows:
xtgls n w k ys yr198*, nmk
Rodrigo.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:44 AM
Subject: st: comparing xtgls and xtreg,re
Given that -xtreg, re- is referred to on the help file as "GLS
random-effects (RE) model", I am puzzled that -xtgls- with default options
(and -xtpcse-) produces the same coefficients as -regress- and different
from both -xtreg, re- and -xtreg, mle-. Why? Most importantly, which
should I trust???
Moreover, -xtgls- and -regress- produce almost identical standard errors.
I don't think it depends on my data, e.g. take some panels on the web and
confront:
webuse abdata
xtreg n w k ys yr198*
regress n w k ys yr198*
xtgls n w k ys yr198*
Please note that I use Stata 9.2
Nicola
*
* 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/