Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
From | Ozgur Ozdemir <ozdemirozgur@hotmail.com> |
To | Stata <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |
Subject | st: pooled regression vs fixed effects |
Date | Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:04:27 +0000 |
Hi, I am trying to address the multiple directorships association with firm performance however having difficulties to find which method to use. for example, when I do the following test on my panel data which has companies and years as index. xi : areg tobin_q market_value logboard_size average_directorships_per_director i.year, robust absorb(industry) I got all the independent variables significant however when I use the fixed effect model which seems more convient than the random effects based on the hausman test, xi : xtreg tobin_q market_value logboard_size average_directorships_per_director i.icb_suprsectr_code i.year, robust fe I got most of them insignificant. I am having difficulties to understand the reason and any help will be appreciated. I expect that the results should be similar in both cases as I have the same dummies across the year. however, do not have sufficient information about what areg really do ? kind regardsOzgur Ozdemir * * 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/