Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: pooled regression vs fixed effects
From
Ozgur Ozdemir <[email protected]>
To
Stata <[email protected]>
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/