Dear all,
Estimating a gmm-system model with xtabond2, N=36 T=6, I got results that showed smaller standard errors of estimates using 1-step robust than using 2-step robust.
I have two questions:
I) Why even diminishing the number of instruments, using the command xtabond2, the warning about the singularity of 2-step weighting matrix is singular?
II) In a case of a small sample, is it better to utilise the 1-step procedure or the Windmeijer's correction is sufficient for face the standard-error bias?
Related Posts with 1-step gmm-sys VS. 2-step
New package invdesc on SSC Thanks as always to Kit Baum, a new package invdesc is now available for download from SSC. In Stat…
Options in a Panel data regression using Sergio Correia's ''reghdfe''Hello, I am currently working with a panel, using Correia's reghdfe command. Suppose I have a panel…
Instrument Variable in AFTHi everyone, Can someone help me how to use the instrument variable in a parametric accelerated-fail…
Sorting observations and keeping oneHi, I would like to ask again the same question for sorting the observations by descending orders a…
Panel count dataDear Statalists, I’d appreciate your thoughts & help to overcome a roadblock: I have count data…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Response to 1-step gmm-sys VS. 2-step
Post a Comment