Search found 7 matches

by Emmanuelle
Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:06 pm
Forum: Econometric Discussions
Topic: R squared
Replies: 8
Views: 6867

Re: R squared

wow! that worked just awesome!

c'est fantastique!

thank you forever...
by Emmanuelle
Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:46 am
Forum: Econometric Discussions
Topic: R squared
Replies: 8
Views: 6867

Re: R squared

better use long version instead... sorry
by Emmanuelle
Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:34 am
Forum: Econometric Discussions
Topic: R squared
Replies: 8
Views: 6867

Re: R squared

here it is :)

thanks again!!
by Emmanuelle
Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:12 am
Forum: Econometric Discussions
Topic: R squared
Replies: 8
Views: 6867

Re: R squared

Hi startz,

thank you very much for posting help on this one! It was badly needed. Have a look at my estimation outputs below.. sample looks the same
by Emmanuelle
Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:48 am
Forum: Econometric Discussions
Topic: R squared
Replies: 8
Views: 6867

Re: R squared

Sorry to insist here but I badly need an answer on this one... everytime I add a regressor to my equations the fit is reduced and this doesn't seem normal!
by Emmanuelle
Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:27 am
Forum: Estimation
Topic: dummies
Replies: 1
Views: 2305

Re: dummies

Hi,

the "singular matrix" problem is that your 3 dummies are not independent. Dummy 1 + Dummy 2 + Dummy 3 = 1 as I understand it. This is perfectly the same as using a constant. So you must absolutely avoid to use one. Did you?
by Emmanuelle
Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:54 am
Forum: Econometric Discussions
Topic: R squared
Replies: 8
Views: 6867

R squared

Hi, I'm trying to estimate the following regression : y = c(1)*y(-1)^2 + c(2)*x but the resulting R-squared (unadjusted) is much lower than when I regress the following equation : y = c(2)*x. How could it possibly happen if c(1) could be 0? Any ideas to get around this problem would be greatly appre...

Go to advanced search