PANEL DATA
Moderators: EViews Gareth, EViews Steve, EViews Moderator, EViews Jason
-
EViews Gareth
- Fe ddaethom, fe welon, fe amcangyfrifon
- Posts: 13600
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:38 pm
Re: PANEL DATA
It isn't clear to me what he means by "the t-stat is too high".
-
tchaithonov
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 am
- Location: New York City
Re: PANEL DATA
Well, if you do a ls with stacked data (not pooled ols, just ls), then you t-stat would be too high for sure.
Dependent Variable: RI
Method: Panel Least Squares
Date: 03/22/10 Time: 12:55
Sample: 1/06/2003 1/03/2010
Periods included: 365
Cross-sections included: 59
Total panel (balanced) observations: 21535
White diagonal standard errors & covariance (no d.f. correction)
RI = RF + C(1)*(RM_RF)
Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C(1) 1.006495 0.008404 119.7677 0.0000
R-squared 0.252317 Mean dependent var 0.173658
Adjusted R-squared 0.252317 S.D. dependent var 5.622736
S.E. of regression 4.861903 Akaike info criterion 6.000784
Sum squared resid 509023.0 Schwarz criterion 6.001154
Log likelihood -64612.44 Hannan-Quinn criter. 6.000904
Durbin-Watson stat 2.111100
The t-stat would be 119.77.
Dependent Variable: RI
Method: Panel Least Squares
Date: 03/22/10 Time: 12:55
Sample: 1/06/2003 1/03/2010
Periods included: 365
Cross-sections included: 59
Total panel (balanced) observations: 21535
White diagonal standard errors & covariance (no d.f. correction)
RI = RF + C(1)*(RM_RF)
Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C(1) 1.006495 0.008404 119.7677 0.0000
R-squared 0.252317 Mean dependent var 0.173658
Adjusted R-squared 0.252317 S.D. dependent var 5.622736
S.E. of regression 4.861903 Akaike info criterion 6.000784
Sum squared resid 509023.0 Schwarz criterion 6.001154
Log likelihood -64612.44 Hannan-Quinn criter. 6.000904
Durbin-Watson stat 2.111100
The t-stat would be 119.77.
-
EViews Gareth
- Fe ddaethom, fe welon, fe amcangyfrifon
- Posts: 13600
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:38 pm
Re: PANEL DATA
You can't really say whether the t-stat would be too high unless you know the underlying assumptions he is making about his model. Also, I don't believe you can just say "119 is too high".
We're venturing into the realms of econometric discussion rather than EViews discussion though.
We're venturing into the realms of econometric discussion rather than EViews discussion though.
-
tchaithonov
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 am
- Location: New York City
Re: PANEL DATA
I agree. I guess it depends, as you said, on the underlying assumptions.
Re: PANEL DATA
Thank you so much for your help. Much appreciated! :)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
