common errors: how to (and not to) control for unobserved heterogeneity lecture slides by todd...
TRANSCRIPT
Common Errors: How to (and Not to) Control
for Unobserved Heterogeneity
Lecture slides by Todd Gormley
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
The following slides are a combination of lecture slides used by Todd Gormley in his Ph.D. course on “Empirical Methods in Corporate Finance” at The Wharton School
For more details about the issues discussed in these slides, please see the below article
Gormley, T. and D. Matsa, 2014, “Common Errors: How to (and Not to) Control for Unobserved Heterogeneity,” Review of Financial Studies 27(2): 617-61.
What are these slides?
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Controlling for unobserved heterogeneity is a fundamental challenge in empirical finance
Unobservable factors affect corporate policies and prices
These factors may be correlated with variables of interest
Important sources of unobserved heterogeneity are often common across groups of observations
Demand shocks across firms in an industry, differences in local economic environments, etc.
Motivation [Part 1]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
E.g. consider a the firm-level estimation
where leverage is debt/assets for firm i, operating in industry j in year t, and profit is the firms net income/assets
What might be some unobservable omitted variables in this estimation?
Motivation [Part 2]
, , 0 1 , , 1 , ,i j t i j t i j tleverage profit u
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Motivation [Part 3]
Oh, there are so, so many…
Managerial talent and/or risk aversion Cost of capital Industry supply and/or demand shock Regional demand shocks And so on…
Easy to think of ways these might be affect leverage and be correlated with profits
Sadly, this is easy to do with other dependent or independent variables…
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Panel data to the rescue…
Thankfully, panel data can help us with a particular type of unobserved variable…
What type of unobserved variable does panel data help us with, and why?
Answer = It helps with any unobserved variable that doesn’t vary within groups of observations
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Panel data and fixed effects (FE) How not to control for unobserved
heterogeneity General implications Benefits and limitations of FE model Estimating high-dimensional FE models
Outline for lecture
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Panel data
Panel data = whenever you have multiple observations per unit of observation i (e.g. you observe each firm over multiple years)
Let’s assume N units i And, J observations per unit i [i.e.
balanced panel]
E.g., You observe 5,000 firms in Compustat over a twenty year period [i.e. N=5,000, J=20]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
When unobserved heterogeneity is thought to be present, researcher implicitly assumes the following:
i indexes groups of observations (e.g. industry); j indexes observations within each group (e.g. firm)
yi,j = dependent variable
Xi,j = independent variable of interest
fi = unobserved group heterogeneity
= error term
The underlying model [Part 1]
, , ,i j i j i i jy X f
, i j
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
The following standard assumptions are made:
2
2
2
var( ) , 0
var( ) , 0
var( ) , 0
f f
X X
f
X
The underlying model [Part 2]
Simplifies some expressions, but doesn’t change any results
N groups, J observations per group, where J is small and N is largeX and ε are i.i.d. across groups, but not necessarily i.i.d. within groups
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Finally, the following assumptions are made:
,
, , , ,
,
cov( , ) 0
co v( , ) co v( , ) 0
cov( , ) 0
i i j
i j i j i j i j
i j i Xf
f
X X
X f
The underlying model [Part 3]
Source of identification concern
What do these imply?Answer = Model is correct in that if we can control for f, we’ll properly identify effect of X; but if we don’t control for f there will be omitted variable bias
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
, , , i j i j i i jy X f
, , ,OLS OLS
i j i j i jy X u
By failing to control for group effect, fi, OLS suffers from omitted variable bias
True model is:
But OLS estimates:
OLS estimate of β is inconsistent
2ˆ XfOLS
X
Alternative estimation strategies are required…
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
First, notice that if you take the population mean of the dependent variable for each unit of observation, i, you get…
where
Can solve this by transforming data
Again, I assumed there are J obs. per unit i
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Now, if we subtract from , we have
And look! The unobserved variable, fi , is gone (as is the constant) because it is group-invariant
With our earlier assumptions, easy to see that is uncorrelated with the new disturbance, , which means…
Transforming data [Part 2]
iy ,i ty
,i t ix x
?
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Fixed effects (or within) estimator
Answer: OLS estimation of transformed model will yield a consistent estimate of β
The prior transformation is called the “within transformation” because it demeans all variables within their group
This is also called the FE estimator
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Least Squares Dummy Variable (LSDV)
Another way to do the FE estimation is by adding indicator (dummy) variables
I.e. create a dummy variable for each group i, and add it to the regression
This is least squares dummy variable model
Now, our estimation equation exactly matches the true underlying model
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
LSDV versus FE [Part 1]
Why do both approaches work? Well… Frisch-Waugh-Lovell Theorem shows us there
are two ways to estimate the below β1…
Estimate directly; i.e. regress y onto both x and z OR we can just partial z out from both y and x
before regressing y on x (i.e. regress residuals from regression of y on z onto residuals from regression of x on z)
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
LSDV versus FE [Part 2]
Can show that LSDV and within-transformation of FE are identical because demeaned variables of within regression are the residuals from a regression onto group dummies!
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Panel data and fixed effects (FE) How not to control for unobserved
heterogeneity General implications Benefits and limitations of FE model Estimating high-dimensional FE models
Outline for lecture
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Gormley and Matsa (RFS 2014) notes that existing literature uses various other strategies to control for unobserved group-level heterogeneity…
Their questions – How do each of the approaches differ? And, when are they consistent?
Their answer – Some popular strategies can distort inferences and should not be used; FE estimator should be used instead
Other approaches…
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
They focus on two popular strategies
“Adjusted-Y” (AdjY) – dependent variable is demeaned within groups [e.g. ‘industry-adjust’]
“Average effects” (AvgE) – uses group mean of dependent variable as control [e.g. ‘state-year’ control]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
AdjY & AvgE are widely used
In Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, and Review of Financial Studies
Used since at least the late 1980s Still used, 60+ papers published in 2008-
2010 Variety of subfields; asset pricing, banking,
capital structure, governance, M&A, etc.
Also been used in papers published in the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, and Quarterly Journal of Economics
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
As Gormley and Matsa (RFS 2014) shows…
Both can be more biased than OLS Both can get opposite sign as true
coefficient In practice, bias is likely and trying to
predict its sign or magnitude will typically impractical
But, AdjY and AvgE are inconsistent
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Other, related strategies should also not be used
“Characteristically-adjusted” stock returns in AP
“Adjusted” stock returns when trying to estimate firms’ internal value of cash
Simple comparisons of benchmark-adjusted outcomes before & after events (like M&A)
“Diversification discount” Using group average of an independent
variable as instrumental variable
Now, let’s see why…
More implications of GM (RFS 2014)
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
AdjY estimates:
Tries to remove unobserved group heterogeneity by demeaning the dependent variable within groups
, , ,AdjY AdjY
i j i i j i jy y X u
Adjusted-Y (AdjY)
, , i
1i i k i i k
k group
y X fJ
where
Note: Researchers often exclude observation at hand when calculating group mean or use a group median, but both modifications will yield similarly inconsistent estimates
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Example AdjY estimation
One example – firm value regression:
= Tobin’s Q for firm j, industry i, year t
= mean of Tobin’s Q for industry i in year t
Xi,j,t = vector of variables thought to affect value
Researchers might also include firm & year FE
, , , , , ,'i j t i t i, j t i j tQ Q β X
,i tQ, ,i j tQ
Anyone know why AdjY is going to be inconsistent?
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Rewriting the group mean, we have:
Therefore, AdjY transforms the true data to:
,i i i iy f X
Here is why…
, , ,i j i i j i i j iy y X X
What is the AdjY estimation forgetting?
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
But, AdjY estimates:
can be inconsistent when
By failing to control for , AdjY suffers from omitted variable bias when
0XX
, , ,i j i i j i i j iy y X X
, , ,AdjY AdjY
i j i i j i jy y X u
AdjY has omitted variable bias
True model:
2ˆ AdjY XX
X
iX
In practice, a positive covariance between X and will be very common
X
adjY 0
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Further analysis of AdjY estimate
Bias doesn’t disappear as group size J increases
Can be inconsistent even when OLS is not; this happens when σXf = 0 and
Bias is more complicated with two variables…
2ˆ AdjY XX
X
0XX
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Suppose, there are instead two RHS variables
Use same assumptions as before, but add:
, , , ,
2
, ,
,
cov( , ) cov( , ) 0
var( ) , 0
cov( , )
cov( , )
i j i j i j i j
Z Z
i j i j XZ
i j i Zf
Z Z
Z
X Z
Z f
AdjY estimates with 2 variables
, , , ,i j i j i j i i jy X Z f True model:
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
AdjY estimates with 2 variables [Part 2]
With a bit of algebra, it is shown that:
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 2 2
ˆ
ˆ
XZ Z XZ ZZX XX ZZ XZ
AdjYZ X XZ
AdjYXZ X XZ XXX ZX XZ ZZ
Z X XZ
Estimates of both β and γ can be inconsistent
Determining sign and magnitude of bias will typically be difficult
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
AvgE uses group mean of dependent variable as control for unobserved heterogeneity
, , ,AvgE AvgE AvgE
i j i j i i jy X y u
Average effects (AvgE)
AvgE estimates:
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Example AvgE estimation
Following profit regression is an AvgE example:
ROAs,t = mean of ROA for state s in year t
Xi,s,t = vector of variables thought to profits
Researchers might also include firm & year FE
, , , , , ,'i s t i,s t s t i s tROA ROA β X
Anyone know why AvgE is going to be inconsistent?
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
, , ,i j i j i i jy X f
AvgE uses group mean of dependent variable as control for unobserved heterogeneity
, , ,AvgE AvgE AvgE
i j i j i i jy X y u
Average effects (AvgE)
Recall, true model:
AvgE estimates:
Problem is that measures fi with error
iy
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
,i i i iy f X Recall that group mean is given by
Therefore, measures fi with error
As is well known, even classical measurement error causes all estimated coefficients to be inconsistent
Bias here is complicated because error can be correlated with both mismeasured variable, , and with Xi,j when
AvgE has measurement error bias
i iX iy
0XX
if
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
2 2 2 2
22 2 2 2 2
ˆ2
Xf ffX X XX fXAvgE
X f XffX X XX
AvgE estimate of β with one variable
With a bit of algebra, it is shown that:
Determining magnitude and direction of bias is difficult
Covariance between X and again problematic, but not needed for AvgE estimate to be inconsistent
Even non-i.i.d. nature of errors can affect bias!
X
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
How common will the bias be?
First, we look at when by separating Xi,j into it’s group and idiosyncratic components
0XX
, ,i j i i jX x w
Assume group means are i.i.d. with mean zero and variance
Idiosyncratic component distributed with mean 0 and variance
2x
2w
And, assume ,cov( , ) 0i i jx w
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
AdjY and AvgE bias very common
Both AdjY and AvgE biased when But with prior setup, we can show
that…
0XX
Bias whenever different means across groups!
Or, bias whenever observations within groups are not independent!
, ,
2,i j i jx w wXX
* Solved excluding observation at hand (most common approach)
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Analytical comparisons
Next, we use analytical solutions to compare relative performance of OLS, AdjY, and AvgE
To do this, we re-express solutions…
We use correlations (e.g. solve bias in terms of correlation between X and f, , instead of )
We also assume i.i.d. errors [just makes bias of AvgE less complicated]
XfXf
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
00.5
11.5
2
-0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
, ,1, 0.25, 0.5, 10.
i j i jf X X x w w w J
Xf
Estimate,
ρXf has large effect on performance
OLS
AdjY
AvgE
True β = 1
(from Figure 1A)
Other parameters held constant
AdjY more biased than OLS, except for large values for ρXf
AvgE worst for low correlations, best for high
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
/x w
00.2
50.5
0.7
51
1.2
5
0 .5 1 1.5 2
Relative variation across groups key
OLSEstimate,
AdjY
AvgE
(from Figure 1B)
, ,1, 0.25, 0.5, 10.
i j i jf X X Xf w w J
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
0.5
0.7
51
1.2
5
0 5 10 15 20 25
More observations need not help!
OLS
Estimate,
AdjY
AvgE
J
(from Figure 1F)
, ,1, 0.25, 0.5, 10.
i j i jf X X x w Xf w w J
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Summary of OLS, AdjY, and AvgE
In general, all three estimators are inconsistent in presence of unobserved group heterogeneity
AdjY and AvgE may not be an improvement over OLS; depends on various parameter values
AdjY and AvgE can yield estimates with opposite sign of the true coefficient
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
To estimate effect of X on Y controlling for Z
One could regress Y onto both X and Z…
Or, regress residuals from regression of Y on Z onto residuals from regression of X on Z
AdjY and AvgE aren’t the same as finding the effect of X on Y controlling for Z because...
AdjY only partials Z out from Y AvgE uses fitted values of Y on Z as
control
Comparing FE, AdjY, and AvgE
Add group FE
Within-group transformation!
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
The differences matter! Example #1
Consider the following capital structure regression:
(D/A)it = book leverage for firm i, year t
Xi,t = vector of variables thought to affect leverage
fi = firm fixed effect
We now run this regression for each approach to deal with firm fixed effects, using 1950-2010 data, winsorizing at 1% tails…
, ,( / ) i t i,t i i tD A fβX
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Estimates vary considerablyDependent variable = book leverage
OLS Adj Y Avg E FE
Fixed Assets/ Total Assets 0.270*** 0.066*** 0.103*** 0.248***(0.008) (0.004) (0.004) (0.014)
Ln(sales) 0.011*** 0.011*** 0.011*** 0.017***(0.001) 0.000 0.000 (0.001)
Return on Assets -0.015*** 0.051*** 0.039*** -0.028***(0.005) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005)
Z-score -0.017*** -0.010*** -0.011*** -0.017***0.000 (0.000) (0.000) (0.001)
Market-to-book Ratio -0.006*** -0.004*** -0.004*** -0.003***(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Observations 166,974 166,974 166,974 166,974R-squared 0.29 0.14 0.56 0.66
(from Table 2)
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
The differences matter! Example #2
Consider the following firm value regression:
Q = Tobin’s Q for firm i, industry j, year t Xi,j,t = vector of variables thought to
affect value fj,t = industry-year fixed effect
We now run this regression for each approach to deal with industry-year fixed effects…
, , , , , ,' i j t i, j t j t i j tQ fβ X
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
OLS Adj Y Avg E FE
Delaware Incorporation 0.100*** 0.019 0.040 0.086**(0.036) (0.032) (0.032) (0.039)
Ln(sales) -0.125*** -0.054*** -0.072*** -0.131***(0.009) (0.008) (0.008) (0.011)
R&D Expenses / Assets 6.724*** 3.022*** 3.968*** 5.541***(0.260) (0.242) (0.256) (0.318)
Return on Assets -0.559*** -0.526*** -0.535*** -0.436***(0.108) (0.095) (0.097) (0.117)
Observations 55,792 55,792 55,792 55,792R-squared 0.22 0.08 0.34 0.37
Dependent Variable = Tobin's Q
Estimates vary considerably(from Table 4)
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
The differences matter! Example #3
It also matters in literature on antitakeover laws
Past papers used AvgE to control for unobserved, time-varying differences across states & industries
Gormley and Matsa (2014) show that properly using industry-year, state-year, and firm FE estimator changes estimates considerably
E.g., using this framework, they show that managers have an underlying preference to “Play it Safe”
For details, see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2465632
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Panel data and fixed effects (FE) How not to control for unobserved
heterogeneity General implications Benefits and limitations of FE model Estimating high-dimensional FE models
Outline for lecture
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
General implications
With this framework, easy to see that other commonly used estimators will be biased
AdjY-type estimators in M&A, asset pricing, etc.
AvgE-type instrumental variables
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Other AdjY estimators are problematic
Same problem arises with other AdjY estimators
Subtracting off median or value-weighted mean
Subtracting off mean of matched control sample [as is customary in studies if diversification “discount”]
Comparing industry-adjusted means for treated firms pre- versus post-event [as often done in M&A studies]
Characteristically adjusted returns [as used in asset pricing]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
AdjY-type estimators in asset pricing
Common to sort and compare stock returns across portfolios based on a variable thought to affect returns
But, returns are often first “characteristically adjusted”
I.e. researcher subtracts the average return of a benchmark portfolio containing stocks of similar characteristics
This is equivalent to AdjY, where “adjusted returns” are regressed onto indicators for each portfolio
Approach fails to control for how avg. independent variable varies across benchmark portfolios
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Asset pricing example; sorting returns based on R&D expenses / market value of equity
Asset Pricing AdjY – Example
(0.003) (0.009) (0.008) (0.007) (0.013) (0.006)
Q4 Q5
-0.012*** -0.033*** -0.023*** -0.002 0.008 0.020***
Characteristically adjusted returns by R&D Quintile (i.e., Adj Y)Missing Q1 Q2 Q3
We use industry-size benchmark portfolios and sorted using R&D/market value
Difference between Q5 and Q1 is 5.3 percentage points
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
R&D Quintile 2
R&D Quintile 3
R&D Quintile 4
R&D Quintile 5
ObservationsR 2
R&D Missing
Adj Y
0.021**(0.009)
0.01(0.013)
0.032***(0.012)
0.041***(0.015)
0.053***(0.011)
144,5920.00
FE
0.030***(0.010)
0.019
Dependent Variable = Yearly Stock Return
(0.019)
144,5920.47
(0.014)
0.051***(0.018)
0.068***(0.020)
0.094***
Estimates vary considerably(from Table 5)
Same AdjY result, but in regression format; quintile 1 is excluded
Use benchmark-period FE to transform both returns and R&D; this is equivalent to double sort
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
AvgE IV estimators also problematic
Many researchers try to instrument problematic Xi,j with group mean, , excluding observation j
Argument is that is correlated with Xi,j but not error
But, this is typically going to be problematic
Any correlation between Xi,,j and an unobserved hetero-geneity, fi, causes exclusion restriction to not hold
Can’t add FE to fix this since IV only varies at group level
iX
iX
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
What if AdjY or AvgE is true model?
If data exhibits structure of AvgE estimator, this would be a peer effects model [i.e. group mean affects outcome of other members]
In this case, none of the estimators (OLS, AdjY, AvgE, or FE) reveal the true β [Manski 1993; Leary and Roberts 2010]
Even if interested in studying , AdjY only consistent if Xi,j does not affect yi,j !
,i j iy y
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Panel data and fixed effects (FE) How not to control for unobserved
heterogeneity General implications Benefits and limitations of FE model Estimating high-dimensional FE models
Outline for lecture
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
FE Estimator – Benefits [Part 1]
There are many benefits of FE estimator
Allows for arbitrary correlation between each fixed effect, fi, and each x within group i
I.e. it is very general and not imposing much structure on what the underlying data must look like
Very intuitive interpretation; coefficient is identified using only changes within cross-sections
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
FE Estimator – Benefits [Part 2]
It is also very flexible and can help us control for many types of unobserved heterogeneities
Can add year FE if worried about unobserved heterogeneity across time [e.g. macroeconomic shocks]
Can add CEO FE if worried about unobserved heterogeneity across CEOs [e.g. talent, risk aversion]
Add industry-by-year FE if worried about unobserved heterogeneity across industries over time [e.g. investment opportunities, demand shocks]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
FE Estimator – Limitations
But, FE estimator also has its limitations
Can’t identify variables that don’t vary within group
Subject to potentially large measurement error bias
Can be hard to estimate in some cases
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Limitation #1 – Can’t est. some var.
If no within-group variation in the independent var., x, of interest, can’t disentangle it from group FE
It is collinear with group FE; and will be dropped by computer or swept out in the within transformation
In some cases, IV can be used to obtain estimates for variables that do not vary within groups [see Hausman and Taylor 1981]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Limitation #2 – Noisy ind. variables
If some within-group variation is noise, then variation being exploited that is noise rises in FE
Think of there being two types of variation
Good (meaningful) variation Noise variation because we don’t perfectly
measure the underlying variable of interest
Adding FE can sweep out a lot of the good variation; fraction of remaining variation coming from noise goes up [What will this do?]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Noisy independent variables [Part 2]
Answer: Attenuation bias on mismeasured (i.e. noisy) independent variable will go up!
Practical advice: Be careful in interpreting ‘zero’ coefficients on potentially mismeasured regressors; might just be attenuation bias!
Note… sign of bias on other coefficients will be generally difficult to know
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Noisy independent variables [Part 3]
Problem can also apply even when all variables are perfectly measured [How?]
Answer: Adding FE might throw out relevant variation; e.g. y in firm FE model might respond to sustained changes in x, rather than transitory changes [see McKinnish 2008 for more details]
With FE you’d only have the transitory variation leftover; might find x uncorrelated with y in FE estimation even though sustained changes in x is most important determinant of y
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Possible solutions for Limitation #2
Standard solutions for measurement error apply (e.g. IV), but in practice, hard to fix
For examples on how to deal with measurement error, see following papers
Griliches and Hausman (JoE 1986) Biorn (Econometric Reviews 2000) Erickson and Whited (JPE 2000, RFS 2012) Almeida, Campello, and Galvao (RFS 2010)
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Researchers occasionally motivate using AdjY and AvgE because FE estimator is computationally difficult to do when there are more than one FE of high-dimension
Now, let’s see why this is (and isn’t) a problem…
Limitation #3 – Computation issues
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Computational issues [Part 1]
Estimating a model with multiple types of FE can be computationally difficult
When more than one type of FE, you cannot remove both using within-transformation
Generally, you can only sweep one away with within-transformation; other FE dealt with by adding dummy variable to model
E.g. firm and year fixed effects [See next slide]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Computational issues [Part 2]
Consider below model:
To estimate this in Stata, we’d use a command something like the following…
, , ,i t i t t i i ty x f u Firm FE
Year FE
xtset firmxi: xtreg y x i.year, fe
Tells Stata that panel dimension is given by firm variableTells Stata to remove FE for panels (i.e. firms) by doing within-transformation
Tells Stata to create and add dummy variables for year variable
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Dummies not swept away in within-transformation are actually estimated
With year FE, this isn’t problem because there aren’t that many years of data
If had to estimate 1,000s of firm FE, however, it might be a problem…
Computational issues [Part 3]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Why is this a problem?
Estimating FE model with many dummies can require a lot of computer memory
E.g., estimation with both firm and 4-digit industry-year FE requires ≈ 40 GB of memory
Most researchers don’t have this much memory; hence, we don’t see these regressions being used
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
This is growing problem
Multiple unobserved heterogeneities increasingly argued to be important
Manager and firm fixed effects in executive compensation and other CF applications [Graham, Li, and Qui 2011, Coles and Li 2011]
Firm, industry×year, state×year FE to control for industry- and state-level shocks [Gormley and Matsa 2014]
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
There exist two techniques that can be used to arrive at consistent FE estimates without requiring as much memory
#1 – Interacted fixed effects #2 – Memory saving procedures
But, there are solutions!
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Panel data and fixed effects (FE) How not to control for unobserved
heterogeneity General implications Benefits and limitations of FE model Estimating high-dimensional FE models
Outline for lecture
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Combine multiple fixed effects into one-dimensional set of fixed effect, and remove using within transformation
E.g. firm and industry-year FE could be replaced with firm-industry-year FE
But, there are limitations…
Can severely limit parameters you can estimate
Could have serious attenuation bias
#1 – Interacted fixed effects
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
#2 – Memory-saving procedures
Use properties of sparse matrices to reduce required memory, e.g. Cornelissen (2008)
Or, instead iterate to a solution, which eliminates memory issue entirely, e.g. Guimaraes and Portugal (2010)
See Gormley and Matsa (RFS 2014) for details of how each method works
Both can be done in Stata using user-written commands FELSDVREG and REGHDFE
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
These latter techniques work…
Estimated typical capital structure regression with firm and 4-digit industry×year dummies
Standard FE approach would not work; my computer did not have enough memory…
Sparse matrix procedure took 8 hours… Iterative procedure took 5 minutes
See new Gormley and Matsa “Playing it Safe” working paper for example application http://ssrn.com/abstract=2465632
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
See website for more details…
For examples of SAS, STATA, and R code one can use to estimate these high-dimensional FE estimations, please see our website
http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~tgormley/papers/fe.html
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Concluding remarks
Unobserved heterogeneity across groups is common identification concern in empirical finance
Despite heavy use, AdjY and AvgE are typically biased
Can lead to very misleading inferences, including estimates with opposite sign of true effect
Problem also applies to other, ad hoc transformations of dep. var. used in literature
FE is best way to account for unobserved heterogeneity; limitations can easily be overcome
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
Practical advice… the punch lines
Don’t use AdjY or AvgE! Don’t use group averages as
instruments! But, do use fixed effects
Should use benchmark portfolio-period FE in asset pricing rather than char-adjusted returns
Use iteration techniques to estimate models with multiple high-dimensional FE
Slides by Gormley Panel Data & Common Errors
In addition to Gormley and Matsa (RFS 2014), other sources used to construct these slides are…
Chapter 10 of Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2010, Econometric Analysis of Cross-Section and Panel Data, MIT Press, Massachusetts, Second Edition
Chapter 11 of Greene, William H., 2011, Econometric Analysis, Prentice Hall, N.J., Seventh Edition.
Sections 5.1 of Angrist, Joshua D., and Jorn-Steffen Pischke, 2009, Mostly Harmless Econometrics, Princeton University Press, New Jersey
Additional sources