常见错误:如何(或不)控制未观察到的异质性

Todd A. Gormley, David A. Matsa
{"title":"常见错误:如何(或不)控制未观察到的异质性","authors":"Todd A. Gormley, David A. Matsa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2023868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Controlling for unobserved heterogeneity (or \"common errors\"), such as industry-specific shocks, is a fundamental challenge in empirical research.This paper discusses the limitations of two approaches widely used in corporate finance and asset pricing research: demeaning the dependent variable with respect to the group (e.g., \"industry-adjusting\") and adding the mean of the group's dependent variable as a control. We show that these methods produce inconsistent estimates and can distort inference. In contrast, the fixed effects estimator is consistent and should be used instead. We also explain how to estimate the fixed effects model when traditional methods are computationally infeasible.","PeriodicalId":369344,"journal":{"name":"American Finance Association Meetings (AFA)","volume":"19 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"852","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common Errors: How to (and Not to) Control for Unobserved Heterogeneity\",\"authors\":\"Todd A. Gormley, David A. Matsa\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2023868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Controlling for unobserved heterogeneity (or \\\"common errors\\\"), such as industry-specific shocks, is a fundamental challenge in empirical research.This paper discusses the limitations of two approaches widely used in corporate finance and asset pricing research: demeaning the dependent variable with respect to the group (e.g., \\\"industry-adjusting\\\") and adding the mean of the group's dependent variable as a control. We show that these methods produce inconsistent estimates and can distort inference. In contrast, the fixed effects estimator is consistent and should be used instead. We also explain how to estimate the fixed effects model when traditional methods are computationally infeasible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":369344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Finance Association Meetings (AFA)\",\"volume\":\"19 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"852\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Finance Association Meetings (AFA)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2023868\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Finance Association Meetings (AFA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2023868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 852

摘要

控制未观察到的异质性(或“常见错误”),如特定行业的冲击,是实证研究的基本挑战。本文讨论了在公司融资和资产定价研究中广泛使用的两种方法的局限性:相对于组(例如,“行业调整”)贬低因变量,并添加组的因变量的平均值作为控制。我们发现这些方法会产生不一致的估计,并且会扭曲推理。相反,固定效应估计器是一致的,应该使用它来代替。我们还解释了当传统方法在计算上不可行时如何估计固定效应模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Common Errors: How to (and Not to) Control for Unobserved Heterogeneity
Controlling for unobserved heterogeneity (or "common errors"), such as industry-specific shocks, is a fundamental challenge in empirical research.This paper discusses the limitations of two approaches widely used in corporate finance and asset pricing research: demeaning the dependent variable with respect to the group (e.g., "industry-adjusting") and adding the mean of the group's dependent variable as a control. We show that these methods produce inconsistent estimates and can distort inference. In contrast, the fixed effects estimator is consistent and should be used instead. We also explain how to estimate the fixed effects model when traditional methods are computationally infeasible.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Director Connections and Board Advising Investment Risk, CDS Insurance, and Firm Financing An Asset Pricing Approach to Testing General Term Structure Models High Leverage and Willingness to Pay: Evidence from the Residential Housing Market Illiquidity Premia in the Equity Options Market
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1