2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6803.2010.01284.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Olive: A Simple Method for Estimating Betas When Factors Are Measured With Error

Abstract: We propose a simple and intuitive method for estimating betas when factors are measured with error: ordinary least squares instrumental variable estimator (OLIVE). OLIVE performs well when the number of instruments becomes large, while the performance of conventional instrumental variable methods becomes poor or even infeasible. In an empirical application, OLIVE beta estimates improve R-squared significantly. More importantly, our results help resolve two puzzling findings in the prior literature: first, the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More precisely, we propose a new weighting of two well-known cumulant instruments originally designed to tackle errors-in-variables, which are the Durbin (1954) and Pal (1980) estimators, and use it as an input to the two-stage least squares (TSLS) and the generalized method of moments (GMM) estimations. Our new optimal instruments are in line with the works of Fuller (1987), Dagenais and Dagenais (1997), Cragg (1997), Lewbel (1997), Coën and Racicot (2007) and Meng et al (2011). It is well-known that the Durbin and Pal's instruments lack robustness (Cheng and Van Ness, 1999) and they thus tend to be neglected by the academics.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 55%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…More precisely, we propose a new weighting of two well-known cumulant instruments originally designed to tackle errors-in-variables, which are the Durbin (1954) and Pal (1980) estimators, and use it as an input to the two-stage least squares (TSLS) and the generalized method of moments (GMM) estimations. Our new optimal instruments are in line with the works of Fuller (1987), Dagenais and Dagenais (1997), Cragg (1997), Lewbel (1997), Coën and Racicot (2007) and Meng et al (2011). It is well-known that the Durbin and Pal's instruments lack robustness (Cheng and Van Ness, 1999) and they thus tend to be neglected by the academics.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…As indicated in (15), the vector of estimated coefficients of the explanatory variables is identical to the one resulting from a conventional TSLS procedure using the same set of instruments (Spencer and Berk, 1981). This result, overlooked by Dagenais and Dagenais (1997) and other more recent researchers on this topic (Meng et al, 2011), increases the usefulness of Equation (15) …”
Section: The Hausman Artificial Regressionmentioning
confidence: 63%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As indicated in (22), the vector of estimated coefficients of the explanatory variables is identical to the one resulting from a conventional TSLS procedure using the same set of instruments (Spencer and Berk, 1981). This result, overlooked by Dagenais and Dagenais (1997) and other more recent researchers on this topic (Meng et al, 2011), increases the usefulness of Equation (22) …”
Section:   ε ε νβmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Bai and Ng (2010) show that even if the true optimal weighting matrix is used, inconsistency is still obtained under large number of moments. In fact, with many moments, sparse weighting matrix such as an identity matrix will give consistent estimation, as is shown by Meng et al (2011).…”
Section: Estimation With Many Instrumental Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%