Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 1/57] Econometric Analysis of Panel Data William Greene Department of Economics Stern School of Business Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 2/57] http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wgreene/CumulantInstruments-Racicot-AE(2014)_46(10).pdf Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 3/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 4/57] The NYU No Action Letter Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 5/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 6/57] GMM Estimation for One Equation 1 N 1 N g(β)= i1zi (y i x iβ) i1ziεi N N 1 Ni1i2zizi 1 Ni1ei2zizi Asy.Var[g(β)] , estimated with N N N N based on 2SLS residuals ei. The GMM estimator then minimizes 1 1 N 1 e z z 1 N q i1zi (y i x iβ) ' z (y x β ) . i 1 i i i N N N N N 2 i 1 i i i Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 7/57] GMM for a System of Equations Simultaneous equations Labor supply hours = f(wage, gh ) h= x hβh h wage = f(hours, gw ) w = x wβ w w Product market equilibrium Quantity demanded = f(Price,...) Price = f(market demand,...) General format: y1 = x1 β1 1 y 2 = x 2β2 2 ... y M= x MβM M Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 8/57] SUR Model with Endogenous RHS Variables SUR System y1 = x1 β1 1 , E[1 | x1 , x 2 ,...x G ] 0 y 2 = x 2β2 2 ,... ... y M= x GβG G ,... Each equation has a set of L g K g instruments, z g Each equation can be fit by 2SLS, IV, GMM, as before. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 9/57] GMM for the System - Notation Index: i = 1,...,N for individuals g = 1,...,G for equations (this would be t=1,...T for a panel) Data matrices: G rows, y i1 x i1 y 0 i2 yi ,X ... i ... y iG 0 K1 y i X iβ + ε i 0 x i2 ... ... 0 ... K2 ... ... ... 0 β1 i1 0 β i2 2 ,β = , εi = ... ... ... x iG βG iG K G columns Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 10/57] Instruments zi1 0 ... 0 i2 ... 0 0 z , G rows (1 for each equation) Zi ... ... ... ... 0 0 ... x iG L1 L 2 ... L G columns Such that zi1,1i1 0 zi1,2i1 0 E zi1i1 E for L1 instrumental variables ... ... zi1,L1 i1 0 Same for zi2i2 , ... Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 11/57] Moment Equations zi1i1 0 L1 rows z L rows 0 2 i2 i2 E[Ziε] E , for observation i ... ... ... ziGiG 0 L G rows Summing over i gives the orthogonality condition, 1 E Ni=1Ziε N zi1i1 0 L1 z 1 N i2 i2 0 L 2 E i=1 N ... ... ziGiG 0 L G rows rows ... rows Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 12/57] Estimation-1 βg ig y ig x ig For one equation, ˆ = the minimizer of β g M m=1 (1/N) N i=1 ig,m z ˆ) (y i x i β 2 gg (β g )'gg (β g ) Leads to 2SLS For all equations at the same time ˆ = the minimizer of β G g=1 G g=1 2 M (1/N)N z (y x β ˆ ) i=1 ig,m i i m=1 gg (β g )'gg (β g ) If the β gs are all different, still equation by equation 2SLS Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 13/57] Estimation-2 Assuming ig are all uncorrelated, equation by equation GMM 1 1 N 1 e z z 1 N qg i1zig (y ig xigβ g ) ' z (y x β ) i 1 ig ig ig g . N N N N For the system, N 2 i 1 ig ig ig q = Gg=1qg Cases to consider: (1) Coefficient vectors have elements in common or are restricted (2) Disturbances are correlated. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 14/57] Estimation-3 Combining GMM criteria G g 1 1 1 N 1 1 N 2 1 N z (y x β ) ' z z z (y x β ) ˆ ig g i 1 ig ig ig i 1 ig ig ig g N i 1 ig ig NN N Ni1 zi1 (y i1 x i1 β1 ) Ni 1ˆi12 zi1 zi1 0 N N 2 z (y x β ) 0 ˆ i 1 i2 i2 i2 2 i 1 i2 z i2 z i2 q ' ... ... ... N z (y x β ) 0 0 iG G i 1 iG iG Ni1 zi1 (y i1 x i1 β1 ) N z (y x β ) i2 2 i 1 i2 i2 ... N z (y x β ) iG G i 1 iG iG ... 0 ... 0 ... ... 2 ... Ni 1ˆiG ziG ziG 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 15/57] Estimation-4 If disturbances are correlated across equations, Ni1zi1 (y i1 x i1β1 ) N z (y x β ) 1 i1 i2 i2 i2 2 q ' N ... N z (y x β ) i1 iG iG iG G Ni1ˆi12 zi1zi1 N 1 i1ˆi2ˆi1zi2 zi1 N2 ... N iGˆi1ziGzi1 i1ˆ Ni1ˆi1ˆi2 zi1zi2 Ni1ˆi22 zi2 zi2 ... Ni1ˆiGˆi1ziGzi1 ... Ni1ˆ i1ˆ iG zi1ziG ... Ni1ˆi2ˆiG zi2 ziG ... ... 2 ... Ni1ˆiG ziGziG Ni1zi1 (y i1 x i1β1 ) N z (y x β ) 1 i1 i2 i2 i2 2 N ... N i1ziG (y iG x iGβ G ) 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 16/57] Estimation-5 If disturbances are correlated across equations, G G ˆ gh (1 / N)Ni1zih (y ih x ihβh ) q g1 h1 (1 / N)Ni1zig (y ig x igβg ) W ˆ gh = the gh block of the inverse matrix where W ˆ z z N i2ˆi1zi2 zi1 1 i1ˆ N2 ... N iGˆi1ziGzi1 i1ˆ N 2 i1 i1 i1 i1 ˆ ˆ z z ˆ z z ... Ni1ˆiGˆi1ziGzi1 N i1 i1 i2 i1 i2 N 2 i1 i2 i2 i2 ... ˆ ˆ z z ... ˆ ˆ z z ... ... 2 ... Ni1ˆiG ziGziG N i1 i1 iG i1 iG N i1 i2 iG i2 iG 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 17/57] The Panel Data Case β is the same in every equation. The number of moment equations is T L if each moment equation is L per period, E[zit it ] 0, If every disturbance at time t is also orthogonal to every set of instruments in every other period, s, Then E[zit is ] 0, TL per period, for T periods, or T 2L E.g., L=10 instruments, T=5 periods, K=5 parameters, 250 moment equations (!) for fitting 5 parameters. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 18/57] Hausman and Taylor FE/RE Model y it x1it β1 x2it β2 z1i α1 z2i α2 it ui E[ui | x1it , z1i ] 0 E[ui | x2it , z2i ] 0 OLS and GLS are inconsistent Var[ui | x1it , x2it , z1i , z2i ] u2 E[it | x1it , x2it , z1i , z2i ]=0 Var[it | x1it , x2it , z1i , z2i ]=2 Cov[it ,ui | x1it , x2it , z1i , z2i ]=0 Var[it ui | x1it , x2it , z1i , z2i ]=2 u2 Cov[it ui , is ui | x1it , x2it , z1i , z2i ]=u2 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 19/57] Useful Result: LSDV is an IV Estimator y X D = X w 1 p lim X w 0, so X is endogenous. Correlated with w because of D. NT MD X X* = x's in group mean deviations. 1 1 1 1 X*'w X*' D+ = X MDD X MD X 0 X MD NT NT NT NT 1 1 1 X MD , so plim X*'w p lim X MD 0 NT NT NT 1 1 plim X*'X plim X'MD X within groups sums of squares 0. NT NT X* is a valid instrument. plim b*=plim X* ' X X* y = 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 20/57] Hausman and Taylor y it x1it β1 x2it β2 z1i α1 z2i α2 it ui Deviations from group means removes all time invariant variables y it y i ( x1it - x1i )'β1 ( x2it - x2i )'β2 it Implication: β1 , β2 are consistently estimated by LSDV. ( x1it - x1i ) = MD X1 = K 1 instrumental variables ( x2it - x2i ) = MD X 2 = K 2 instrumental variables z1i ? = L1 instrumental variables (uncorrelated with u) = L 2 instrumental variables (where do we get them?) H&T: x1i = (I-MD )X1 = K 1 additional instrumental variables. Needs K1 L 2 . Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 21/57] H&T’s FGLS Estimator (1) LSDV estimates of β1 , β2 , 2 (2) (e*)' = (e1 , e1 ,..., e1 ),(e2 , e2 ,..., e2 ),...,(eN , eN ,..., eN ) (Ni=1 Ti observations). zi1 zi2 z z T rows, repeat invariant variables i2 Zi * i1 i L1 L 2 columns z z i1 i2 zi1 xi1,1 Ti rows, repeat zi1 , time varying x i1,t z x i1,2 i1 Wi L K columns 1 1 zi1 xi1,Ti Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 22/57] H&T’s FGLS Estimator (cont.) (2 cont.) IV regression of e * on Z * with instruments Wi consistently estimates α1 and α2 . (3) With fixed T, residual variance in (2) estimates u2 2 / T With unbalanced panel, it estimates u2 2 /T or something resembling this. (1) provided an estimate of 2 so use the two to obtain estimates of u2 and 2 . For each group, compute 2 2 2 ˆ i 1 ˆ / ( ˆ Ti ˆu ) (4) Transform [x it1 , x it2 , zi1 , zi2 ] to Wi * = [x it1 , x it2 , zi1 , zi2 ] - ˆ i [x i1 , x i2 , zi1 , z i2 ] and y it to y it * = y it - ˆ i y i . Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 23/57] H&T’s 4 STEP IV Estimator Instrumental Variables Vi ( x1it - x1i ) = K 1 instrumental variables ( x2it - x2i ) = K 2 instrumental variables z1i = L1 instrumental variables (uncorrelated with u) x1i = K 1 additional instrumental variables. Now do 2SLS of y * on W * with instruments V to estimate all parameters. I.e., ˆ * W* ˆ )-1W ˆ * y * . [β1 , β2 , α1 , α2 ]=(W Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 24/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 25/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 26/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 27/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 28/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 29/57] Dynamic (Linear) Panel Data (DPD) Models Application Bias in Conventional Estimation Development of Consistent Estimators Efficient GMM Estimators Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 30/57] Dynamic Linear Model Balestra-Nerlove (1966), 36 States, 11 Years Demand for Natural Gas Structure New Demand: G*i,t Gi,t (1 )Gi,t 1 Demand Function G*i,t 1 2Pi,t 3 Ni,t 4Ni,t 5 Yi,t 6 Yi,t i,t G=gas demand N = population P = price Y = per capita income Reduced Form Gi,t 1 2Pi,t 3 Ni,t 4Ni,t 5 Yi,t 6 Yi,t 7 Gi,t 1 i i,t Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 31/57] A General DPD model y i,t xi,t β y i,t 1 ci i,t E[i,t | X i ,c i ] 0 2 E[i,t | X i , c i ] 2 , E[i,t i,s | X i , c i ] 0 if t s. E[c i | X i ] g( X i ) No correlation across individuals Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 32/57] OLS and GLS are inconsistent y i,t x i,t β y i,t 1 ci i,t Cov[y i,t 1 , (c i i,t )] 2c Cov[y i,t 2 , (c i i,t )] If T were large and -1<<1, 2c this would approach 1 Implication : Both OLS and GLS are inconsistent. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 33/57] LSDV is Inconsistent [(Steven) Nickell Bias] y i,t y i ( x i,t x i )'β+(y i,t 1 y i ) (i,t i ) Cov[(y i,t 1 2 (T 1) T T y i ), (i,t i )] 2 T (1 )2 Large when T is moderate or small. Proportional bias for conventional T (5 - 15), is on the order of 15% - 60%. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 34/57] Anderson Hsiao IV Estimator Base on first differences y i,t y i,t 1 ( x i,t x i,t 1 )'β+(y i,t 1 y i,t 2 ) (i,t i,t 1 ) Instrumental variables y i,3 y i,2 ( x i,3 x i,2 )'β+(y i,2 y i,1 ) (i,3 i,2 ) Can use y i1 y i,4 y i,3 ( x i,4 x i,3 )'β+(y i,3 y i,2 ) (i,4 i,3 ) Can use y i2 or (y i,2 y i,1 ) And so on. Levels or lagged differences? Levels allow you to use more data Asymptotic variance of the estimator is smaller with levels. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 35/57] Arellano and Bond Estimator - 1 Base on first differences y i,t y i,t 1 ( x i,t x i,t 1 )'β+(y i,t 1 y i,t 2 ) (i,t i,t 1 ) Instrumental variables y i,3 y i,2 ( x i,3 x i,2 )'β+(y i,2 y i,1 ) (i,3 i,2 ) Can use y i1 y i,4 y i,3 ( x i,4 x i,3 )'β+(y i,3 y i,2 ) (i,4 i,3 ) Can use y i,1 and y i2 y i,5 y i,4 ( x i,5 x i,4 )'β+(y i,4 y i,3 ) (i,5 i,4 ) Can use y i,1 and y i2 and y i,3 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 36/57] Arellano and Bond Estimator - 2 More instrumental variables - Predetermined X y i,3 y i,2 ( x i,3 x i,2 )'β+(y i,2 y i,1 ) (i,3 i,2 ) Can use y i1 and x i,1 , x i,2 y i, 4 y i,3 ( x i, 4 x i,3 )'β+(y i,3 y i,2 ) (i, 4 i,3 ) Can use y i,1 , y i2 , x i,1 , xi,2 , x i,3 y i,5 y i, 4 ( x i,5 x i, 4 )'β+(y i, 4 y i,3 ) (i,5 i, 4 ) Can use y i,1 , y i2 , y i,3 , x i,1 , xi,2 , xi,3 , xi, 4 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 37/57] Arellano and Bond Estimator - 3 Even more instrumental variables - Strictly exogenous X y i,3 y i,2 ( x i,3 x i,2 )'β+(y i,2 y i,1 ) (i,3 i,2 ) Can use y i1 and x i,1 , x i,2 ,..., x i, T (all periods) y i, 4 y i,3 ( x i, 4 x i,3 )'β+(y i,3 y i,2 ) (i, 4 i, 3 ) Can use y i,1 , y i2 , x i,1 , x i,2 ,..., x i, T y i,5 y i, 4 ( x i,5 x i, 4 )'β+(y i, 4 y i,3 ) (i,5 i, 4 ) Can use y i,1 , y i2 , y i,3 , x i,1 , x i,2 ,..., x i, T The number of potential instruments is huge. These define the rows of Z i . These can be used for simple instrumental variable estimation. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 38/57] Instrumental Variables Predetermined variables , x i,2 y i,1 , x i,1 0 Zi ... 0 0 ... , x i,2 , x i,3 y i,1 , y i,2 , x i,1 ... 0 0 ... 0 (T rows) ... ... , x i,2 ,...x i, T 1 ... y i,1 , y i,2 ,..., y i, T 2 , x i,1 Strictly Exogenous variables , x i,2 ,...x i, T 1 y i,1 , x i,1 0 Zi ... 0 0 , x i,2 ,...x i, T 1 y i,1 , y i,2 , x i,1 ... 0 ... 0 ... 0 (T rows) ... ... , x i,2 ,...x i, T 1 ... y i,1 , y i,2 ,..., y i, T 2 , x i,1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 39/57] Simple IV Estimation ˆ = N X Z N Z Z 1 N Z X θ i=1 i i i=1 i i i=1 i i N X Z N Z Z 1 N Z y i=1 i i i=1 i i i=1 i i This is two stage least squares. N ˆ ]= Est.Asy.Var[θ ˆ i=1 X iZ i 2 ˆ 2 N i=1 1 Z iZ i 1 N i=1 Z iX i 1 ˆ ˆ Ni 1 tT 3 [( y i, t y i, t 1 ) ( x i, t x i, t 1 )'β (y i, t y i, t 1 )]2 Ni1 (Ti 2) Note that this variance estimator understates the true asymptotic variance because observations are autocorrelated for one period. (y i, t y i, t 1 ) ... (i, t i, t 1 ) ... v i, t Cov[v i, t , v i, t 1 ] [v i, t , v i, t 1 ] 2 (0 for longer lags, and leads) Use a "White" robust estimator ˆ ]= N X Z Est.Asy.Var[θ i=1 i i N i=1 ˆiv ˆ iZ i Z iv 1 N i=1 Z iX i 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 40/57] Arellano/Bond First Difference Formulation y it x it β y i, t 1 it Parameters : θ = [β, ] The data x i3 y i3 y x i4 i4 yi , Xi ... y iTi x iT K y i,2 y i,1 y i,3 y i,2 , T -2 rows i y i,T y i, T1 1 columns Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 41/57] Arellano/Bond - GLS y i,t y i,t 1 ( x i,t x i,t 1 )'β+(y i,t 1 y i,t 2 ) (i,t i ) i,3 i,2 2 1 0 1 2 1 i,4 i,3 2 Cov i,5 i,4 0 1 2 ... ... ... 1 0 0 ... i,T i,T 1 ... ... 0 0 ... 0 2 Ωi ... 1 1 2 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 42/57] Arellano/Bond GLS Estimator ˆ = N XZ N ZΩ Z θ i=1 i i i i=1 i i N XZ N ZΩ Z i=1 i i i i=1 i i 1 1 1 Ni=1Zi X i Ni=1Zi y i 1 1 = XZ ZΩZ ZX XZ ZΩZ Zy 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 43/57] GMM Estimator y i,t x i,t'β+y i,t 1 i,t We make no assumptions about the disturbance. In first differences y i,t y i,t 1 ( x i,t x i,t 1 )'β+(y i,t 1 y i,t 2 ) (i,t i,t 1 ) (1) Two stage least squares ˆ = N X Z θ i=1 i i 1 1 ZiZi Zi X i Ni=1 X iZi Ni=1ZiZi Ni=1 Zi y i ˆ 1 Ni=1Zi v ˆ ˆ (2) Form the weighting matrix for GMM: W v Z i i i N2 1 N i=1 N i=1 The criterion for GMM estimation is 1 ˆ -1 1 N q= Ni=1 viZi W Z v i=1 i i N N 1 ˆ ˆ 1 Ni=1Zi X i Ni=1 X iZi W ˆ 1 Ni=1Zi y i N θ GMM = i=1 X i Z i W ˆ ˆ 1 Ni=1Zi X i N Est.Asy.Var[θ GMM ] i=1 X i Z i W 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 44/57] Arellano/Bond/Bover’s Formulation Start with H&T y it x1it β1 x2it β2 z1i α1 z2i α2 it ui Instrumental variables for period t ( x1it - x1i ) = K1 instrumental variables ( x2it - x2i ) = K 2 instrumental variables z1i = L1 instrumental variables (uncorrelated with u) x1i = K 1 additional instrumental variables. K 1 L 2 . Let v it it ui Let zit [( x1it - x1i )',( x2it - x2i )',z1i , x1'] Then E[zit v it ] 0 We formulate this for the Ti observations in group i. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 45/57] Arellano/Bond/Bover’s Formulation Dynamic Model y it y i,t 1 +x1it β1 x2it β2 z1i α1 z2i α2 it ui Parameters : θ = [,β1 , β2 , α1 , α2 ]' The data y i,2 y i,1 x1i2 x2i2 z1i z2i y y x1 x2 z1 z2 i3 i3 i i i,3 i,2 yi , X i , Ti -1 rows y i,Ti y i,T-1 x1iTi x2iTi z1i z2i 1 K1 K2 L1 L2 columns Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 46/57] Arellano/Bond/Bover’s Formulation y it y i,t 1 + x1it β1 x2it β2 z1i α1 z2i α2 it ui Instrumental variables for period t as developed above Let zit [y i,1 , y i,2 ,...,( x1it - x1i )',( x2it - x2i )',z1i , x1'] Combine H&T treatment with DPD GMM estimator. Instrumental variable creation is based on group mean deviation rather than first differences. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 47/57] Arellano/Bond/Bover’s Formulation zit [y i,1 y i ,..., y i,t 1 y i , ( x1it - x1i )',( x2it - x2 i )',z1i , x1'] Then E[zit v it ] 0 We formulate this for the last Ti -1 observations in group i. (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (y i,1 , x1i2 ,x2i2 ,z1i ) (0,0,0) (y i,1 , y i,2 , x1i3 ,x2i3 ,z1i ) (0,0,0) Zi (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (y i,1 , y i,2 , y i,3 , x1i4 ,x2i,4 ,z1i ) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) 1/(Ti 1) 1/(Ti 1) i H'i MD,(T -1) , where MiD,(T -1) MDi without the last column. i i ... 1/(Ti 1) ... ... ... ... ... (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (y i,1 ,...,y i,T-2 , x1i,(T-1) ,x2i,(T-1) ,z1i ) (y i,1 ,...,y i,T-1 , z1, x1i ) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) (0,0,0) These blocks may contain all previous exogenous variables, or all exogenous variables for all periods. This may contain the all periods of data on x1 rather than just the group mean. (Amemiya and MaCurdy). Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 48/57] Arellano/Bond/Bover’s Formulation For unbalanced panels the number of columns for Zi varies. Given the form of Zi, the number of columns depends on Ti. We need all Zi to have the same number of columns. For matrices with less columns than the largest one, extra columns of zeros are added. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 49/57] Arellano/Bond/Bover’s Formulation The covariance matrix defines the model: Ωi =2 I - Classical (pooled) regression model (no effects) Ωi =2 I + u2ii' - Random effects model Ωi = A positive definite Ti xTi matrix - GR model Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 50/57] Arellano/Bond/Bover Estimator ˆ = N X H Z N Z H Ω ˆ H Z δ i=1 i i i i=1 i i i i i N N ˆ H Z X H Z Z H Ω i=1 i i i i=1 i i i i i Two step (GMM) estimation 1 1 Zi Hi X i Ni=1Zi Hi y i N i=1 1 ˆ ˆ = I. Compute residuals v ˆ i y i X iδ (1) Use Ω i ˆ H = Then HiΩ i i 1 N ˆiv ˆ iHi i1Hi v N ˆ. (2) Recompute δ ˆ ]= N X H Z Est.Asy.Var[δ i=1 i i i N i=1 ˆ H Z Zi Hi Ω i i i 1 N i=1 Zi Hi X i 1 Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 51/57] GMM Criterion The GMM criterion which produces this estimator is ˆ H Z ˆ iHiZi Zi Hi Ω q= v i i i N i1 N i=1 1 ˆi ZiHi v Post estimation, use this as 2 [DF] to test the overidentifying restrictions. The degrees of freedom is the total number of moment conditions (columns in Z) minus the number of parameters in δ. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 52/57] Application: Maquiladora Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 53/57] Maquiladora Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 54/57] Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 55/57] Side Issue How does y(t) = 1.220175 y(t-1) - 0.262198 y(t-2) + a behave? y(t) = 1.220175 y(t-1) + a is obviously explosive. 1.220175 0.262198 How to tell: A = 1 0 Smallest (possibly complex) root must be greater than 1.0. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 56/57] Postscript There is no theoretical guidance on the instrument set There is no theoretical guidance on the form of the covariance matrix There is no theoretical guidance on the number of lags at any level of the model There is no theoretical guidance on the form of the exogeneity – and it is not testable. Results vary wildly with small variations in the assumptions. Part 9: GMM Estimation [ 57/57] Ahn and Schmidt y it y i,t 1 +x1it β1 x2it β2 z1i α1 z2i α2 it ui There are (huge numbers of) additional moments. (1) Initial condition, y i,0 x i,0 λ + i,0 E[i,t y i,0 ] 0 implies T more estimating equations (2) Uncorrelatedness with differences, E[y is (it i,t 1 )] 0, t 2,..., T, s 0,..., T 2 is T(T-1)/2 conditions (3) (Nonlinear) E[iT (it i,t 1 )] 0 implies T-2 restrictions. And so on. Even moderately sized models embed potentially thousands of such estimating equations for usually very small numbers (say 5 or 10) parameters. How much efficiency can be gained? Is there a cost?