I Today's Agenda

• Introduction
• Discussion of Syllabus
• Review of linear regressions

My expectation is that
you've seen most of this Despite trying to do much
before; but it is helpful to of it without math; today's
review the key ideas that lecture likely to be long
are useful in practice and tedious. . . (sorry)
(without all the math)
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
• Linear 0 LS niodel
• Multivariate estiniation
• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues

We will cover the latter

two in the next lecture
I Background readings
• Angrist and Pischke
o Sections 3.1-3.2) 3.4.1

• Wooldridge
o Sections4.1 &4.2

• Greene
o Chapter 3 and Sections 4.14.4) 5. 7-5.9) 6.1-6.2

• Cohn, Liu, Wardlaw (JFE 2022)

I Motivation
• Linear regression is arguably the niost popular
niodeling approach in corporate finance
o Transparent and intuitive
o Very robust technique; easy to build on
o Even if not [nterested in causali , it is useful for
describing the dat

Given importance, we will spend today &

next lecture reviewing the key ideas
Motivation continued ...
• As researchers, we are interested
explaining how the world works
o E.g., how are firms' choices regarding leverage
explained by their investment opportunities
• I.e., if investment opportunities suddenly jumped
for some random reason, how would we expect
firms' leverage to respond on average?

o More broadly, how is y ex2lained by x, where

bothy and x are random variables?
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
o Random variables & the CEF
o Using OLS to learn about the CEF
o Briefly describe ''causality''

• Linear 0 LS nlodel
• Multivariate estinlation
• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I A bit about random variables
• It is useful know that any randoni variable y
can be written as

y=E(y x)+c
where (y) ~ E) are random variables and E(EI x}=O

o E(y Ix) is expected value ofy given x

o In words,y can be broken down into part
'explained' by x, E(y Ix)) and a piece that is
mean independent of x, E
Conditional expectation functio (CEF)

• E(y Ix) is what we call the CEF, and

it has very desirable properties
o Natural way to think about relationship
between x andy
o And it is best predictor of v given x
0

in a minimum mean-squared error sense

• I.e., E(y Ix) minimizes E[(y-m(x))~,where
m(x) can be any function of x.
I CEF visually ...
• E(JI Ix) is fixed, but unobservable
y

Our goal is
to learn about
E(ylx) = c
theCEF

• Intuition: for any value of x, distribution

ofy is centered about E(JI Ix)
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
o Random variables & the CEF
o Using OLS to learn about the CEF
o Briefly describe ''causality''

• Linear 0 LS nlodel
• Multivariate estinlation
• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I Linear regression and the CEF
• If done correctly, a linear regression can
help us uncover what the CEF is
• Consider linear regression model, y = Px + u
oy = dependent variable
o x = independent variable
o u = error term (or disturbance)
o ~ = slope parameter
Some additional terminology
• Other term.s fory... • Other term.s for x ...
o Outcome variable o Covariate
o Response variable o Control variable
o Explained variable o Explanatory variable
o Predicted variable o Predictor variable
o Regressand o Regressor
I Details about y = f3x + u
• (y, x, u) are randotn variables
• (y, x) are observable
• (u, /1) are unobservable
o u captures everything that determines y after
accounting for x [This might be a lot of stuff!]
o We want to estimate ~
I Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)
• Sim.ply put, OLS finds the f3 that
m.inim.izes the m.ean-squared error

/3 = argmin = E[(y-bx) 2 ]
b

• Using first order condition: E[x(y-fix)]=O,

we have ~= E(-'9') /E(x2)
• Note: by definition, the residual from. this
regression,y-fixJ is uncorrelated with x
I What great about this linear regression?
• It can be proved that ...
o f3x is best* linear prediction ofy given x
o f3x is best* linear approximation of E(y Ix)
* 'best' in terms of minimum mean-squared error

• This is quite useful. I.e., even if E(y Ix) is

nonlinear, the regression gives us the best
linear approxim.ation of it
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
o Random variables & the CEF
o Using OLS to learn about the CEF
o Briefly describe "causality"
---

• Linear 0 LS nlodel
• Multivariate estinlation
• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I What about causality?
• Need to be careful here ...
o How x explains y, which this regression
helps us understand, is not the same as
learning the causal effect of x ony
o For that, we need more assumptions ...
I The basic assumptions [Part 1)
• Assumption #1: E(u) =0
o With intercept, this is totally innocuous
o Just change regression toy = rL + px + u,
where rL is the intercept term
o Now suppose, E(u)=kf:O
• We could rewrite u = k + w, where E(w)=O
• =
Then, model becomes y (et + k) + {Jx + w
• Intercept is now just et + k, and error, w, is mean zero
• I.e., Any non-zero mean is absorbed by intercept
I The basic assumptions [Part 2)
Intuition?
• Assumption #2: E(u Ix) = E(u)
o In words, average of u (i.e., unexplained portion
ofy) does not depend on value of x
o This is ''conditional mean independence'' (CMI)
• True if x and u are independent of each other
• Implies u and x are uncorrelated

This is the key assutnption being tnade

w-hen people tnake causal inferences
CMI Assumption
• Basically, assum.ption says you've got correct
CEF m.odel for causal effect of x ony
o CEF is causal if it describes differences in
average outcomes for a change in x
• i.e., change in y if x increases from values a to bis
equal to E(y Ix=b)-E(y Ix=a) [In words?]

o Easy to see that this is only true if E(u Ix) = E(u)

[This is done on next slide ...]
I Example of why CMI is needed
• With tnodely = rJv + f3x + u,
o E(y Ix=a) = et + f3a + E(u Ix=a)
o E(y Ix=b) = + f3b + E(u Ix=b)
et
o Thus, E(y Ix=b) - E(y Ix=a) =
~(b-a) + E(u Ix=b) - E(u Ix=a)

o This only equals what we think of as the 'causal'

effect of x changing from a to b if E(u Ix=b) =
E(u Ix=a) ... i.e., CMI assumption holds
Tangent - CMI versus correlation
• CMI (which itnplies x and u are
uncorrelated) is needed for no bias
[which is a finite sample properry]
• However, we only need to assutne a zero
correlation between x and u for consistency
[which is a large sample properry]
o More about bias vs. consistency later; but we
typically care about consistency, which is why
I'll often refer to correlations rather than CMI
I Is it plausible?
• Admittedly, there are tnany reasons why
this assutnption tnight be violated
o Recall, u captures all the factors that affecty
other than x ... It will contain a lot!
o Let's just do a couple of examples ...
I Ex. #1 - Capital structure regression
• Consider following fir01-level regression:
Leveragei =a+ PProfitabilityi + ui

o CMI implies average u is same for each profitability

o Easy to find a few stories why this isn't true ...
• #1 - unprofitable firms tend to have higher bankruptcy risk,
which by tradeoff theory, should mean a lower leverage
• #2 - unprofitable firms have accumulated less cash, which
by pecking order means they should have more leverage
Ex. #2 - Investment Measure of
•
investment
opportunities

• Consider following fir01-level regression:

Investmenti = a + PQi + ui
o CMI implies average u is same for each Tobin's Q
o Easy to find a few stories why this isn't true ...
• #1 - Firms with low Q might be in distress & invest less
• #2 - Firms with high Q might be smaller, younger firms
that have a harder time raising capital to fund investments
I Is there a way to test for CMI?
• Let y be the predicted value ofy, i.e.
y =a+ Px , where rt and ~ are OLS estimates
• And, let u be the residual, i.e. u= y - y
• Can we prove CMI if residuals are E( u)=O
and if u is uncorrelated with x?
D Answer: No! By construction, these residuals are
mean zero and uncorrelated with x. See earlier
derivation of OLS estimates
Identification police

• What people call the ''identification police''

are those that look for violations of CMI
o I.e., the "police" look for a reason why the
model's disturbance is correlated with x
• Unfortunately, it's not that hard ...
• Trying to find ways to ensure the CMI
assumption holds and causal inferences can be
made will be a key focus of this course
I A side note about "endogeneity"
• Many ''police'' will criticize a tnodel by
saying it has an ''endogeneity probletn'' but
then don't say anything further ...

• But w-hat does it tnean to say there is an

''an endogeneity problein''?
I A side note about "endogeneity"
• My view-: such vague ''endogeneity'' critics
suspect som.ething is potentially wrong, but
don't really know why or how
o Don't let this be you! Be specific about
what the problem is!

• Violations to CMI can be roughly

categorized into three bins ... which are?
I Three reasons why CMI is violated
• Omitted variable bias
• Measurement error bias
• Simultaneity bias
o We will look at each of these in much
more detail in the "Causality'' lecture
I What "endogenous" means to me
• An ''endogenous'' xis when its value depends
on y (i.e., it is determined jointly with y such
that there is sitnultaneity bias).
o However, some use a broader definition to
mean any correlation between x and u
[e.g., Roberts & Whited (2011)]
o Because of the confusion, I avoid using
"endogeneity''; I'd recommend the same for you
• I.e., Be specific about CMI violation; e.g., just say
omitted variable, measurement error, or simultaneity bias
I A note about presentations ...
• Think about ''causality'' when presenting
papers in the next two classes
o I haven't yet formalized the various reasons for
why "causal" inferences shouldn't be made; but
I'd like you to take a stab at thinking about it
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
• Linear 0 LS nlodel

~-
o Basic interpretation
0 Rescaling & shifting of variables
o Incorporating non-linearities

• Multivariate estinlation
• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I Interpreting the estimates
• Suppose I estitnate the following tnodel of
CEO cotnpensation
salaryi = a+ fiROEi + ui
o Salary for CEO i is in $000s; ROE is a 0/o

• If you get ... a= 963.2

p" = 18.50
o What do these coefficients tell us?
o Is CMI likely satisfied?
I Interpreting the estimates -Answers
salaryi == 963.2+18.5ROEi + ui

• What do these coefficients tell us?

D 1 percentage point increase in ROE is
associated with $18,500 increase in salary
D Average salary for CEO with ROE= 0
was equal to $963,200

• Is CMI likely satisfied? Probably not

I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
• Linear OLS lllodel
o Basic interpretation
o Rescaling & shifting of variables
o Incorporating non-linearities

• Multivariate estilllation
• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I Scaling the dependent variable
• What if I change tneasuretnent of salary frotn
$000s to $s by tnultiplying it by 1,000?

D Estimates were... a= 963.2

,....
p = 18.50

o N ow, they will b e ...

a= 963, 200
,....
p = 18,500
I Scalingy continued ...
• Scalingy by an aniount c just causes all the
estiniates to be scaled by the sanie aniount
o Mathematically, easy to see why ...

y=a+Px+u
cy = (ca)+ ( cP) x +cu

I
New intercept New slope
I Scalingy continued ...
• Notice, the scaling has no effect on the
relationship between ROE and salary

o I.e., because y is expressed in $s now, p = 18,500

"

means that a one percentage point increase in ROE

is still associated with $18,500 increase in salary
I Scaling the independent variable
• What if I instead change tneasuretnent
of ROE frotn percentage to decitnal?
(i.e., tnultiply ROE by 1/100)

D Estimates were... a= 963. 2

p" = 18.50
a= 963.2
o Now, they will be ...
"
p = 1,850
Scaling x continued ...
• Scaling x by an am.aunt k just causes the
slope on x to be scaled by 1/ k

o Mathematically, easy to see why ...

Will interpretation of
estimates change?
y=a+f3x+u
Answer: Again, no!

y=a+ /3 kx+u
k

New slope
I Scaling both x and y
• If we scale y by an atnount c and x by
atnount k , then we get ...
o Intercept scaled by c
o Slope scaled by c/ k
y=a+px+u

cy = (ca)+ cf kx +cu

• When is scaling useful?

I Practical application of scaling #1
• No one wants to see a coefficient of
0.000000456 or 1,234,567,890

• Just scale the variables for cosm.etic purposes!

o It will affect coefficients & SEs
o However, it won't affect !-stats or inference
I Practical application of scaling #2 [P1J
• To itnprove interpretation, in tertns of
estitnated tnagnitudes, it's helpful to scale the
variables by their satnple standard deviations

o Let ax and ay be sample standard deviations of x

and y respectively
o Let c, the scalar for y, be equal to 1 / ay
o Let k, the scalar for x, be equal to 1 /ax
o I.e., units of x and y are now standard deviations
I Practical application of scaling #2 [P2]
• With the prior rescaling, how would we
interpret a slope coefficient of 0.25?
o Answer = a 1 s.d. increase in xis associated
with 1/4 s.d. increase in y

o The slope tells us how many standard

deviations y changes, on average, for a
standard deviation change in x

o Is 0.25 large in magnitude? What about 0.01?

I Shifting the variables
• Suppose we instead add c toy and k to x
(i.e., we shifty and x up by c and k respectively)

• Will the estim.ated slope change?

I Shifting continued ...
• No! Only the estilllated intercept will change
o Mathematically, easy to see why ...

y=a+fix+u
y + c = a + c +fix+ u
y+c = a+c+ P(x+k)-Pk+u
y+c =(a+c-fik)+ P(x+k)+u

/
New intercept ""
Slope the same
I Practical application of shifting
• To itnprove interpretation, sotnetitnes helpful
to detnean x by its satnple tnean
o Let µx be the sample mean of x, regress y on x - µx
o Intercept now reflects expected value ofy for x =µx

y=(a+ f3µx)+ f3(x-µx)+u

E(y Ix = µJ = (a+ f3µx)
o This will be very useful when we get to cliff-in-cliffs
I Break Time
• Let's take a 10-minute break
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
• Linear 0 LS nlodel
o Basic interpretation
o Rescaling & shifting of variables
o Incorporating non-linearities
--

• Multivariate estinlation
• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I Incorporating nonlinearities [Part 1J
• Assunllng that the causal CEF is linear
m.ay not always be that realistic

o E.g., consider the following regression

wage = ex+ ~education +u

o Why might a linear relationship between #

of years of education and level of wages be
unrealistic? How can we fix it?
I Incorporating nonlinearities [Part 2)
• Better assumption might be that each year of
education leads to a constant proportionate
(i.e., percentage) increase in wages

o Approximation of this intuition captured by ...

ln(wage) =ex+ ~education+ u

o I.e., the linear specification is very flexible

because it can capture linear relationships
between non-linear variables
I Common nonlinear function forms
• Regressing Levels on Logs
• Regressing Logs on Levels
• Regressing Logs on Logs

Let's discuss how- to interpret each of these

I The usefulness of log
• Log variables are useful because
100X.Afn(y) ~ 0/o~y
D Note: When I (and others) say "Log'', we
really mean the natural logarithm, "Ln".
E.g., if you use the ''log" function in Stata,
it assumes you meant ''ln"
I Interpreting log-level regressions
• If you estitnate the ln(wage) equation, 100~
will tell you the 0/oLiwage for an additional
year of education. To see this ...

ln( wage) == a + peducation + u

~In( wage) == p~education
100 x ~ ln( wage) == (100 p)~education
%~wage~ (IOOP)~education
I Log-level interpretation continued ...
• The proportionate change iny for a
given change in xis assum.ed constant
o The change in y is not assumed to be
constant ... it gets larger as x increases
o Specifically, ln(y) is assumed to be linear in
x, buty is not a linear function of x . ..

ln(y) =a+ fix+u

y =exp(a+ fix+u)
I Example interpretation
• Suppose you estim.ated the wage equation
(where wages are $/hour) and got ...

ln(wage) = 0.584 + 0.083education

o What does an additional year of education get you?

Answer= 8.3°/o increase in wages.

o Any potential problems with the specification?
o Should we interpret the intercept?
I Interpreting log-log regressions
• If you alternatively estimate the following ...

ln(y) = a + /J ln( x) + u

• ~ is the elasticity ofy w.r. t. x!

D i.e., ~ is the percentage change iny for a
percentage change in x
o Note: regression assumes constant elasticity
betweeny and x regardless of level of x
I Example interpretation of log-log
• Suppose you estim.ated the CEO salary m.odel
using logs and got the following:

ln(salary) =4.822 + 0.257ln(sales)

• What is the interpretation of 0.257?

Answ-er = For each 1°/o increase in

sales, salary increases by 0.257°/o
I Interpreting level-log regressions
• If estitnating the following ...

y = a + /J ln( x) + u

• ~/ 100 is the change in y for 1°/o change x

I Example interpretation of level-log
• Suppose you estim.ated the CEO salary
m.odel using logs and got the following,
where salary is expressed in $000s:

salary = 4.822 + 1,812.5/n(sales)

• What is the interpretation of 1,812.5?

Answ-er = For each 1°/o increase in
sales, salary increases by $18,125
I Summary of log functional forms
Dependent Independent
Model Interpretation of ~
Variable Variable

Level-Level y x dy = f3dx
Level-Log y ln(x) dy = (/3/100) 0/odx
Log-Level ln(y) x 0
/ody = (100f3)dx
Log-Log ln(y) ln(x) 0
/ody = /3 °/odx

• Now, let's talk about what happens if

you change units (i.e., scale) for eithery
or x in these regressions ...
I Rescaling logs doesn't matter [Part 1)
• What happens to intercept & slope if rescale
(i.e., change units) ofy when in log form.?

• Ans'Wer = Only intercept changes; slope

unaffected because it m.easures proportional
change inyin Log-Level m.odel
log(y) =a+ fJx+u
log(c) + log(y) = log(c) +a+ fJx + u
Iog(cy) = (Iog(c) +a)+ fJx+u
I Rescaling logs doesn't matter [Part 2)
• Sarne logic applies to changing scale of x in
level-log models ... only intercept changes

y =a+ Plog(x)+u
y+ Plog(c) =a+ Plog(x)+ Plog(c)+u
y = (a - Plog(c)) + Plog(cx) + u
I Rescaling logs doesn't matter [Part 3)
• Basic message - If you rescale a logged variable,
it will not affect the slope coefficient because you
are only looking at proportionate changes
I Log approximation problems
• I once discussed a paper where author
argued that allowing capital inflows into
country caused -120°/o change in stock
prices during crisis periods ...

o Do you see a problem with this?

• Of course! A 120o/o drop in stock prices isn't
possible. The true percentage change was -70°/o.
Here is where that author went wrong ...
I Log approximation problems [Part 1)
• Approximation error occurs because as true
0
/o~y becomes larger, 100Liln(y)~ 0/o~y
becomes a worse approximation

• To see this, consider a change fromy toy' ...

o Ex. #1: y '- y = 5%, and 100&(y) = 4.9%

y

o Ex. #2: y '-y = 75%, but 100.Afn(y)= 56%

y
I Log approximation problems [Part 2)
400.00%
- - - Approximation
350.00%
--Exact
300.00%

;>--.
(!)
250.00%
OJ)
ij
...c: 200.00%
u
~ 150.00%
- -- ---
.,.. .
,;-.

100.00o/o
__ .... ---- _... -- -- _.,.. .,..
50.00%
-·-
.... . --- -
,,..
,,,.. fl"'

0.00%
0 0.5. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Delta x
I Log approximation problems [Part 3)
• Probleni also occurs for negative changes

o Ex. #1: Y '-y = -5%, and 100&(y) = -5.1%

y

D Ex. #2: Y '- Y = -7 5%, but 1OO&n(y) = -139°/o

y
I Log approximation problems [Part4]
o So, if implied percent change is large, better to convert
it to true 0/o change before interpreting the estimate

ln(y) =a+ Px+u

ln(y ') - ln(y) = p(x '- x)
In(y'I y) = fi(x'-x)
y'/ y = exp(fi(x'-x))
[(y'-y) I y ]% = 100[exp(fi(x'-x) )-1 J
I Log approximation problems [Part 5]
• We can now use this fortnula to see what
true 0/o change iny is for x ~-x = 1

[(y'- y) I y ]% = 100[exp(fi(x'-x) )-1 J

[(y'-y) I y ]% = 100[exp(fi)-1 J
o If f3 = 0.56, the percent change isn't 56°/o, it is
100[exp(0.56)-1] =75%
I Recap of last two points on logs
• Two things to keep in mind about using logs
o Rescaling a logged variable doesn't affect slope
coefficients; it will only affect intercept
o Log is only approximation for 0/o change; it can
be a very bad approximation for large changes
I Usefulness of logs - Summary
• Using logs gives coefficients
with appealing interpretation

• Can be ignorant about unit of

tneasuretnent of log variables
since they're proportionate ds

• Logs ofy or x can tnitigate

influence of outliers
I "Rules of thumb" on when to use logs
• Helpful to take logs for variables with ...
o Positive currency amount
o Large integral values (e.g., population)

• Don't take logs for variables tneasured in

years or for variables that can equal zero ...
I What about using ln(1 +y)?
• Because ln(O) doesn't exist, sotne use ln(l +y)
for non-negative variables, i.e. y E [O, oo)
o However, you should not do this! Nice
interpretation no longer true, especially if a lot of
zeros or many small values in y [Why?]
• Ex. #1: What does it mean to go from ln(O) to ln(x>O)?
• Ex. #2: And Ln(x'+ 1) - Ln(x+ 1) is not percent change ofx

o See Cohn, Liu, Wardlaw UFE 2022) for solutions

& more details on why using ln(1 +y) is problematic
Tangent- Percentage Change
• What is the percent change in
unetnploytnent if it goes frotn 10°/o to 9°/o?
o This is 10 percent drop
o It is a 1-percentage point drop
• Percentage change is [(x1 - x0)/x0]X100
• Percentage point change is the raw change in
percentages

Please take care to get this right in

description of your empirical results
I Models with quadratic terms [Part 1)
• Considery ={J0 + {J1x +{Jr!+ u
• Partial effect of xis given by ...
J),.y =(Pi+ 2fi2x )tu
o What is different about this partial effect
relative to everything we've seen thus far?
• Answer = It depends on the value of x. So, we will
need to pick a value of x to evaluate it (e.g. x)
I Models with quadratic terms [Part 2)
" "
• If P1 > 0, P2 < 0, then it has parabolic relation
o Turning point = Maximum = P" 1 I 2 P" 2
o Know where this turningpoint isl Don't claim a
parabolic relation if it lies outside range of x!
o Odd values might imply misspecification or simply
mean the quadratic terms are irrelevant and should
be excluded from the regression
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
• Linear 0 LS niodel
• Multivariate estiniation
o Properties & Interpretation
o Partial regression interpretation
o R2, bias, and consistency

• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I Motivation
• Rather uncom.m.on that we have
just one independent variable
o So, now we will look at multivariate
OLS models and their properties ...
I Basic multivariable model
• Exam.ple with constant and k regressors

• Sinillar identifying assum.ptions as before

o No collinearity among covariates [why?]
o E(u Ix 1, •• • , x,J = 0

• Implies no correlation between any x and u, which

means we have the correct model of the true causal
relationship between y and (x1, ••• , x~
I Interpretation of estimates
,....
• Estimated intercept, Po, is predicted
value ofy when all x = O; sometimes this
makes sense, sometimes it doesn't

• Estimated slopes, (/JP ... ,/Jk ),

have a
more subtle interpretation now ...
,.... ,.... ,....

Y =Po+ P1x1 + ... + Pkxk +U

o How would you interpret fi" 1 ?
I Interpretation -Answer
/3
• Estimated slopes, ( 1 , ••• , /Jk ), have partial
effect interpretations

• Typically, we think about change in just one

variable, e.g.,~ x 1, holding constant all other
variables, i.e., (~2, •• • , ~k all equal 0)
o This is given by L1y = /3" 1 ~1
"
o I.e., /31 is the coefficient holding all else fixed
(ceteris paribus)
I Interpretation continued ...
• However, can also look at how changes
in tnultiple variables at once affects
predicted value ofy
o I.e., given changes in x 1 through xk
we obtain the predicted change iny, Lb'
I Example interpretation - College GPA
• Suppose we regress college GPA onto high
school GPA (4-point scale) and ACT scores
for N = 141 university students

co/GPA= 1.29 + 0.453hsGPA + 0.0094ACT

o What does the intercept tell us?
o What does the slope on hsGPA tell us?
I Example - Answers
• Intercept meaningless ... person with zero
high school GPA and ACT doesn't exist

• Example interpretation of slope ...

o Consider two students, Ann and Bob, with
identical ACT score, but Ann's GPA is 1 point
higher than Bob. Best prediction of Ann's college
GPA is that it will be 0.453 higher than Bob's
I Example continued ...
• Now, what is effect of increasing high school
GPA by 1 point and ACT by 1 point?

AcalGPA== 0.453 x AhsGPA + 0.0094 x MCT

AcolGPA == 0.453 + 0.0094
AcolGPA == 0.4624
I Example continued ...
• Lastly, what is effect of increasing high school
GPA by 2 points and ACT by 10 points?

AcalGPA== 0.453 x AhsGPA + 0.0094 x MCT

AcalGPA == 0.453x2+0.0094x10
AcolGPA ==l
I Fitted values and residuals
• Definition of residual for observation i, ui

• Properties of residual and fitted values

o Sample average of residuals = O; implies that
sample average of y equals sample average ofy
o Sample covariance between each independent
variable and residuals = 0
o Point of means (y,x1, ... ,xk) lies on regression line
Tangent about residuals
• Again, it bears repeating ...
o Looking at whether the residuals are correlated
with the :x!s is NOT a test for causality
o By construction, they are uncorrelated with x
o There is no "test'' of whether the CEF is the
causal CEF; that justification will need to rely
.
on econormc arguments
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
• Linear 0 LS niodel
• Multivariate estiniation
o Properties & Interpretation

~-
o Partial regression interpretation-
o R2 , bias, and consistency

• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
IQuestion to motivate the topic...
• What is wrong with the following? And w-hy?
o Researcher wants to know effect of x ony
after controlling for z
o So, researcher removes the variation iny that is
z z
driven by by regressingy on & saves residuals
o Then, researcher regresses these residuals on x and
claims to have identified effect of x ony controlling
for zusing this regression

We'll answer why it's

wrong in a second ...
I Partial regression [Part 1]
• The foil owing is quite useful to know ...
• Suppose you want to estim.ate the following

o Is there another way to get /J" 1 that doesn't

involve estimating this directly?
• Answer: Yes! You can estimate it by regressing the
residuals from a regression ofyon x 2 onto the
residuals from a regression of x 1 onto x 2
I Partial regression [Part 2]
"
• To be clear, you get /31 , by ...
#1 - Regress y on x 2 ; save residuals (call them y )
#2 - Regress x 1 on x 2 ; save residuals (call them x)
#3 - Regress y onto x;the estimated coefficient
will be the same as if you'd just run the original
multivariate regression!!!
I Partial regression - Interpretation
• Multivariate estimation is basically finding
effect of each independent variable after
partialing out effects of other variables
o I.e., Effect of x 1 ony after controlling for x 2 , (i.e.,
what you'd get from regressingy on both x 1 and
x 2) is the same as what you get after you partial
out the effect x 2 from both x 1 andy and then run
a regression using the residuals
I Partial regression - Generalized
• This property holds more generally ...
o Suppose X 1 is vector of independent variables
o X 2 is vector of more independent variables
o And, you want to know that coefficients on X 1 that
you would get from a multivariate regression ofy
onto all the variables in X 1 and X2 •••
I Partial regression - Generalize~ Part 2
• You can get the coefficients for each
variable in X 1 by ...
o Regress y and each variable in X 1 onto all the
variables in X 2 (at once), save residuals from
each regression
o Do a regression of residuals; i.e., regress y
onto variables of X 1, but replacey and X 1
with the residuals from the corresponding
regression in step #1
I Practical application of partial regression
• Now-, w-hat is wrong with the following?
o Researcher wants to know effect of x ony
after controlling for z
o So, researcher removes the variation iny that is
z z
driven by by regressingy on & saves residuals
o Then, researcher regresses these residuals on x and
claims to have identified effect of x ony controlling
for zusing this regression
I Practical application - Answer
• It's wrong because it didn't partial the effect
of zout of x! Therefore, it is NOT the
same as regressingy onto both x and ~

• Unfortunately, it was comm.only done by

researchers in finance [e.g.} industry-adjustiniJ
o We will see how badly this can mess up things in
a later lecture where we look at my paper with
David Matsa on unobserved heterogeneity
I Linear Regression - Outline
• The CEF and causality (very brief)
• Linear 0 LS niodel
• Multivariate estiniation

• Hypothesis testing
• Miscellaneous issues
I Goodness-of-Fit (R2)
• A lot is tnade of R-squared; so, let's
quickly review exactly what it is
• Start by defining the following:
D Sum of squares total (SS1)
D Sum of squares explained (SSE)
D Sum of squares residual (SSR)
I Definition of SST, SSE, SST
If N is the num.ber of observations and the
regression has a constant, then

N 2
SST = L (Yi - y)
i=l
SST is total variation iny

SSE is total variation in predictedy

i=l
[mean of predictedy = mean of y]
N
ssR= Lu: SSR is total variation in residuals
i=l [mean of residual= OJ
I SSR, SST, and SSE continued ...
• The total variation, SST, can be broken
into two pieces ... the explained part,
SSE, and unexplained part, SSR

SST = SSE + SSR

• R2 is just the share of total variation that
is explained! In other words,

R 2 = SSE/SST = 1- SSR/SST
I More about R2
• As seen on last slide, R2 m.ust be
between 0 and 1
• It can also be shown that R2 is equal
to the square of the correlation
between y and predicted y
• If you add an independent variable,
R2 will never go down
I Adjusted R2
• Because R2 always goes up, we often use
what is called Adjusted R2

AdjR 2 =1-(t-R 2 ) N-l

N-1-k

o k = # of regressors, excluding the constant

o Basically, you get penalized for each additional
regressor, such that adjusted R2 won't go up after
you add another variable if it doesn't improve fit
much [it can go down!]
I Interpreting R2
• If I tell you the R2 is 0.014 from a
regression, what does that mean? Is it bad?
o Answer #1 = It means I'm only explaining
about 1.4°/o of the variation iny with the
regressors that I'm including in the regression
o Answer #2 =Not necessarily! It doesn't mean
the model is wrong; you might still be getting a
consistent estimate of the ~ you care about!
I Unbiasedness versus Consistency
• When we say an estimate is unbiased
or consistent, it means we think it has
a causal interpretation ...
o I.e., the CMI assumption holds and the :x!s are
all uncorrelated with the disturbance, u

• Bias refers to finite sample property;

consistency refers to asymptotic property
I More formally ...
• An estimate, fl, is unbiased if E (fl) = P
o I.e., on average, the estimate is centered around the
true, unobserved value of ~
o Doesn't say whether you get a more precise
estimate as sample size increases
"
• An estim.ate is consistent if plim P = P
N~oo

o I.e., as sample size increases, the estimate converges

(in probability limit) to the true coefficient
I Unbiasedness of OLS
• OLS will be unbiased when ...
o Model is linear in parameters
o We have a random sample of x
o No perfect collinearity between :x!s
o E(u I x 1, •• • , x,J = 0
[13arlier CMI assumptions # 1 and #2 give us this]

• Unbiasedness is nice feature of OLS; but in

practice, we care tnore about consistency
Consistency of OLS
• OLS will be consistent when
D Model is linear in parameters
D u is not correlated with any of the xs,
[CMI assumptions # 1 and #2 give us this; a lack of
co"elation is a weaker assumption than CMI. . . CMI
precludes both linear and non-linear relationships, while
co"elations onfy measure linear relationships]
• Again, this is good
• See textbooks for tnore infortnation