1
$\begingroup$

I have a couple of empirical studies examining the determinants of credit ratings. Here, the dependent variable is a binary variable indicating whether a firm has a credit rating or not ($rating$). The studies use logit or probit models to estimate the impact of certain firm characteristics $D_1,...$ (as e.g., the firm's leverage ratio, market-to-book ratio, ...). The model can be formalized as: $$ rating_{ij} =\beta_0 + \beta_1D_1 + \beta_2D_2 + \dots + \epsilon_{ij} $$ I have two questions:

(1) There are two different definitions for the dependent variable: (a) $rating_{ij}=1,$ if the firm has a credit rating, and 0 otherwise, or (b) $rating_{ij}=0,$ if the firm has a credit rating, and 1 otherwise.

To directly compare the values for the coefficients $\beta_1,...$ from studies with type (a) and (b) definition, do I just have to change the sign for $\beta$ and the corresponding $t$-statistic? And the standard errors and p-values should be the same for both definitions?

(2) In some studies the definition of the independent variables are inverse. E.g., some studies use market-to-book ratio as a independent variable $D_1$ and others use the inverse definition, which is book-to-market. How can I convert the $\beta_1, \dotsc$ from a study using book-to-market, such that the regression coefficient shows the marginal effect of a change in market-to-book? And how can I convert the corresponding standard errors, t-statistics, and p-values?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Technically, your model is actually $\Pr(r=1 \vert D)=F(\beta_0 + ...)$, where $F$ depends on whether it is a probit or a logit. $\endgroup$ – Dimitriy V. Masterov Jun 2 '16 at 19:15
2
$\begingroup$

To directly compare the values for the coefficients $\beta_1,\dots$ from studies with type (a) and (b) definition, do I just have to change the sign for $\beta$ and the corresponding t-statistic?

Yes. E.g., see the following example

set.seed(78379009)
x <- runif(100, 0, 1)
eta <- -2 + 4 * x
y1 <- 1/(1 + exp(-eta)) > runif(length(x))
y2 <- pnorm(eta) > runif(length(x))

summary(glm(y1     ~ x, binomial()))$coefficients
#R             Estimate Std. Error   z value     Pr(>|z|)
#R (Intercept) -2.200157  0.5357224 -4.106898 4.010083e-05
#R x            4.150889  0.9703970  4.277516 1.889907e-05
summary(glm(I(!y1) ~ x, binomial()))$coefficients
#R             Estimate Std. Error   z value     Pr(>|z|)
#R (Intercept)  2.200157  0.5357224  4.106898 4.010083e-05
#R x           -4.150889  0.9703970 -4.277516 1.889907e-05

summary(glm(y2     ~ x, binomial("probit")))$coefficients
#R             Estimate Std. Error   z value     Pr(>|z|)
#R (Intercept) -1.993338  0.3738787 -5.331510 9.739943e-08
#R x            4.065658  0.7045437  5.770625 7.897790e-09
summary(glm(I(!y2) ~ x, binomial("probit")))$coefficients
#R             Estimate Std. Error   z value     Pr(>|z|)
#R (Intercept)  1.993338  0.3738787  5.331510 9.739943e-08
#R x           -4.065658  0.7045437 -5.770625 7.897790e-09 

Although it is $z$-stats and not $t$-stats (you are not estimating variance parameter).

How can I convert the $\beta_1,\dots$ from a study using book-to-market, such that the regression coefficient shows the marginal effect of a change in market-to-book? And how can I convert the corresponding standard errors, t-statistics, and p-values?

You cannot. The inverse of $x$ is non-linear in $x$. Also do note that it is the marginal effect on the link scale.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.