1
$\begingroup$

Sorry for the very cryptic title, but I do not know how to describe my problem in another way and I'm sure the solution is rather straightforward.

I am currently running a regression where the dependent and independent variables are transformed to natural logarithms. The problem I have is that one IV, DC-ratio, has a lot of values of 0% and log(0) is undefined and thus results in a missing value in Stata. If I use this value, Stata will drop the missing values and my sample would be biased since it only uses the funds which actually have a DC-ratio >0%. This is an issue as more than half of my dataset have a DC-ratio of 0%. My idea was to turn all values of 0% DC-ratio to 0.0000001%.

My councelors solution, which according to him is often used in research, is to add 1 to all values of the DC-ratio, turning 0% DC-ratio in 100% and 30% in 130%. I have followed his solution.

Besides the fact that I am wondering is this is at all possible when in the original values a DC-ratio of 100% is the maximum, I can't figure out how to interpret the results. Do I need to subtract the +1 somewhere?

I am familiair with interpreting the log-log results, but I can't figure out how to deal with this adjustment of original values. In the picture (regression results), regression number 9 is preferred and I know that a 1% increase in the DC-ratio will lead to an increase of 1.01^7.126= 1.0735-1= 7.35% increase in the geometric mean of the dependent variable. But I can tell you right now that this does not make any sense in an economic context.

I hope someone could shed some light on this problem.

Many thanks in advance!

Regression results

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

To answer your specific question, you just undo the transform, just as you did with variables you take a log of. If one of the regression variables $X_1$ was log transformed, and you get a good linear fit with the coefficient a, then $e^a$ is the 'real' value. In other words, if the regression $Y = a*ln(X_1) + c$ gives $a=2$ it means that $Y = ln(X_1)$ increases additively by 2 units for each increase of $ln(X_1)$ by 1. This means that Y grows by multiplying it by $e^2$ each time $X_1$ grows by one unit. (Note I am doing a semi-log model, not a log-log one here.)

Interpreting adding something and taking a log is no different, just not intuitive. It means $Y = ln(X_1+k)$ grows by adding a for each unit growth of $X_1$, so $X_1+k$ really grows by multiplying it by $e^a$ for each unit growth in $X_1$ (since a unit growth in $X_1+k$ is really just a unit growth in $X_1$, since k is a constant). But I am not sure what that means, for exactly the reason you state. Log transforms are done to make ratios into differences, and adding before taking the log destroys that relationship. I would try your idea of using .00001, because that, in a sense, has some linkage to reality and avoids the complexity here.

However - and I am making an educated guess about what you are doing with this regression - it might make more sense to have (or also have) a dummy variable for the data points with zero value. Sometimes such a degenerate value is the result of a 'corner condition', not part of a linear (or log-linear) regime. For example, if you were doing this with stock data and one of the variables is dividends, there are a good number of companies that pay no dividends - and.

Of course, there are no negative dividends, so looking for a linear relationship directly or after log transforms misses this. Most companies that pay no dividend do it because they choose not to pay dividends, not because they only have a few pennies of cash and thus couldn't pay any dividends.

In an ideal world, it would reduce the relevance or impact of the $ln(DC-ratio)$ so assumptions there don't matter (or don't matter as much).

$\endgroup$

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.