2
$\begingroup$

I have data with 6 predictor variables and a response variable (default ). When I do a logistic regression using probit estimation, I get a result different from SAS.

(the link to my data https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TZvEsOpuzLQ_BvGBR26n5M-yzlp2yUWH)

equation <- as.formula(default ~ dlagR3+loglaginf6+dloglagImp6+loglagRR9+dlagFX6+laglogRGDP6 )

model    <- glm(equation , family = binomial('probit'), data=setDF(data)) 

But R is giving the following error:

 glm.fit: fitted probabilities numerically 0 or 1 occurred

Coefficients:
        Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
  (Intercept) -5.13523    1.55705  -3.298 0.000974 ***
  dlagR3       0.04719    0.03696   1.277 0.201711    
  loglaginf6  -0.39395    0.05637  -6.989 2.76e-12 ***
  dloglagImp6  0.13151    0.02981   4.412 1.02e-05 ***
  loglagRR9    6.78246    0.09228  73.497  < 2e-16 ***
  dlagFX6      0.02099    0.01835   1.144 0.252535    
  laglogRGDP6 -1.52335    0.32653  -4.665 3.08e-06 ***

But when I use SAS or Eviews, this error is not thrown and they both agree on the coefficients. SAS Output

Eviews Output

So I tried implementing a lot of supposed solutions as given in a lot of forums but no matter what I do, R is giving the same coefficients. The results given by Eviews and SAS is the accurate one.

Note: SAS gives the probability of 0 (not 1) so I have created a new response variable default2 which is opposite of default

proc logistic data=data;
model default2 = dlagR3 loglaginf6 dloglagImp6 loglagRR9 dlagFX6 laglogRGDP6 
/link=probit;
run;
$\endgroup$
12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There might be complete or quasi-complete separation in your data, which will effect the maximum likelihood estimates. SAS must have a different way of dealing with that (I don't know much about the other software you use). $\endgroup$ Nov 16, 2018 at 6:09
  • $\begingroup$ @DemetriPananos That's fine. I tried using a lot of solutions to variable separation but they don't seem to be working. $\endgroup$
    – Dom Jo
    Nov 16, 2018 at 6:13
  • $\begingroup$ The thing is that no matter whichever alternate function i use, the coefficients are all same and they don't change $\endgroup$
    – Dom Jo
    Nov 16, 2018 at 6:14
  • $\begingroup$ See this answer. Seems like this person has the same problem. One answer talks about PROC LOGISTIC stats.stackexchange.com/questions/11109/… $\endgroup$ Nov 16, 2018 at 6:15
  • $\begingroup$ Out of curiosity, what happens when you remove some predictors from the model? Try regressing on just one or two variables. Do the results look the same between the three? $\endgroup$ Nov 16, 2018 at 6:19

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.