Table 6. Endogeneity issues Panel A:...

Table 6.

Endogeneity issues


Panel A: Instrumental variable approach
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
	ln_con_1	ln_con_2	ln_con_3	Big10	Big10	Big10
Chastity	0.190*** (61.641)	0.268*** (85.932)	0.231*** (72.829)
ln_con_1				0.429*** (14.600)
ln_con_2					0.306*** (14.573)
ln_con_3						0.347*** (14.749)
Controls	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Industry	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Year	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
N	34,046	34,046	34,046	34,046	34,046	34,046
Adj. R²	0.164	0.278	0.248
Wald test				164.55	142.76	197.09
Panel B: Entropy balancing approach
		(1)		(2)		(3)
		Big10		Big10		Big10
ln_con_1		0.023(1.367)
ln_con_2				0.082*** (5.294)
ln_con_3						0.078*** (4.815)
Controls		Y		Y		Y
Industry		Y		Y		Y
Year		Y		Y		Y
N		34,046		34,046		34,046
Pseudo R²		0.097		0.100		0.103


Panel A: Instrumental variable approach
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
	ln_con_1	ln_con_2	ln_con_3	Big10	Big10	Big10
Chastity	0.190*** (61.641)	0.268*** (85.932)	0.231*** (72.829)
ln_con_1				0.429*** (14.600)
ln_con_2					0.306*** (14.573)
ln_con_3						0.347*** (14.749)
Controls	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Industry	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Year	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
N	34,046	34,046	34,046	34,046	34,046	34,046
Adj. R²	0.164	0.278	0.248
Wald test				164.55	142.76	197.09
Panel B: Entropy balancing approach
		(1)		(2)		(3)
		Big10		Big10		Big10
ln_con_1		0.023(1.367)
ln_con_2				0.082*** (5.294)
ln_con_3						0.078*** (4.815)
Controls		Y		Y		Y
Industry		Y		Y		Y
Year		Y		Y		Y
N		34,046		34,046		34,046
Pseudo R²		0.097		0.100		0.103

Note(s): This table presents the results of endogeneity tests using two methods: the instrumental variable (IV) approach in Panel A and the entropy balancing algorithm (EBM) in Panel B. All variables are defined in Appendix. Continuous variables are winsorized at the top and bottom 1%. Year and industry fixed effects are included. We report two-sided t-statistics computed using standard errors clustered by firm. *, ** and ***indicate significance at the 10, 5 and 1% levels, respectively

Source(s): Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable