Stata vs R — variance equation parameterisation
Stata’s het() option uses a multiplicative log-linear specification:
\[\sigma^2_t = \exp(\gamma_0 + \gamma_1 \cdot \text{L.casl})\,(1 + \alpha_1\,\varepsilon^2_{t-1})\]
Stata estimates: γ₀ = 2.509, γ₁ = −0.310, α₁ = 0.398.
rugarch’s external.regressors in the variance model uses an additive specification:
\[\sigma^2_t = \omega + \alpha_1\,\varepsilon^2_{t-1} + \eta\,\text{L.casl}\]
Because the true generating model is multiplicative, the additive form cannot represent it well: rugarch estimates vxreg1 (η) ≈ 0, absorbing the casualty effect into omega. The ARCH coefficient (α₁ = 0.380 vs Stata’s 0.398) and mean-equation slopes are nonetheless close.
Mean equation comparison (Stata → R):
| Intercept |
5.248 |
5.045 |
labecmand |
0.271 |
0.326 |
L.app |
−0.160 |
−0.146 |
L.labecman |
0.135 |
0.110 |
v911d |
9.677 |
9.807 |
petrold |
−6.377 |
−5.698 |
L2D.casl |
−3.058 |
−2.688 |
| ARCH α₁ |
0.398 |
0.380 |