Lecture 8: Heteroskedasticity

 Causes
 Consequences
 Detection
 Fixes
 Assumption MLR5:
Homoskedasticity
var(u | x1 , x2 ,..., x j )   2

 In the multivariate case, this means that the

variance of the error term does not increase or
decrease with any of the explanatory variables
x1 through xj.
 If MLR5 is untrue, we have heteroskedasticity.
 Causes of Heteroskedasticity

 Error variance can increase as values of an

independent variable increase.
 Ex: Regress household security expenditures on
household income and other characteristics. Variance in
household security expenditures will increase as income
increases because you can’t spend a lot on security
unless you have a large income.
 Error variance can increase with extreme values
of an independent variable (either positive or
negative)
 Measurement error. Extreme values may be
wrong, leading to greater error at the extremes.
 Causes of Heteroskedasticity, cont.

 Bounded independent variable. If Y cannot

be above or below certain values, extreme
predictions have restricted variance. (See
example in 5th slide after this one.)
 Subpopulation differences. If you need to
run separate regressions, but run a single
one, this can lead to two error distributions
and heteroskedasticity.
 Model misspecification:
 form of included variables (square, log, etc.)
 exclusion of relevant variables
 Not Consequences of Heteroskedasticity:

 MLR5 is not needed to show

unbiasedness or consistency of OLS
estimates. So violation of MLR5 does not
lead to biased estimates.
 Since R2 is based on overall sums of
squares, it is unaffected by
heteroskedasticity.
 Likewise, our estimate of root mean
squared error is valid in the presence of
heteroskedasticity.
 Consequences of heteroskedasticity

 OLS model is no longer B.L.U.E. (best

linear unbiased estimator)
 Other estimators are preferable
 With heteroskedasticity, we no longer have
the “best” estimator, because error
variance is biased.
 incorrect standard errors
 Invalid t-statistics and F statistics
 LM test no longer valid
 Detection of heteroskedasticity:
graphs

 Conceptually, we know that heteroskedasticity

means that our predictions have uneven variance
over some combination of Xs.
 Simple to check in bivariate case, complicated for
multivariate models.
 One way to visually check for heteroskedasticity is
to plot predicted values against residuals
 This works for either bivariate or multivariate OLS.
 If heteroskedasticity is suspected to derive from a
single variable, plot it against the residuals
 This is an ad hoc method for getting an intuitive
feel for the form of heteroskedasticity in your
model
 Let’s see if the regression from the
2010 midterm has heteroskedasticity
(DV is high school g.p.a.)
. reg hsgpa male hisp black other agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1
antipeer

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 6574

-------------+------------------------------ F( 11, 6562) = 610.44
Model | 1564.98297 11 142.271179 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 1529.3681 6562 .233064325 R-squared = 0.5058
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.5049
Total | 3094.35107 6573 .470766936 Root MSE = .48277

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hsgpa | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
male | -.1574331 .0122943 -12.81 0.000 -.181534 -.1333322
hisp | -.0600072 .0174325 -3.44 0.001 -.0941806 -.0258337
black | -.1402889 .0152967 -9.17 0.000 -.1702753 -.1103024
other | -.0282229 .0186507 -1.51 0.130 -.0647844 .0083386
agedol | -.0105066 .0048056 -2.19 0.029 -.0199273 -.001086
dfreq1 | -.0002774 .0004785 -0.58 0.562 -.0012153 .0006606
schattach | .0216439 .0032003 6.76 0.000 .0153702 .0279176
msgpa | .4091544 .0081747 50.05 0.000 .3931294 .4251795
r_mk | .131964 .0077274 17.08 0.000 .1168156 .1471123
income1 | 1.21e-06 1.60e-07 7.55 0.000 8.96e-07 1.52e-06
antipeer | -.0167256 .0041675 -4.01 0.000 -.0248953 -.0085559
_cons | 1.648401 .0740153 22.27 0.000 1.503307 1.793495
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Let’s see if the regression from the
midterm has heteroskedasticity . . .
. predict gpahat

2
(option xb assumed; fitted values)
. predict residual, r
. scatter residual gpahat, msize(tiny)
or . . .
1

. rvfplot, msize(tiny)
Residuals

0
-1
-2

1 2 3 4
Fitted values
 Let’s see if the regression from the
midterm has heteroskedasticity . . .
. predict gpahat

2
(option xb assumed; fitted values)
. predict residual, r
. scatter residual gpahat, msize(tiny)
max(uˆ )  4  yˆ

or . . .
1

. rvfplot, msize(tiny)
Residuals

0
-1
-2

1 2 3 4
Fitted values
 Let’s see if the regression from the
2010 midterm has heteroskedasticity

 This is not a rigorous test for

heteroskedasticity, but it has revealed an
important fact:
 Since the upper limit of high school gpa is 4.0,
the maximum residual, and error variance, is
artificially limited for good students.
 With just this ad-hoc method, we strongly
suspect heteroskedasticity in this model.
 We can also check the residuals against
individual variables:
 Let’s see if the regression from the
2010 midterm has heteroskedasticity

2
. scatter residual msgpa, msize(tiny) jitter(5) same issue
or . . .
. rvpplot msgpa, msize(tiny) jitter(5)
1 ↓
Residuals

0
-1
-2

0 1 2 3 4
msgpa
Other useful plots for detecting
heteroskedasticity
 twoway (scatter resid fitted) (lowess resid fitted)
 Same as rvfplot, with an added smoothed line for
residuals – should be around zero.
 You have to create the “fitted” and “resid” variables
 twoway (scatter resid var1) (lowess
resid var1)
 Same as rvpplot var1, with smoothed line added.
 Formal tests for heteroskedasticity

 There are many tests for heteroskedasticity.

 Deriving them and knowing the
strengths/weaknesses of each is beyond the
scope of this course.
 In each case, the null hypothesis is
homoskedasticity:
H 0 : E (u 2 | x1 , x2 ,..., xk )  E (u 2 )   2

 The alternative is heteroskedasticity.

 Formal test for heteroskedasticity:
“Breusch-Pagan” test

1) Regress Y on Xs and generate squared

residuals
2) Regress squared residuals on Xs (or a
subset of Xs)
3) Calculate LM  n 
2 R 2 2
û , (N*R ) from

regression in step 2.
4) LM is distributed chi-square with k degrees
of freedom.
5) Reject homoskedasticity assumption if p-
value is below chosen alpha level.
 Formal test for heteroskedasticity:
“Breusch-Pagan” test, example
 After high school gpa regression (not shown):

. predict resid, r
. gen resid2=resid*resid

. reg resid2 male hisp black other agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1 antipeer
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 6574
-------------+------------------------------ F( 11, 6562) = 9.31
Model | 12.5590862 11 1.14173511 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 804.880421 6562 .12265779 R-squared = 0.0154
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0137
Total | 817.439507 6573 .124363229 Root MSE = .35023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
resid2 | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
male | -.0017499 .008919 -0.20 0.844 -.019234 .0157342
hisp | -.0086275 .0126465 -0.68 0.495 -.0334188 .0161637
black | -.0201997 .011097 -1.82 0.069 -.0419535 .0015541
other | .0011108 .0135302 0.08 0.935 -.0254129 .0276344
agedol | -.0063838 .0034863 -1.83 0.067 -.013218 .0004504
dfreq1 | .000406 .0003471 1.17 0.242 -.0002745 .0010864
schattach | -.0018126 .0023217 -0.78 0.435 -.0063638 .0027387
msgpa | -.0294402 .0059304 -4.96 0.000 -.0410656 -.0178147
r_mk | -.0224189 .0056059 -4.00 0.000 -.0334083 -.0114295
income1 | -1.60e-07 1.16e-07 -1.38 0.169 -3.88e-07 6.78e-08
antipeer | .0050848 .0030233 1.68 0.093 -.0008419 .0110116
_cons | .4204352 .0536947 7.83 0.000 .3151762 .5256943
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Formal test for heteroskedasticity:
Breusch-Pagan test, example
. di "LM=",e(N)*e(r2)
LM= 101.0025

. di chi2tail(11,101.0025)
1.130e-16

 We emphatically reject the null of homoskedasticity.

 We can also use the global F test reported in the
regression output to reject the null (F(11,6562)=9.31,
p<.00005)
 In addition, this regression shows that middle school gpa
and math scores are the strongest sources of
heteroskedasticity. This is simply because these are the
two strongest predictors and hsgpa is bounded.
 Formal test for heteroskedasticity:
Breusch-Pagan test, example
 We can also just type “ivhettest, nr2” after
the initial regression to run the LM version of the
Breusch-Pagan test identified by Wooldredge.
. ivhettest, nr2
OLS heteroskedasticity test(s) using levels of IVs only
Ho: Disturbance is homoskedastic
White/Koenker nR2 test statistic : 101.002 Chi-
sq(11) P-value = 0.0000

 Stata documentation calls this the

“White/Koenker” heteroskedasticity test, based on
Koenker, 1981.
 This adaptation of the Breusch-Pagan test is less
vulnerable to violations of the normality
assumption.
 Other versions of the Breusch-Pagan
test

 Note, “estat hettest” and “estat

hettest, rhs” also produce commonly-
used Breusch-Pagan tests of the the null
of homoskedasticity, they’re older
versions, and are biased if the residuals
are not normally distributed.
Other versions of the Breusch-Pagan
test

 estat hettest, rhs

 From Breusch & Pagan (1979)
 Square residuals and divide by mean so that new
variable mean is 1
 Regress this variable on Xs
 Model sum of squares / 2 ~  2
k

 estat hettest
 Square residuals and divide by mean so that new
variable mean is 1
 Regress this variable on yhat
Model sum of squares / 2 ~ 1
2

Other versions of the Breusch-Pagan
test
. estat hettest, rhs

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: male hisp black other agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1
antipeer

chi2(11) = 116.03
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

. estat hettest

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: fitted values of hsgpa

chi2(1) = 93.56
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

 In this case, because heteroskedasticity is easily detected, our

conclusions from these alternate BP tests are the same, but this is not
always the case.
Other versions of the Breusch-Pagan
test

 We can also use these commands to test whether

homoskedasticity can be rejected with respect to a subset of
the predictors:
. ivhettest hisp black other, nr2
OLS heteroskedasticity test(s) using user-supplied indicator variables
Ho: Disturbance is homoskedastic
White/Koenker nR2 test statistic : 2.838 Chi-sq(3) P-value =
0.4173

. estat hettest hisp black other

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: hisp black other

chi2(3) = 3.26
Prob > chi2 = 0.3532
 Tests for heteroskedasticity: White’s test,
complicated version

1) Regress Y on Xs and generate residuals,

square residuals
2) Regress squared residuals on Xs, squared Xs,
and cross-products of Xs (there will be
p=k*(k+3)/2 parameters in this auxiliary
regression, e.g. 11 Xs, 77 parameters!)
3) Reject homoskedasticity if test statistic (LM or
F for all parameters but intercept) is
statistically significant.
 With small datasets, the number of
parameters required for this test is too many.
 Tests for heteroskedasticity: White’s test,
simple version

1) Regress Y on Xs and generate residuals,

square residuals, fitted values, squared fitted
values
2) Regress squared residuals on fitted values
and squared fitted values:
uˆ   0  1 yˆ   2 yˆ  v
2 2

3) Reject homoskedasticity if test statistic (LM or

F) is statistically significant.
 Tests for heteroskedasticity: White’s test,
example

. reg r2 gpahat gpahat2

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 6574

-------------+------------------------------ F( 2, 6571) = 42.43
Model | 10.4222828 2 5.2111414 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 807.017224 6571 .122814979 R-squared = 0.0127
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0124
Total | 817.439507 6573 .124363229 Root MSE = .35045

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r2 | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
gpahat | .0454353 .0816119 0.56 0.578 -.1145505 .2054211
gpahat2 | -.023728 .0152931 -1.55 0.121 -.0537075 .0062515
_cons | .2866681 .1067058 2.69 0.007 .0774901 .4958461
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. di "LM=",e(r2)*e(N)
LM= 83.81793

. di chi2tail(2,83.81893)
6.294e-19

 Again, reject the null hypothesis.

 Tests for heteroskedasticity: White’s test

 This test is not sensitive to normality violations

 The complicated version of the White test can be found
using the “whitetst” command after running a
regression.

. whitetst

White's general test statistic : 223.1636

Chi-sq(72) P-value = 2.3e-17

 Note: the degrees of freedom is less than 77 because

some auxiliary variables are redundant and dropped
(e.g. the square of any dummy variable is itself).
 In-class exercise

 Work on questions 1 through 7 on the

heteroskedasticity worksheet.
 Fixes for heteroskedasticity

 Heteroskedasticity messes up our variances (and standard

errors) for parameter estimates
 Some methods tackle this problem by trying to model the
exact form of heteroskedasticity: weighted least squares
 Requires some model for heteroskedasticity.
 Re-estimates coefficients and standard errors
 Other methods do not deal with the form of the
heteroskedasticity, but try to estimate correct variances:
robust inference, bootstrapping
 Useful for heteroskedasticity of unknown form
 Adjusts standard errors only
 Fixes for heteroskedasticity:
heteroskedasticity-robust inference
n

 i
( x  x ) i
2 2
2  the ideal
var( ˆ ) 
1
i 1
2
 , if    i
i
2 2

SSTx SSTx
n

 i
( x  x ) uˆi
2 2

var( ˆ1 )  i 1  robust variance estimator

SSTx2

 The robust variance estimator is easy to calculate

post-estimation. It reduces to the standard variance
estimate under homoskedasticity.
 In Stata, obtaining this version of the variance is very
easy: “reg y x, robust”
Heteroskedasticity-robust inference,
example
. quietly reg hsgpa male hisp black other agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1
antipeer
. estimates store ols
. quietly reg hsgpa male hisp black other agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1
antipeer, robust
. estimates store robust
. estimates table ols robust, stat(r2 rmse) title("High school GPA models") b(%7.3g)
se(%6.3g) t(%7.3g)

High school GPA models

----------------------------------
Variable | ols robust
-------------+--------------------
male | -.157 -.157  parameter estimates, unchanged
| .0123 .0124  standard errors
| -12.8 -12.7  T-statistics
hisp | -.06 -.06
| .0174 .0173
| -3.44 -3.46
black | -.14 -.14
| .0153 .0157
| -9.17 -8.91
other | -.0282 -.0282
| .0187 .0186
| -1.51 -1.52
agedol | -.0105 -.0105
| .0048 .0048
| -2.19 -2.19
 Heteroskedasticity-robust inference,
example cont.
High school GPA models, cont. High school GPA models, cont.

---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Variable | ols robust Variable | ols robust
-------------+-------------------- -------------+--------------------
dfreq1 | -.00028 -.00028 antipeer | -.0167 -.0167
| 4.8e-04 5.4e-04 | .0042 .0043
| -.58 -.509 | -4.01 -3.9
schattach | .0216 .0216 _cons | 1.65 1.65
| .0032 .0034 | .074 .0752
| 6.76 6.4 | 22.3 21.9
msgpa | .409 .409 -------------+--------------------
| .0082 .0088 r2 | .506 .506
| 50.1 46.3 rmse | .483 .483
r_mk | .132 .132 ----------------------------------
| .0077 .0079 legend: b/se/t
| 17.1 16.6
income1 | 1.2e-06 1.2e-06 .
| 1.6e-07 1.5e-07
| 7.55 7.87
.
 Despite solid evidence for heteroskedasticity in this
model, very little changes when heteroskedasticity-
robust standard errors are calculated.
 Why did the estimates change so little?
 Heteroskedasticity-robust inference of
Lagrange multiplier
 The book outlines a very involved set of steps to obtain a Lagrange
Multiplier test that is robust to heteroskedasticity.
 We’ll go through these steps, testing whether hisp black and other are jointly
significant
1) Obtain residuals from restricted model
. quietly reg hsgpa male agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1 antipeer
. predict residuals
2) Regress each excluded independent variable on the included independent
variables, generate residuals
. quietly reg hisp male agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1
antipeer
. predict rhisp, r
. quietly reg black male agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1
antipeer
. predict rblack, r
. quietly reg other male agedol dfreq1 schattach msgpa r_mk income1
antipeer
. predict rother, r
3) Generate products of residuals from restricted model and residuals from
each auxiliary regression
. gen phisp=residuals*rhisp
. gen pblack=residuals*rblack
. gen pother=residuals*rother
 Heteroskedasticity-robust inference of
Lagrange multiplier
4) Regress 1 on these three products without a constant, N-SSR~χ2 with q
degrees of freedom
. gen one=1
. reg one phisp pblack pother, noc
. di e(N)-e(rss)
79.289801
. di chi2tail(3,79.289801)
4.359e-17
 Based on this test, we’d reject the null that hisp black and other are jointly
equal to zero.
 Another much easier option for heteroskedasticity-robust tests of joint
restrictions is to run F-tests after a regression model with robust standard
errors
. quietly reg hsgpa male hisp black other agedol dfreq1
schattach msgpa r_mk income1 antipeer, robust
. test hisp black other
( 1) hisp = 0
( 2) black = 0
( 3) other = 0
F( 3, 6562) = 27.01
Prob > F = 0.0000
 Obtaining standard errors with
bootstrapping
Bootstrapping (Wooldredge, pp. 223-4)
 In general, if the distribution of some statistic is unknown,
bootstrapping can yield confidence intervals free of
distributional assumptions.
 It resamples the dataset with replacement and re-
estimates the statistic of interest many times (~1000 is
good).
 Conceptually equivalent to drawing many random
samples from the population.
 The standard deviation of the statistic of interest from the
replications is the standard error of the statistic in the
original model.
 This is incorporated into the regress function in Stata
 . reg y x, vce(bs, r(N))
 N is the number of replications
 Obtaining standard errors with
bootstrapping
Bootstrapping (Wooldredge, pp. 223-4)
 If you are using bootstrapping for a paper, before the
bootstrap, use the “set seed N” command where N is
any particular number. Otherwise, you’ll get different
results every time.
 You can also bootstrap other statistics with no obvious
distribution, just in case you wanted a confidence interval
for them
 . bs e(r2), r(1000): reg Y X
 . bs e(rmse), r(1000): reg Y X
 . bs r(p50), r(1000): summarize hsgpa, detail
 Obtaining standard errors with
bootstrapping
Bootstrapping (Wooldredge, pp. 223-4
 After bootstrapping, we can get more information
using the command “estat bootstrap, all”
 For each statistic, this reports the following:
 “bias” : the mean of the bootstrapped estimates minus
the estimate from our original model.
 Normal confidence interval, as reported before
 Percentile confidence interval: limits defined by 2.5th
and 97.5th percentiles of the boostrapped estimates
 Bias-corrected confidence interval: normal confidence
interval minus bias
 Modeling heteroskedasticity, weighted least
squares

 When heteroskedasticity is present, we know that

the variance of our error term depends on some
function of our Xs

Var (u | x)   h( x)
2

 Usually, h(x) is unknown, but if it were known, we

could undo it by multiplying the regression
equation by the inverse of square root h(x)
 This strategy tries to re-weight each observation
to “undo” heteroskedasticity.
 Modeling heteroskedasticity, weighted least
squares

 Suppose, in the high school gpa regression, we

believe that heteroskedasticity is a function of
middle school gpa.
 In OLS we minimize the squared error, in WLS we
minimize the weighted squared error
 We try to choose the weight such that variance is
constant
 So, if middle school gpa is causing
heteroskedasticity in our regression model, we
can adjust it as follows:
 Modeling heteroskedasticity, weighted least
squares

 Transform each variable by dividing by the

square root of middle school gpa
 Also, create a new variable that is 1
divided by the square root of middle school
gpa
 Run a new regression with all the
transformed variables, and the new one,
without a constant term.
 Modeling heteroskedasticity, weighted
least squares
. gen con_ms=1/sqrt(msgpa)
. gen hsgpa_ms=hsgpa/sqrt(msgpa)
. gen male_ms=male/sqrt(msgpa)
. . . . etc
. reg hsgpa_ms con_ms male_ms hisp_ms black_ms other_ms agedol_ms dfreq1_ms schattach_ms msgpa_ms r_mk_ms i
> ncome1_ms antipeer_ms, noc

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 6574

-------------+------------------------------ F( 12, 6562) =13952.58
Model | 17706.3813 12 1475.53178 Prob > F = 0.0000
Residual | 693.95355 6562 .10575336 R-squared = 0.9623
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.9622
Total | 18400.3349 6574 2.79895572 Root MSE = .3252

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hsgpa_ms | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
con_ms | 1.751627 .0751105 23.32 0.000 1.604386 1.898868
male_ms | -.1602267 .0129001 -12.42 0.000 -.1855151 -.1349384
hisp_ms | -.0377276 .0182012 -2.07 0.038 -.0734079 -.0020472
black_ms | -.1319019 .0157097 -8.40 0.000 -.1626981 -.1011057
other_ms | -.0305844 .0195973 -1.56 0.119 -.0690015 .0078327
agedol_ms | -.0121919 .0050095 -2.43 0.015 -.0220121 -.0023717
dfreq1_ms | -2.45e-07 .0004347 -0.00 1.000 -.0008525 .000852
schattach_ms | .022701 .0032899 6.90 0.000 .0162516 .0291503
msgpa_ms | .377467 .0075196 50.20 0.000 .362726 .3922079
r_mk_ms | .1167528 .0079359 14.71 0.000 .1011959 .1323097
income1_ms | 1.14e-06 1.75e-07 6.50 0.000 7.96e-07 1.48e-06
antipeer_ms | -.0195269 .0042784 -4.56 0.000 -.027914 -.0111397
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Modeling heteroskedasticity, weighted
least squares

 Equivalently (and with much less room for mistakes):

. gen weight=1/msgpa
. reg hsgpa male hisp black other agedol dfreq1
schattach msgpa r_mk income1 antipeer
[aweight=weight]
 The chances that we actually correctly modeled the
form of heteroskedasticity are pretty low, but there’s
no reason we can’t estimate weighted least squares
with standard errors robust to unknown forms of
heteroskedasticity
. reg hsgpa male hisp black other agedol dfreq1
schattach msgpa r_mk income1 antipeer
[aweight=weight], robust
 Modeling heteroskedasticity, feasible
general least squares (FGLS)

 In practice, exactly modeling h(x) is infeasible.

 FGLS is a feasible alternative to exactly modeling
h(x)
 It assumes that h(x) is always positive, and of some
unknown function of Xs
h( X )   2 exp( 0  1 x1  ...   k xk )

 Resulting estimates are biased but efficient, and

have correct t- and F-statistics.
 Modeling heteroskedasticity, feasible
general least squares (FGLS)

1) Regress y on Xs, obtain residuals.

2) Create log(uˆ 2
) by logging squared
residuals.
3) Regress logged squared residuals on Xs,
obtain fitted values
4) Exponentiate fitted values
5) Re-estimate original equation with
1/exponentiated fitted values as analytic
weight
 Caveats

 All of the preceding assumes that our initial

model meets the regression assumptions
MLR1 through MLR4.
 If this is not the case, we can’t fix the
heteroskedasticity problem, we have other
issues to deal with.
 Power: if you have little power in your
regression (small sample size), you have
little power to uncover heteroskedasticity
 Conversely, much power = easy to discover
heteroskedasticity, but might not matter
 In-class exercise, continued

 Questions 8 through 10
 Next time:

Homework 9 Problems C8.2, C8.4, C8.6 due 10/21

Read: Wooldridge Chapter 9