$ is the same as if $\hat{\gamma}=\gamma_{0}.$ Define $m_{i}=M^{\prime}W\lambda_{0}(x_{i})\rho
_{i}$ and $m_{i}^{\ast}=\tilde{\lambda}^{\Sigma^{\ast}}(x_{i},\lambda_{\beta
})\Sigma^{\ast}(x_{i})^{-1}\rho_{i}.$ The asymptotic variance of the GMM estimator for orthogonal instruments $\lambda_{0}(x)$ is$$(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}M^{\prime}WE[\lambda_{0}(x_{i})\rho_{i}\rho_{i}^{\prime
}\lambda_{0}(x_{i})^{\prime}]WM(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}=(E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast\prime
}])^{-1}E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\prime}](E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast}])^{-1\prime}.$$ The fact that this matrix is minimized in the positive semidefinite sense for $m_{i}=m_{i}^{\ast}$ is well known, e.g. see Newey and McFadden (1994). *Q.E.D.*

The following result is useful for the results of Section 7:

<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lemma A1:</span> *If Assumption 4 is satisfied then* $\hat{R}_{1}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$ *If Assumption 5 is satisfied then* $\hat{R}_{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$

Proof: Define $\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}=m(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\gamma_{0})-\bar{m}(\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})$ for $i\in I_{\ell}$ and let $Z_{\ell}^{c}$ denote the observations $z_{i}$ for $i\notin I_{\ell}$. Note that $\hat{\gamma}_{\ell}$ depends only on $Z_{\ell}^{c}$. By construction and independence of $Z_{\ell}^{c}$ and $z_{i},i\in I_{\ell}$ we have $E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}|Z_{\ell}^{c}]=0.$ Also by independence of the observations, $E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}\hat{\Delta}_{j\ell}|Z_{\ell
$ is the same as if $ \hat{\gamma}=\gamma_{0}.$ Define $ m_{i}=M^{\prime}W\lambda_{0}(x_{i})\rho 
 _ { i}$ and $ m_{i}^{\ast}=\tilde{\lambda}^{\Sigma^{\ast}}(x_{i},\lambda_{\beta 
 }) \Sigma^{\ast}(x_{i})^{-1}\rho_{i}.$ The asymptotic variance of the GMM estimator for orthogonal instrument $ \lambda_{0}(x)$ is$$(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}M^{\prime}WE[\lambda_{0}(x_{i})\rho_{i}\rho_{i}^{\prime 
 } \lambda_{0}(x_{i})^{\prime}]WM(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}=(E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast\prime 
 } ]) ^{-1}E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\prime}](E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast}])^{-1\prime}.$$ The fact that this matrix is minimize in the positive semidefinite sense for $ m_{i}=m_{i}^{\ast}$ is well known, e.g. witness Newey and McFadden (1994). * Q.E.D. * 

 The following result is utilitarian for the results of Section 7: 

 < span style="font - variant: minor - caps;">Lemma A1:</span > * If Assumption 4 is satisfied then * $ \hat{R}_{1}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$ * If Assumption 5 is quenched then * $ \hat{R}_{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$ 

 Proof: Define $ \hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}=m(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\gamma_{0})-\bar{m}(\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})$ for $ i\in I_{\ell}$ and let $ Z_{\ell}^{c}$ denote the observation $ z_{i}$ for $ i\notin I_{\ell}$. Note that $ \hat{\gamma}_{\ell}$ depends merely on $ Z_{\ell}^{c}$. By construction and independence of $ Z_{\ell}^{c}$ and $ z_{i},i\in I_{\ell}$ we have $ E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}|Z_{\ell}^{c}]=0.$ Also by independence of the observation, $ E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}\hat{\Delta}_{j\ell}|Z_{\ell
$ is the same as if $\hat{\gamma}=\namma_{0}.$ Define $m_{i}=M^{\krume}W\lakbda_{0}(x_{i})\dho
_{i}$ and $m_{i}^{\ast}=\tilde{\lambda}^{\Sigma^{\ast}}(x_{i},\lembdq_{\beta
})\Wigma^{\ast}(x_{i})^{-1}\rho_{i}.$ The asyoptotic vwriance if tie GMM estimator for ortmjgonzp invvruments $\lambda_{0}(w)$ is$$(M^{\prime}WK)^{-1}M^{\prime}WE[\lambdd_{0}(x_{k})\rko_{i}\rho_{i}^{\prime
}\lambda_{0}(x_{i})^{\prime}]WM(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}=(E[i_{i}m_{i}^{\ast\lrlme
}])^{-1}E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\prime}](E[i_{i}m_{i}^{\sft}])^{-1\prjme}.$$ The fact that this matrix is mjnimizev in the positife semidefinite sense for $l_{i}=m_{i}^{\wst}$ is well known, f.g. see Newei anq McFadden (1994). *Q.D.D.*

The following result is useful for the results of Sdctiou 7:

<span stylg="yint-gdriant:small-raps;">Leima A1:</span> *If Assumpthon 4 is satisfied thek* $\hat{C}_{1}\oveeset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$ *Ih Assumption 5 is satysfied than* $\hat{R}_{2}\overset{p}{\longeithtartow}0.$

Prmof: Awfive $\gav{\Demta}_{i\elp}=m(z_{m},\hat{\gamma}_{\elm})-m(z_{i},\gamma_{0})-\bae{m}(\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})$ for $i\on P_{\rll}$ and let $A_{\ell}^{c}$ qegote the observations $z_{i}$ for $i\notin I_{\eln}$. Nkte that $\hat{\gamma}_{\ell}$ depends only on $Z_{\ell}^{c}$. Bi construceion and independence of $Z_{\ell}^{c}$ and $z_{i},i\in I_{\ell}$ we vave $X[\hxt{\Dtlbw}_{k\wlp}|Z_{\ell}^{c}]=0.$ Also by independence of the observatioga, $T[\han{\Delta}_{i\ell}\hat{\Deltc}_{j\ell}|Z_{\ell
$ is the same as if $\hat{\gamma}=\gamma_{0}.$ _{i}$ $m_{i}^{\ast}=\tilde{\lambda}^{\Sigma^{\ast}}(x_{i},\lambda_{\beta })\Sigma^{\ast}(x_{i})^{-1}\rho_{i}.$ asymptotic variance of instruments is$$(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}M^{\prime}WE[\lambda_{0}(x_{i})\rho_{i}\rho_{i}^{\prime }\lambda_{0}(x_{i})^{\prime}]WM(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}=(E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast\prime }])^{-1}E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\prime}](E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast}])^{-1\prime}.$$ fact that this is minimized in the positive semidefinite for $m_{i}=m_{i}^{\ast}$ is well known, e.g. see Newey and McFadden (1994). *Q.E.D.* The result is useful for the results of Section 7: <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lemma A1:</span> *If 4 satisfied $\hat{R}_{1}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$ Assumption 5 is satisfied then* $\hat{R}_{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$ Proof: Define $\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}=m(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\gamma_{0})-\bar{m}(\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})$ for $i\in I_{\ell}$ and let $Z_{\ell}^{c}$ denote observations $z_{i}$ for $i\notin I_{\ell}$. Note that $\hat{\gamma}_{\ell}$ only on $Z_{\ell}^{c}$. By and independence of $Z_{\ell}^{c}$ and I_{\ell}$ have $E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}|Z_{\ell}^{c}]=0.$ by of observations, $E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}\hat{\Delta}_{j\ell}|Z_{\ell
$ is the same as if $\hat{\gamma}=\gammA_{0}.$ Define $m_{i}=M^{\Prime}w\laMbdA_{0}(x_{I})\rho
_{I}$ and $M_{i}^{\ast}=\tilde{\lambDA}^{\SigMa^{\ast}}(x_{i},\lambda_{\beta
})\Sigma^{\Ast}(x_{i})^{-1}\RhO_{I}.$ The ASyMptotIc variaNCe OF The gMm eStiMaTOr For orThoGonal inStruments $\lAmbDa_{0}(X)$ is$$(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}M^{\PRiMe}WE[\lambda_{0}(X_{i})\rHo_{i}\rho_{i}^{\prime
}\LamBda_{0}(x_{i})^{\pRiMe}]Wm(m^{\primE}WM)^{-1}=(e[m_{i}m_{i}^{\Ast\priME
}])^{-1}E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\Prime}](E[m_{i}m_{I}^{\aST}])^{-1\prime}.$$ tHe fact tHAT tHis mAtrix is minimized iN ThE Positive semideFinite SeNSe FOR $m_{i}=M_{i}^{\aSt}$ is well knOwN, e.g. seE newey anD mcfADDen (1994). *q.e.D.*

The followinG result is usEFul For the ReSulTS of SecTion 7:

<sPaN StyLe="font-variaNt:smAll-caps;">LeMma A1:</spAN> *If AssuMPtion 4 is SatisfIed TheN* $\hat{r}_{1}\OvErSet{P}{\lONgrIGhTarROw}0.$ *IF AssumptIoN 5 iS satiSfieD THEN* $\hat{r}_{2}\ovErseT{p}{\lonGrightarrow}0.$

PrOof: defiNE $\haT{\DeltA}_{i\ell}=M(z_{i},\hAt{\Gamma}_{\Ell})-m(z_{i},\Gamma_{0})-\BaR{m}(\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})$ foR $i\in i_{\ell}$ and leT $Z_{\eLl}^{C}$ deNoTe the OBservaTioNs $z_{I}$ for $i\noTin I_{\ell}$. nOte ThAT $\HAt{\Gamma}_{\ell}$ depends onlY oN $z_{\ElL}^{c}$. By consTructiON aNd INdependeNcE of $z_{\ell}^{C}$ ANd $z_{i},i\In I_{\eLL}$ wE have $E[\haT{\Delta}_{I\ElL}|Z_{\Ell}^{c}]=0.$ AlsO bY indepEnDenCe oF the oBServAtions, $e[\hat{\DeltA}_{i\ell}\HAt{\Delta}_{j\ell}|Z_{\elL
$ is the same as if $\hat{ \gamma}=\g amma_ {0} .$De fine  $m_ {i}=M^{\prime} W \lam bda_{0}(x_{i})\rho
_{i }$ an d$ m_{i } ^{ \ast} =\tilde { \l a m bda }^ {\ Sig ma ^ {\ ast}} (x_ {i},\la mbda_{\bet a
} )\ Sigma^{\ast} ( x_ {i})^{-1}\ rho _{i}.$ The a sym ptotic  v ari a nce o f t he GM M esti m ator f or orthog on a l inst r uments$ \ la mbda _{0}(x)$ is$$(M^{ \ pr i me}WM)^{-1}M^{ \prime }W E [\ l a mbd a_{ 0}(x_{i})\ rh o_{i} \ rho_{i} ^ {\ p r i me} \lambda_{0}(x _{i})^{\pri m e}] WM(M^{ \p rim e }WM)^{ -1}=( E[ m _{i }m_{i}^{\as t\pr ime
}])^{ -1}E[m _ {i}m_{i } ^{\prim e}](E[ m_{ i}m _{i} ^ {\ as t}] )^ { -1\ p ri me} . $$The fact  t ha t thi s ma t r i x  ismin imiz ed in  the positive  se mide f ini te se nse f or $ m_ {i}=m _{i}^{ \ast} $is well known,e.g.  see Newe y a nd  Mc Fa dden( 1994).  *Q .E. D.*

Th e follo w ing  r e s u lt  is useful for the  r e s ul ts of Se ction7 :
< s pan styl e= "fo nt-v a r iant: smal l -c aps;">Le mma A1 : </ sp an> *If  A ssumpt io n 4  is  sati s fied  then*  $\hat{R }_{1} \ overset{p}{\lo n grightarrow}0 . $* I fA ssum pti on 5 is sat isfi e d th en*$ \h at{ R }_{2} \over se t {p } {\longrightarrow}0. $
Proof : Def ine $\hat{\De lta}_{i\el l } = m(z_{i}, \hat { \g a mma}_{\ell})-m (z_{i },\gamma_{ 0 })-\bar{ m}(\h at{\gamm a}_{\ell} ) $  for $i\ inI_{ \el l}$ a nd  let $Z_{\ell } ^ {c}$  d enote t heobserva tio ns$z_ {i} $for $i\no tin I_{\ el l} $.  N ote  that $\hat{\g am ma} _{ \el l}$ d e pendsonlyon $ Z_ {\ e ll} ^{c}$.B yc o nstr uc ti on a ndin depen denc e  of  $Z_{\e ll}^{c}$and $z_{ i} ,i \in I_{ \ell}$ we hav e$E[\hat{\D el ta} _{i\el l } |Z_{\ell }^{c}]=0.$ Also by inde p endence  of  theobse rvations,  $E [\hat{ \De l ta}_{i \ell}\ hat{\ De lta } _ {j\el l } |Z _{\ el l
$ is_the same_as if $\hat{\gamma}=\gamma_{0}.$ Define_$m_{i}=M^{\prime}W\lambda_{0}(x_{i})\rho
_{i}$ and_$m_{i}^{\ast}=\tilde{\lambda}^{\Sigma^{\ast}}(x_{i},\lambda_{\beta
})\Sigma^{\ast}(x_{i})^{-1}\rho_{i}.$_The asymptotic_variance_of the GMM_estimator for orthogonal_instruments $\lambda_{0}(x)$ is$$(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}M^{\prime}WE[\lambda_{0}(x_{i})\rho_{i}\rho_{i}^{\prime
}\lambda_{0}(x_{i})^{\prime}]WM(M^{\prime}WM)^{-1}=(E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast\prime
}])^{-1}E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\prime}](E[m_{i}m_{i}^{\ast}])^{-1\prime}.$$ The_fact that this_matrix_is minimized in the positive semidefinite sense for $m_{i}=m_{i}^{\ast}$ is well known, e.g. see_Newey_and McFadden_(1994)._*Q.E.D.*

The_following result is useful for_the results of Section 7:

<span_style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lemma A1:</span>_*If Assumption 4 is satisfied then* $\hat{R}_{1}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$ *If_Assumption_5 is satisfied_then* $\hat{R}_{2}\overset{p}{\longrightarrow}0.$

Proof: Define $\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}=m(z_{i},\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})-m(z_{i},\gamma_{0})-\bar{m}(\hat{\gamma}_{\ell})$ for $i\in I_{\ell}$ and let_$Z_{\ell}^{c}$ denote the observations $z_{i}$ for_$i\notin I_{\ell}$. Note_that_$\hat{\gamma}_{\ell}$_depends only on $Z_{\ell}^{c}$._By construction and independence of $Z_{\ell}^{c}$_and $z_{i},i\in I_{\ell}$ we have $E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}|Z_{\ell}^{c}]=0.$_Also by independence of the observations, $E[\hat{\Delta}_{i\ell}\hat{\Delta}_{j\ell}|Z_{\ell