Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may IntroductionThere is a long-standing debate whether the equity premium is predictable or not.Whereas predictability seemed to be largely accepted for some time (e.g., Campbell and Shiller, 1988a,b, Fama and French, 1988, 1989, Cochrane, 2008, Goyal and Welch (2008) present strong evidence challenging the view of predictability. They show that standard economic indicators used for predicting equity returns perform poorly over time which is at least partly due to instability issues. In particular, a large share of the forecasting performance arises from the period up to the early 1970s but there is little evidence of predictability in later decades. Seen from this perspective, many earlier results in favor of predictability may be driven by specific samples but do not suggest systematic return predictability. Thus it is our prime goal to examine the stability of predictive performance that forecasting indicators deliver over time.There are two recent developments which further motivate our analysis. (iv) In order to account for instability in the forecasting process (as indicated by the Goyal and Welch-approach and break tests), we propose to neglect data from the distant past.Instead of using a fixed starting point and enlarging the sample period from there on (see Goyal and Welch, 2003, 2008), we use a fixed end-point and shorten the sample by successively shifting the initial estimation period through time; thereby we examine hundreds of overlapping sub-periods. This procedure introduces the idea of rolling windows but avoids unreliable results from a standard rolling window approach. Results confirm that economic indicators do not generate stable forecasting power (Goyal and Welch, 2008), also not at recent periods. By contrast, we show that technical indicators can forecast the equity premium even until the most recent decades.(v) Finally, we apply this rolling recursive approach to assess the stability of forecasts by utility-based metrics. More specifically, we consider a mean-variance investor who optimizes his risk-return profile depending on the predicted equity premium. Performance is determined by the certainty equivalent return and the Sharpe ratio using various risk-aversion coefficients, transaction costs and constraints on portfolio weights. We find that technical 3 indicators are able to beat alternative investment strategies in almost all relevant cases, in particular during most sub-periods. By c...
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may IntroductionThere is a long-standing debate whether the equity premium is predictable or not.Whereas predictability seemed to be largely accepted for some time (e.g., Campbell and Shiller, 1988a,b, Fama and French, 1988, 1989, Cochrane, 2008, Goyal and Welch (2008) present strong evidence challenging the view of predictability. They show that standard economic indicators used for predicting equity returns perform poorly over time which is at least partly due to instability issues. In particular, a large share of the forecasting performance arises from the period up to the early 1970s but there is little evidence of predictability in later decades. Seen from this perspective, many earlier results in favor of predictability may be driven by specific samples but do not suggest systematic return predictability. Thus it is our prime goal to examine the stability of predictive performance that forecasting indicators deliver over time.There are two recent developments which further motivate our analysis. (iv) In order to account for instability in the forecasting process (as indicated by the Goyal and Welch-approach and break tests), we propose to neglect data from the distant past.Instead of using a fixed starting point and enlarging the sample period from there on (see Goyal and Welch, 2003, 2008), we use a fixed end-point and shorten the sample by successively shifting the initial estimation period through time; thereby we examine hundreds of overlapping sub-periods. This procedure introduces the idea of rolling windows but avoids unreliable results from a standard rolling window approach. Results confirm that economic indicators do not generate stable forecasting power (Goyal and Welch, 2008), also not at recent periods. By contrast, we show that technical indicators can forecast the equity premium even until the most recent decades.(v) Finally, we apply this rolling recursive approach to assess the stability of forecasts by utility-based metrics. More specifically, we consider a mean-variance investor who optimizes his risk-return profile depending on the predicted equity premium. Performance is determined by the certainty equivalent return and the Sharpe ratio using various risk-aversion coefficients, transaction costs and constraints on portfolio weights. We find that technical 3 indicators are able to beat alternative investment strategies in almost all relevant cases, in particular during most sub-periods. By c...
A variety of recent studies provide a skeptical view on the predictability of stock returns. Empirical evidence shows that most prediction models suffer from a loss of information, model uncertainty, and structural instability by relying on lowdimensional information sets. In this study, we evaluate the predictive ability of various lately refined forecasting strategies, which handle these issues by incorporating information from many potential predictor variables simultaneously. We investigate whether forecasting strategies that (i) combine information and (ii) combine individual forecasts are useful to predict US stock returns, that is, the market excess return, size, value, and the momentum premium. Our results show that methods combining information have remarkable in-sample predictive ability. However, the out-of-sample performance suffers from highly volatile forecast errors. Forecast combinations face a better bias-efficiency trade-off, yielding a consistently superior forecast performance for the market excess return and the size premium even after the 1970s.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.