Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 4 publications
References 0 publications
Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp07058.pdf Non-technical summaryThe last decade has seen marked economic fluctuations in the major industrial countries, which regularly present business cycle forecasters with a challenge. In this paper we are interested in how professional forecasters managed to predict GDP and price developments during the last decade. To this end, we explore the accuracy and evolution of the Consensus Forecast for twelve industrial countries for the years 1996 to 2006. This pooled forecast has the main advantage that it offers monthly publications of revised forecasts for the current and the next year, so that an explicit revision process of 24 forecasts for every target year can be observed.The theoretical and econometric analysis is based on the framework of Davies and Lahiri (1995) and Clements et al. (2006). The latter employ a pooling procedure which permits the evaluation of all forecasts for each target variable over 24 horizons simultaneously. Adopting this methodology allows us to draw conclusions on evaluating systematic forecast bias and, by applying a test on the predictability of forecast revisions, on the efficient use of new information for all forecast horizons jointly. It is shown how the pooled approach needs to be adjusted in order to accommodate the forecasting scheme of the Consensus Forecasts.Furthermore, the pooled approach is extended by a sequential test with the purpose of detecting the critical horizon beyond which the forecast should be regarded as biased.Moreover, we show how the pooled tests for the predictability of forecast revisions can be improved by taking heteroscedasticity in the form of target year-specific variances of macroeconomic shocks into account.In the empirical part we first present results in the form of analytical confidence intervals surrounding the horizon-specific bias estimates which allow intuitive and meaningful interpretations. The test for common bias reveals that several countries show biased forecasts, especially with forecasts covering more than 12 months. These results partially confirm the presumption that the macroeconomic forecasts for the past 10 years were severely affected by the pronounced shocks in that period. The fact that for individual countries systematic biases can be observed by applying the Consensus Forecasts reveals that in these countries the forecasting industry on the whole was not able to cope with the shoc...
Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp07058.pdf Non-technical summaryThe last decade has seen marked economic fluctuations in the major industrial countries, which regularly present business cycle forecasters with a challenge. In this paper we are interested in how professional forecasters managed to predict GDP and price developments during the last decade. To this end, we explore the accuracy and evolution of the Consensus Forecast for twelve industrial countries for the years 1996 to 2006. This pooled forecast has the main advantage that it offers monthly publications of revised forecasts for the current and the next year, so that an explicit revision process of 24 forecasts for every target year can be observed.The theoretical and econometric analysis is based on the framework of Davies and Lahiri (1995) and Clements et al. (2006). The latter employ a pooling procedure which permits the evaluation of all forecasts for each target variable over 24 horizons simultaneously. Adopting this methodology allows us to draw conclusions on evaluating systematic forecast bias and, by applying a test on the predictability of forecast revisions, on the efficient use of new information for all forecast horizons jointly. It is shown how the pooled approach needs to be adjusted in order to accommodate the forecasting scheme of the Consensus Forecasts.Furthermore, the pooled approach is extended by a sequential test with the purpose of detecting the critical horizon beyond which the forecast should be regarded as biased.Moreover, we show how the pooled tests for the predictability of forecast revisions can be improved by taking heteroscedasticity in the form of target year-specific variances of macroeconomic shocks into account.In the empirical part we first present results in the form of analytical confidence intervals surrounding the horizon-specific bias estimates which allow intuitive and meaningful interpretations. The test for common bias reveals that several countries show biased forecasts, especially with forecasts covering more than 12 months. These results partially confirm the presumption that the macroeconomic forecasts for the past 10 years were severely affected by the pronounced shocks in that period. The fact that for individual countries systematic biases can be observed by applying the Consensus Forecasts reveals that in these countries the forecasting industry on the whole was not able to cope with the shoc...
We estimate a Bayesian learning model with heterogeneity aimed at explaining the evolution of expert disagreement in forecasting real GDP growth and inflation over 24 monthly horizons for G7 countries during 1990-2007. Professional forecasters are found to begin and have relatively more success in predicting inflation than real GDP at significantly longer horizons; forecasts for real GDP contain little information beyond 6 quarters, but forecasts for inflation have predictive value beyond 24 months and even 36 months for some countries. Forecast disagreement arises from two primary sources in our model: differences in the initial prior beliefs of experts, and differences in the interpretation of new public information. Estimated model parameters, together with two separate case studies on (i) the dynamics of forecast disagreement in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack in the U.S. and (ii) the successful inflation targeting experience in Italy after 1997, firmly establish the importance of these two pathways to expert disagreement.
SummaryWe propose a state space modeling framework to evaluate a set of forecasts that target the same variable but are updated along the forecast horizon. The approach decomposes forecast errors into three distinct horizon-specific processes, namely, bias, rational error and implicit error, and attributes forecast revisions to corrections for these forecast errors. We derive the conditions under which forecasts that contain error that is irrelevant to the target can still present the second moment bounds of rational forecasts. By evaluating multi-horizon daily maximum temperature forecasts for Melbourne, Australia, we demonstrate how this modeling framework analyzes the dynamics of the forecast revision structure across horizons. Understanding forecast revisions is critical for weather forecast users to determine the optimal timing for their planning decision.JEL classification: C32; C53
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.
Contact Info
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
