2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2007.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How far ahead can we forecast? Evidence from cross-country surveys

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
47
1
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
4
47
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This empirical observation leads us to believe that over these horizons, forecasters do not receive much dependable information to revise their forecasts systematically. Second, the initial 24-month ahead forecasts for all countries seem to be 6 Similar graphs for the evolution of real GDP consensus forecasts for the earlier years, i.e., 1991-2002 can be found in Isiklar and Lahiri (2007).…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 62%
“…This empirical observation leads us to believe that over these horizons, forecasters do not receive much dependable information to revise their forecasts systematically. Second, the initial 24-month ahead forecasts for all countries seem to be 6 Similar graphs for the evolution of real GDP consensus forecasts for the earlier years, i.e., 1991-2002 can be found in Isiklar and Lahiri (2007).…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 62%
“…We have learned that forecasts for a horizon longer than 12-18 months might not be valuable. (Vuchelen and Guitierrez, 2005b;Isiklar and Lahiri, 2007). We also know more the causes of bias.…”
Section: E What Have We Learned? 19mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The pattern of the errors can then provide a way of understanding the forecasters' learning process about the impact of this structural break. Isiklar and Lahiri (2007) use forecast revisions to explain the behavioral characteristics of forecasters, i.e. how they react to news and when is news important.…”
Section: E What Have We Learned? 19mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Depending on their experience, some forecasters may underreact or overreact to the arrival of new information without intention (Isiklar and Lahiri, 2007). Nordhaus (1987) discusses a scenario in which forecasters may wish to cultivate a reputation for producing stable forecasts and hence intentionally introduce errors that are irrelevant to the target.…”
Section: Implicit Forecast Errormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The magnitude of M SF R t|s,l can be interpreted as the amount of effort that forecasters made in the revision process, and −∆M SF E t|s,l measures the reward of the forecast revisions in terms of forecast accuracy. Isiklar and Lahiri (2007) compare the effort and reward to assess whether rational forecasters react to news in an optimal way. By allowing for an implicit error component contained in the multi-horizon forecasts, we extend their interpretation of the comparison.…”
Section: For Rational and Implicit Forecastsmentioning
confidence: 99%