2011
DOI: 10.1002/for.1239
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nelson–Siegel, Affine and Quadratic Yield Curve Specifications: Which One is Better at Forecasting?

Abstract: 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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(68 reference statements)
0
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, there are improvements in the NS‐based models as the forecast horizon lengthens, especially by the NLS method using the monthly data. Our findings are in contrast to some studies (such as Diebold & Li, 2006, and Nyholm & Vidova‐Koleva, 2012) that the NS‐based models outperform the RW when liquidity trap is not present. However, our results are largely consistent with respect to Steeley (2014), who reports that simple competitor models (in particular, the RW model) seem to provide better out‐of‐sample forecasts in the presence of liquidity trap.…”
Section: Out‐of‐sample Forecastscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…However, there are improvements in the NS‐based models as the forecast horizon lengthens, especially by the NLS method using the monthly data. Our findings are in contrast to some studies (such as Diebold & Li, 2006, and Nyholm & Vidova‐Koleva, 2012) that the NS‐based models outperform the RW when liquidity trap is not present. However, our results are largely consistent with respect to Steeley (2014), who reports that simple competitor models (in particular, the RW model) seem to provide better out‐of‐sample forecasts in the presence of liquidity trap.…”
Section: Out‐of‐sample Forecastscontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the practical relevance of the Nelson-Siegel framework is witnessed by the fact that some of the main financial institutions as the International Monetary Fund (Gasha et al [54]), the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve (Moench [55], Bolotnyy [56]) rely on it for their studies and activities. Nyholm and Vidova-Koleva [57] confirm that the best out-of-sample performance is generated by three-factor affine models and the dynamic Nelson-Siegel model variants, while quadratic models provide the best in-sample fit.…”
Section: Background On Estimating and Forecasting Models Of Interest mentioning
confidence: 85%
“…relative factors based on principal components, the random walk or AR (1) model of exchange rates) [11]. Such an extension would be along the lines of recent studies, notably Nyholm and Vidova–Koleva (2012) and Steeley (2014), which evaluate the out-of-sample forecast performance of contending models of the yield curve. .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%