2004
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.641481
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Aggregation Bias in Fixed-Event Forecast Efficiency Tests

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It should be noted that the pooled approach is different from testing efficiency on the consensus forecast. Efficiency tests on the consensus forecast are known to be biased due to aggregation bias (Isiklar 2005). This is why we do not consider the consensus for the efficiency test.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that the pooled approach is different from testing efficiency on the consensus forecast. Efficiency tests on the consensus forecast are known to be biased due to aggregation bias (Isiklar 2005). This is why we do not consider the consensus for the efficiency test.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Garrett (2003) derives the theoretical conditions under which the magnitudes of the estimates and the standard errors can be different when the regression analysis uses aggregated versus disaggregated data. Various areas of literature including macroeconomics (e.g., Blis, 1985;Ravallion, 1998), the economics of crime (e.g., Cherry & List, 2002;Cornwell & Trumbell, 1994), demand analysis (e.g., Davis, 1997;Mittelhammer, Shi, & Wahl, 1996), forecasting (e.g., Isiklar, 2005), discrimination (Mongeon & Mittelhammer, 2013), and econometrics (e.g., Choi, 1992;Lee, Pesaran, & Pierse, 1990) have found implications in their empirical findings derived from analyzing aggregated data. Unfortunately, I only have one season of game-level data.…”
Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mittelhammer et al, 1996;Davis, 1997), forecasting (e.g. Isiklar, 2005) and econometrics (e.g. Lee et al, 1990;Choi, 1992), to name but a few.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%