2014
DOI: 10.5539/ibr.v7n4p84
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Random Walk or Switching Regimes in Stock Prices? Evidence from Out-of-Sample Forecasts

Abstract: We use monthly observations on general stock price indices, over January 2001-August 2013, in order to assess simple stochastic time series models in terms of out-of-sample forecasts. Specifically, we examine the relative strength of out-of-sample forecasts of a random walk, with and without drift, against that of a non-linear segmented trends model where the switch between states is governed by a Markov chain. The forecasting performance of these processes is assessed by the root mean squared error of short-a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
(6 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, rolling estimation of the models through the post-sample window and up to March 2022 delivers 40 1-month-ahead forecasts, 39 2-month, 38 3-month, 37 4-month, 36 5-month, and 35 6-month forecasts, whose RMSE are reported in Table 5, for all processes considered. These results reveal that structural VAR and Markov forecasts are equally good and even better than naive predictions for almost all Hypotheses in the Johansen test are nested and a "*" indicates the first non-rejection where one should stop when reading from left to right (see Johansen, 1992;Kirikos, 1996). The null hypothesis in the Engle-Granger test (Engle & Granger, 1987) is that the series are not cointegrated and the number in parenthesis next to the τ-statistic is the p-value.…”
Section: Data and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus, rolling estimation of the models through the post-sample window and up to March 2022 delivers 40 1-month-ahead forecasts, 39 2-month, 38 3-month, 37 4-month, 36 5-month, and 35 6-month forecasts, whose RMSE are reported in Table 5, for all processes considered. These results reveal that structural VAR and Markov forecasts are equally good and even better than naive predictions for almost all Hypotheses in the Johansen test are nested and a "*" indicates the first non-rejection where one should stop when reading from left to right (see Johansen, 1992;Kirikos, 1996). The null hypothesis in the Engle-Granger test (Engle & Granger, 1987) is that the series are not cointegrated and the number in parenthesis next to the τ-statistic is the p-value.…”
Section: Data and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…The null hypothesis for the Johansen test is that there are at most r linearly independent cointegrating vectors and critical values at the 5% significance level (see Osterwald‐Lenum, 1992) are given below r . Hypotheses in the Johansen test are nested and a “*” indicates the first non‐rejection where one should stop when reading from left to right (see Johansen, 1992; Kirikos, 1996). The null hypothesis in the Engle–Granger test (Engle & Granger, 1987) is that the series are not cointegrated and the number in parenthesis next to the τ ‐statistic is the p ‐value.…”
Section: Data and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%