Sunday, July 1, 2012

Are Some Forecasters Really Better Than Others?

From the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, (D'Agostino, McQuinn, and Whelan), the paper "Are Some Forecasters Really Better Than Others?" is entertaining.  (Sadly, not many easy-to-excerpt figures).  The abstract:

In any data set with individual forecasts of economic variables, some forecasters will perform better than others. However, it is possible that these ex post differences reflect sampling variation and thus overstate the ex ante differences between forecasters. In this paper, we present a simple test of the null hypothesis that all forecasters in the U.S. Survey of Professional Forecasters have equal ability. We construct a test statistic that reflects both the relative and absolute performance of the forecaster and use bootstrap techniques to compare the empirical results with the equivalents obtained under the null hypothesis of equal forecaster ability. Results suggest little support for the idea that the best forecasters are actually innately better than others, though there is evidence that a relatively small group of forecasters perform very poorly.
Corrections believes it.

No comments:

Post a Comment