Explore the vast range of titles available.

The mean absolute error of the official tropical cyclone (TC) intensity forecasts from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) shows limited evidence of improvement over the past two decades. This result has sometimes erroneously been used to conclude that little or no progress has been made in the TC intensity guidance models. This article documents statistically significant improvements in operational TC intensity guidance over the past 24 years (1989–2012) in four tropical cyclone basins (Atlantic, eastern North Pacific, western North Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere). Errors from the best available model have decreased at 1%–2% yr−1at 24–72 h, with faster improvement rates at 96 and 120 h. Although these rates are only about one-third to one-half of the rates of reduction of the track forecast models, most are statistically significant at the 95% level. These error reductions resulted from improvements in statistical–dynamical intensity models and consensus techniques that combine information from statistical–dynamical and dynamical models. The reason that the official NHC and JTWC intensity forecast errors have decreased slower than the guidance errors is because in the first half of the analyzed period, their subjective forecasts were more accurate than any of the available guidance. It is only in the last decade that the objective intensity guidance has become accurate enough to influence the NHC and JTWC forecast errors.

Academic research relies extensively on macroeconomic variables to forecast the U.S. equity risk premium, with relatively little attention paid to the technical indicators widely employed by practitioners. Our paper fills this gap by comparing the predictive ability of technical indicators with that of macroeconomic variables. Technical indicators display statistically and economically significant in-sample and out-of-sample predictive power, matching or exceeding that of macroeconomic variables. Furthermore, technical indicators and macroeconomic variables provide complementary information over the business cycle: technical indicators better detect the typical decline in the equity risk premium near business-cycle peaks, whereas macroeconomic variables more readily pick up the typical rise in the equity risk premium near cyclical troughs. Consistent with this behavior, we show that combining information from both technical indicators and macroeconomic variables significantly improves equity risk premium forecasts versus using either type of information alone. Overall, the substantial countercyclical fluctuations in the equity risk premium appear well captured by the combined information in technical indicators and macroeconomic variables. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1838 . This paper was accepted by Wei Jiang, finance.

Typically, point forecasting methods are compared and assessed by means of an error measure or scoring function, with the absolute error and the squared error being key examples. The individual scores are averaged over forecast cases, to result in a summary measure of the predictive performance, such as the mean absolute error or the mean squared error. I demonstrate that this common practice can lead to grossly misguided inferences, unless the scoring function and the forecasting task are carefully matched. Effective point forecasting requires that the scoring function be specified ex ante, or that the forecaster receives a directive in the form of a statistical functional, such as the mean or a quantile of the predictive distribution. If the scoring function is specified ex ante, the forecaster can issue the optimal point forecast, namely, the Bayes rule. If the forecaster receives a directive in the form of a functional, it is critical that the scoring function be consistent for it, in the sense that the expected score is minimized when following the directive. A functional is elicitable if there exists a scoring function that is strictly consistent for it. Expectations, ratios of expectations and quantiles are elicitable. For example, a scoring function is consistent for the mean functional if and only if it is a Bregman function. It is consistent for a quantile if and only if it is generalized piecewise linear. Similar characterizations apply to ratios of expectations and to expectiles. Weighted scoring functions are consistent for functionals that adapt to the weighting in peculiar ways. Not all functionals are elicitable; for instance, conditional value-at-risk is not, despite its popularity in quantitative finance.

The main goal of this article is to provide an answer to the question: does anything forecast exchange rates, and if so, which variables? It is well known that exchange rate fluctuations are very difficult to predict using economic models, and that a random walk forecasts exchange rates better than any economic model (the Meese and Rogoff puzzle). However, the recent literature has identified a series of fundamentals/methodologies that claim to have resolved the puzzle. This article provides a critical review of the recent literature on exchange rate forecasting and illustrates the new methodologies and fundamentals that have been recently proposed in an up-to-date, thorough empirical analysis. Overall, our analysis of the literature and the data suggests that the answer to the question: \"Are exchange rates predictable?\" is, \"It depends\"—on the choice of predictor, forecast horizon, sample period, model, and forecast evaluation method. Predictability is most apparent when one or more of the following hold: the predictors are Taylor rule or net foreign assets, the model is linear, and a small number of parameters are estimated. The toughest benchmark is the random walk without drift.

Five university-based research groups competed to recruit forecasters, elicit their predictions, and aggregate those predictions to assign the most accurate probabilities to events in a 2-year geopolitical forecasting tournament. Our group tested and found support for three psychological drivers of accuracy: training, teaming, and tracking. Probability training corrected cognitive biases, encouraged forecasters to use reference classes, and provided forecasters with heuristics, such as averaging when multiple estimates were available. Teaming allowed forecasters to share information and discuss the rationales behind their beliefs. Tracking placed the highest performers (top 2% from Year 1) in elite teams that worked together. Results showed that probability training, team collaboration, and tracking improved both calibration and resolution. Forecasting is often viewed as a statistical problem, but forecasts can be improved with behavioral interventions. Training, teaming, and tracking are psychological interventions that dramatically increased the accuracy of forecasts. Statistical algorithms (reported elsewhere) improved the accuracy of the aggregation. Putting both statistics and psychology to work produced the best forecasts 2 years in a row.

We propose a new approach to test the full-information rational expectations hypothesis which can identify whether rejections of the null arise from information rigidities. This approach quantifies the economic significance of departures from the null and the underlying degree of information rigidity. Applying this approach to US and international data of professional forecasters and other agents yields pervasive evidence consistent with the presence of information rigidities. These results therefore provide a set of stylized facts which can be used to calibrate imperfect information models. Finally, we document evidence of state-dependence in the expectations formation process.

This paper investigates the relation between growth forecast errors and planned fiscal consolidation during the crisis. We find that, in advanced economies, stronger planned fiscal consolidation has been associated with lower growth than expected. The relation is particularly strong, both statistically and economically, early in the crisis. A natural interpretation is that fiscal multipliers were substantially higher than implicitly assumed by forecasters. The weaker relation in more recent years may in part reflect learning by forecasters and in part smaller multipliers than in the early years of the crisis.

A lot. We derive common and conflicting predictions from models in which agents face information constraints and then assess their validity using surveys of consumers, firms, central bankers, and professional forecasters. We document that mean forecasts fail to completely adjust on impact to shocks, leading to statistically and economically significant deviations from the null of full information. The dynamics of forecast errors after shocks are consistent with the predictions of models with information rigidities. The conditional responses of forecast errors and disagreement among agents can also be used to differentiate between some of the most prominent models of information rigidities.

We forecast quarterly US inflation based on the generalized Phillips curve using econometric methods that incorporate dynamic model averaging. These methods not only allow for coefficients to change over time, but also allow for the entire forecasting model to change over time. We find that dynamic model averaging leads to substantial forecasting improvements over simple benchmark regressions and more sophisticated approaches such as those using time varying coefficient models. We also provide evidence on which sets of predictors are relevant for forecasting in each period.

Investors, regulators, academics, and researchers all emphasize the importance of financial statement comparability. However, an empirical construct of comparability is typically not specified. In addition, little evidence exists on the benefits of comparability to users. This study attempts to fill these gaps by developing a measure of financial statement comparability. Empirically, this measure is positively related to analyst following and forecast accuracy, and negatively related to analysts' dispersion in earnings forecasts. These results suggest that financial statement comparability lowers the cost of acquiring information, and increases the overall quantity and quality of information available to analysts about the firm.