Combining exchange rate forecasts: What is the optimal consensus measure?

In this paper a high-quality disaggregate database is utilized to examine whether individual forecasters produce efficient exchange rate predictions and also if the properties of the forecasts change when they are combined. The paper links a number of themes in the exchange rate literature and examines various methods of forecast combination. It is demonstrated, inter alia, that some forecasters are better than others, but that most are not as good as a naive no-change prediction. Combining forecasts adds to the accuracy of the predictions, but the gains mainly reflect the removal of systematic and unstable bias.     

Composite model building for foreign exchange rates

It has been shown in recent economic and statistical studies that composite forecasts may produce more accurate forecasts than individual ones. The purpose of this study is to develop composite forecasting models that may produce forecasts superior to the individual forecast implicit in forward exchange rates. In an efficient market one would expect to find little improvement with the composite models relative to the forward exchange rate.     

Forecast comparisons of four models of U.S. interest rates

In this paper we compare the out of sample forecasts from four alternative interest rate models based on expanding information sets. The random walk model is the most restrictive. The univariate time series model allows for a richer dynamic pattern and more conditioning information on own rates. The multivariate time series model permits a flexible dynamic pattern with own- and cross-series information. Finally, the forecasts from the MPS econometric model depend on the full model structure and information set. In theory, more information is preferred to less. In practice, complicated misspecified models can perform much worse than simple (also probably misspecified) models. For forecasts evaluated over the volatile 1970s the multivariate time series model forecasts are considerably better than those from simpler models which use less conditioning information, as well as forecasts from the MPS model which uses substantially more conditioning information but also imposes ‘structural’ economic restrictions.     

Daily FX Volatility Forecasts: Can the GARCH(1,1) Model be Beaten using High‐Frequency Data?

Volatility forecasting remains an active area of research with no current consensus as to the model that provides the most accurate forecasts, though Hansen and Lunde (2005) have argued that in the context of daily exchange rate returns nothing can beat a GARCH(1,1) model. This paper extends that line of research by utilizing intra‐day data and obtaining daily volatility forecasts from a range of models based upon the higher‐frequency data. The volatility forecasts are appraised using four different measures of ‘true’ volatility and further evaluated using regression tests of predictive power, forecast encompassing and forecast combination. Our results show that the daily GARCH(1,1) model is largely inferior to all other models, whereas the intra‐day unadjusted‐data GARCH(1,1) model generally provides superior forecasts compared to all other models. Hence, while it appears that a daily GARCH(1,1) model can be beaten in obtaining accurate daily volatility forecasts, an intra‐day GARCH(1,1) model cannot be. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Relative accuracy of judgemental and extrapolative methods in forecasting annual earnings

This paper identifies and analyses previously published studies on annual earnings forecasts. Comparisons of forecasts produced by management, analysts, and extrapolative techniques indicated that: (1) management forecasts were superior to professional analyst forecasts (the mean absolute percentage errors were 15.9 and 17.7, respectively, based on five studies using data from 1967–1974) and (2) judgemental forecasts (both management and analysts) were superior to extrapolation forecasts on 14 of 17 comparisons from 13 studies using data from 1964–1979 (the mean absolute percentage errors were 21.0 and 28.4 for judgement and extrapolation, respectively). These conclusions, based on recent research, differ from those reported in previous reviews, which commented on less than half of the studies identified here.