Evaluating forecasts from SETAR models of exchange rates

We consider the forecasting performance of two SETAR exchange rate models proposed by Kräger and Kugler [J. Int. Money Fin. 12 (1993) 195]. Assuming that the models are good approximations to the data generating process, we show that whether the non-linearities inherent in the data can be exploited to forecast better than a random walk depends on both how forecast accuracy is assessed and on the ‘state of nature’. Evaluation based on traditional measures, such as (root) mean squared forecast errors, may mask the superiority of the non-linear models. Generalized impulse response functions are also calculated as a means of portraying the asymmetric response to shocks implied by such models.

Forecasting with difference and trend stationary models

Although difference-stationary (DS) and trend-stationary (TS) processes have been subject to considerable analysis, there are no direct comparisons for each being the data-generation process (DGP). We examine incorrect choice between these models for forecasting for both known and estimated parameters. Three sets of Monte Carlo simulations illustrate the analysis, to evaluate the biases in conventional standard errors when each model is mis-specified, compute the relative mean-square forecast errors of the two models for both DGPs, and investigate autocorrelated errors, so both models can better approximate the converse DGP. The outcomes are surprisingly different from established results.

Bootstrapping prediction intervals for autoregressive models

Methods of improving the coverage of Box–Jenkins prediction intervals for linear autoregressive models are explored. These methods use bootstrap techniques to allow for parameter estimation uncertainty and to reduce the small-sample bias in the estimator of the models’ parameters. In addition, we also consider a method of bias-correcting the non-linear functions of the parameter estimates that are used to generate conditional multi-step predictions.

An historical perspective on forecast errors

Using annual observations on industrial production over the last three centuries, and on GDP over a 100-year period, we seek an historical perspective on the forecastability of these UK output measures. The series are dominated by strong upward trends, so we consider various specifications of this, including the local linear trend structural time-series model, which allows the level and slope of the trend to vary. Our results are not unduly sensitive to how the trend in the series is modelled: the average sizes of the forecast errors of all models, and the wide span of prediction intervals, attests to a great deal of uncertainty in the economic environment. It appears that, from an historical perspective, the postwar period has been relatively more forecastable.

Robust evaluation of fixed-event forecast rationality

In this paper we introduce a new testing procedure for evaluating the rationality of fixed-event forecasts based on a pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator. The procedure is designed to be robust to departures in the normality assumption. A model is introduced to show that such departures are likely when forecasters experience a credibility loss when they make large changes to their forecasts. The test is illustrated using monthly fixed-event forecasts produced by four UK institutions. Use of the robust test leads to the conclusion that certain forecasts are rational while use of the Gaussian-based test implies that certain forecasts are irrational. The difference in the results is due to the nature of the underlying data. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.