Volatility permeates modern financial theories and decision making processes. As such, accurate measures and good forecasts of future volatility are critical for the implementation and evaluation of asset and derivative pricing theories as well as trading and hedging strategies. In response to this, a voluminous literature has emerged for modeling the temporal dependencies in financial market volatility at the daily and lower frequencies using ARCH and stochastic volatility type models. Most of these studies find highly significant in-sample parameter estimates and pronounced intertemporal volatility persistence. Meanwhile, when judged by standard forecast evaluation criteria, based on the squared or absolute returns over daily or longer forecast horizons, standard volatility models provide seemingly poor forecasts. The present paper demonstrates that, contrary to this contention, in empirically realistic situations the models actually produce strikingly accurate interdaily forecasts f...

Scoring rules assess the quality of probabilistic forecasts, by assigning a numerical score based on the predictive distribution and on the event or value that materializes. A scoring rule is proper if the forecaster maximizes the expected score for an observation drawn from the distribution F if he or she issues the probabilistic forecast F, rather than G ̸ = F. It is strictly proper if the maximum is unique. In prediction problems, proper scoring rules encourage the forecaster to make careful assessments and to be honest. In estimation problems, strictly proper scoring rules provide attractive loss and utility functions that can be tailored to the problem at hand. This article reviews and develops the theory of proper scoring rules on general probability spaces, and proposes and discusses examples thereof. Proper scoring rules derive from convex functions and relate to information measures, entropy functions, and Bregman divergences. In the case of categorical variables, we prove a rigorous version of the Savage representation. Examples of scoring rules for probabilistic forecasts in the form of predictive densities include the logarithmic, spherical, pseudospherical, and quadratic scores. The continuous ranked probability score applies to probabilistic forecasts that take the form of predictive cumulative distribution functions. It generalizes the absolute error and forms a special case of a new and very general type of score, the energy score. Like many other scoring rules, the energy score admits a kernel representation in terms of negative definite functions, with links to inequalities of Hoeffding type, in both univariate and multivariate settings. Proper scoring rules for quantile and interval forecasts are also discussed. We relate proper scoring rules to Bayes factors and to cross-validation, and propose a novel form of cross-validation known as random-fold cross-validation. A case study on probabilistic weather forecasts in the North American Pacific Northwest illustrates the importance of propriety. We note optimum score approaches to point and quantile

This paper is intended to address the deficiency by clearly defining what is meant by a "good" interval forecast, and describing how to test if a given interval forecast deserves the label "good". One of the motivations of Engle's (1982) classic paper was to form dynamic interval forecasts around point predictions. The insight was that the intervals should be narrow in tranquil times and wide in volatile times, so that the occurrences of observations outside the interval forecast would be spread out over the sample and not come in clusters. An interval forecast that 3 fails to account for higher-order dynamics may be correct on average (have correct unconditional coverage), but in any given period it will have incorrect conditional coverage characterized by clustered outliers. These concepts will be defined precisely below, and tests for correct conditional coverage are suggested. Chatfield (1993) emphasizes that model misspecification is a much more important source of poor interval forecasting than is simple estimation error. Thus, our testing criterion and the tests of this criterion are model free. In this regard, the approach taken here is similar to the one taken by Diebold and Mariano (1995). This paper can also be seen as establishing a formal framework for the ideas suggested in Granger, White and Kamstra (1989). Recently, financial market participants have shown increasing interest in interval forecasts as measures of uncertainty. Thus, we apply our methods to the interval forecasts provided by J.P. Morgan (1995). Furthermore, the so-called "Value-at-Risk" measures suggested for risk measurement correspond to tail forecasts, i.e., one-sided interval forecasts of portfolio returns. Lopez (1996) evaluates these types of forecasts applying the procedures develo...

This paper studies the role of fluctuations in the aggregate consumption–wealth ratio for predicting stock returns. Using U.S. quarterly stock market data, we find that these fluctuations in the consumption–wealth ratio are strong predictors of both real stock returns and excess returns over a Treasury bill rate. We also find that this variable is a better forecaster of future returns at short and intermediate horizons than is the dividend yield, the dividend payout ratio, and several other popular forecasting variables. Why should the consumption–wealth ratio forecast asset returns? We show that a wide class of optimal models of consumer behavior imply that the log consumption–aggregate wealth ~human capital plus asset holdings! ratio summarizes expected returns on aggregate wealth, or the market portfolio. Although this ratio is not observable, we provide assumptions under which its important predictive components for future asset returns may be expressed in terms of observable variables, namely in terms of consumption, asset holdings and labor income. The framework implies that these variables are cointegrated, and

Despite powerful advances in yield curve modeling in the last twenty years, comparatively little attention has been paid to the key practical problem of forecasting the yield curve. In this paper we do so. We use neither the no-arbitrage approach, which focuses on accurately fitting the cross section of interest rates at any given time but neglects time-series dynamics, nor the equilibrium approach, which focuses on time-series dynamics (primarily those of the instantaneous rate) but pays comparatively little attention to fitting the entire cross section at any given time and has been shown to forecast poorly. Instead, we use variations on the Nelson-Siegel exponential components framework to model the entire yield curve, period-by-period, as a three-dimensional parameter evolving dynamically. We show that the three time-varying parameters may be interpreted as factors corresponding to level, slope and curvature, and that they may be estimated with high efficiency. We propose and estimate autoregressive models for the factors, and we show that our models are consistent with a variety of stylized facts regarding the yield curve. We use our models to produce term-structure forecasts at both short and long horizons, with encouraging results. In particular, our forecasts appear much more accurate at long horizons than various standard benchmark forecasts. Finally, we discuss a number of extensions, including generalized duration measures, applications to active bond portfolio management, and arbitrage-free specifications. Acknowledgments: The National Science Foundation and the Wharton Financial Institutions Center provided research support. For helpful comments we are grateful to Dave Backus, Rob Bliss, Michael Brandt, Todd Clark, Qiang Dai, Ron Gallant, Mike Gibbons, Da...

Given two sources of forecasts of the same quantity, it is possible to compare prediction records. In particular, it can be useful to test the hypothesis of equal accuracy in forecast performance. We analyse the behaviour of two possible tests, and of modifications of these tests designed to circumvent shortcomings in the original formulations. As a result of this analysis, a recommendation forone particular testing approach is made for practical applications.

Abstract Economists have suggested a whole range of variables that predict the equity premium: dividend price ratios, dividend yields, earnings-price ratios, dividend payout ratios, corporate or net issuing ratios, book-market ratios, beta premia, interest rates (in various guises), and consumption-based macroeconomic ratios (cay). Our paper comprehensively reexamines the performance of these variables, both in-sample and out-of-sample, as of 2005. We find that [a] over the last 30 years, the prediction models have failed both in-sample and outof-sample; [b] the models are unstable, in that their out-of-sample predictions have performed unexpectedly poorly; [c] the models would not have helped an investor with access only to information available at the time to time the market. JEL Classification: G12, G14. * Thanks to Malcolm Baker, Ray Ball, John Campbell, John Cochrane, Francis Diebold, Ravi Jagannathan, Owen Lamont, Sydney Ludvigson, Rajnish Mehra, Michael Roberts, Jay Shanken, Samuel Thompson, Jeff Wurgler, and Yihong Xia for comments; and Todd Clark for providing us with some critical McCracken values. We especially appreciate John Campbell and Sam Thompson for iterating drafts and exchanging perspectives with (or against) our earlier drafts-this has allowed us to significantly improve.

Because asset prices are forward-looking, they constitute a class of potentially useful predictors of inflation and output growth. The premise that interest rates and asset

A lot, including a few things you may not expect. Previous studies find that the term spread forecasts GDP but these regressions are unconstrained and do not model regressor endogeneity. We build a dynamic model for GDP growth and yields that completely characterizes expectations of GDP. The model does not permit arbitrage. Contrary to previous findings, we predict that the short rate has more predictive power than any term spread. We confirm this finding by forecasting GDP out-of-sample. The model also recommends the use of lagged GDP and the longest maturity yield to measure slope. Greater efficiency enables the yield-curve model to produce superior out-of-sample GDP forecasts than unconstrained OLS at all horizons.

Abstract not found