We propose an approach for generating macroeconomic density forecasts that incorporate information on multiple scenarios defined by experts. We adopt a regime-switching framework in which sets of scenarios (“views”) are used as Bayesian priors on economic regimes. Predictive densities coming from different views are then combined by optimizing objective functions of density forecasting. We illustrate the approach with an empirical application to quarterly real-time forecasts of the US GDP growth rate, in which we exploit the Fed's macroeconomic scenarios used for bank stress tests. We show that the approach achieves good accuracy in terms of average predictive scores and good calibration of forecast distributions. Moreover, it can be used to evaluate the contribution of economists' scenarios to density forecast performance.
{"title":"Regime-Switching Density Forecasts Using Economists' Scenarios","authors":"Graziano Moramarco","doi":"10.1002/for.3228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3228","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We propose an approach for generating macroeconomic density forecasts that incorporate information on multiple scenarios defined by experts. We adopt a regime-switching framework in which sets of scenarios (“views”) are used as Bayesian priors on economic regimes. Predictive densities coming from different views are then combined by optimizing objective functions of density forecasting. We illustrate the approach with an empirical application to quarterly real-time forecasts of the US GDP growth rate, in which we exploit the Fed's macroeconomic scenarios used for bank stress tests. We show that the approach achieves good accuracy in terms of average predictive scores and good calibration of forecast distributions. Moreover, it can be used to evaluate the contribution of economists' scenarios to density forecast performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":47835,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forecasting","volume":"44 2","pages":"833-845"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/for.3228","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143119266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Belen Chocobar, Peter Claeys, Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro
Macroeconomic theories attribute rigidities in expectations formation to two mechanisms: sticky or noisy information. Recent advances in testing time variations in forecast dispersion—using the fluctuation rationality test—allow detecting departures from forecaster rationality over time. Relating individual forecaster behavior to economic or political factors on a panel of budget balance forecasts from Consensus Economics, a large panel of individual expert forecasters in four major OECD countries between 1993 to 2023, we find evidence for forecaster behavior in line with noisy information. Traditional full-sample tests show that forecasters are not rational, but this is due to an overly pessimistic reaction to sudden big shifts, like the global financial crisis or the pandemic. In normal times, forecasters do systematically incorporate economic and political news in budget forecast revisions.
{"title":"Fiscal Forecasting Rationality Among Expert Forecasters","authors":"Belen Chocobar, Peter Claeys, Marcos Poplawski-Ribeiro","doi":"10.1002/for.3237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3237","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Macroeconomic theories attribute rigidities in expectations formation to two mechanisms: sticky or noisy information. Recent advances in testing time variations in forecast dispersion—using the fluctuation rationality test—allow detecting departures from forecaster rationality over time. Relating individual forecaster behavior to economic or political factors on a panel of budget balance forecasts from Consensus Economics, a large panel of individual expert forecasters in four major OECD countries between 1993 to 2023, we find evidence for forecaster behavior in line with noisy information. Traditional full-sample tests show that forecasters are not rational, but this is due to an overly pessimistic reaction to sudden big shifts, like the global financial crisis or the pandemic. In normal times, forecasters do systematically incorporate economic and political news in budget forecast revisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47835,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forecasting","volume":"44 3","pages":"941-959"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/for.3237","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143565436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}