Abstract

This study revisits the accuracy of the point and density forecasts of monthly US inflation and output growth that are generated using principal components regression (PCR) and Bayesian model averaging (BMA). I run a forecasting horse race between 24 BMA specifications and two PCR alternatives in an out-of-sample, 10-year rolling event evaluation. The differences in mean-square forecast errors between BMA and PCR are mostly insignificant but predictable. PCR methods perform best for predicting deviations of output and inflation from their expected paths, whereas BMA methods perform best for predicting “tail” events. This dichotomy implies that risk-neutral policy-makers may prefer the classical PCR approach, while the BMA approach would belong in the toolkit of a prudential, risk-averse forecaster.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.