Interpreting estimates of forecast bias
Neil Ericsson ()
International Journal of Forecasting, 2017, vol. 33, issue 2, 563-568
This paper resolves differences in results and interpretation between Ericsson’s (2017) and Gamber and Liebner’s (2017) assessments of forecasts of U.S. gross federal debt. As Gamber and Liebner (2017) discuss, heteroscedasticity could explain the empirical results in Ericsson (2017). However, the combined evidence in Ericsson (2017) and Gamber and Liebner (2017) supports the interpretation that these forecasts have significant time-varying biases. Both Ericsson (2017) and Gamber and Liebner (2017) advocate using impulse indicator saturation in empirical modeling.
Keywords: Bias; Debt; Federal government; Forecasts; Impulse indicator saturation; Heteroscedasticity; United States (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:intfor:v:33:y:2017:i:2:p:563-568
Access Statistics for this article
International Journal of Forecasting is currently edited by R. J. Hyndman
More articles in International Journal of Forecasting from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dana Niculescu ().