Interpreting estimates of forecast bias

Neil Ericsson

International Journal of Forecasting, 2017, vol. 33, issue 2, 563-568

Abstract: 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)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207017300067
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:intfor:v:33:y:2017:i:2:p:563-568

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2017.01.001

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 Catherine Liu ().