In-Sample or Out-of-Sample Tests of Predictability: Which One Should We Use?
Atsushi Inoue () and
Lutz Kilian ()
Econometric Reviews, 2005, vol. 23, issue 4, 371-402
It is widely known that significant in-sample evidence of predictability does not guarantee significant out-of-sample predictability. This is often interpreted as an indication that in-sample evidence is likely to be spurious and should be discounted. In this paper, we question this interpretation. Our analysis shows that neither data mining nor dynamic misspecification of the model under the null nor unmodelled structural change under the null are plausible explanations of the observed tendency of in-sample tests to reject the no-predictability null more often than out-of-sample tests. We provide an alternative explanation based on the higher power of in-sample tests of predictability in many situations. We conclude that results of in-sample tests of predictability will typically be more credible than results of out-of-sample tests.
Keywords: Predictive ability; Spurious inference; Data mining; Model instability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (57) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
Working Paper: In-Sample or Out-of-Sample Tests of Predictability: Which One Should We Use? (2002)
Working Paper: In-sample or out-of-sample tests of predictability: which one should we use? (2002)
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:taf:emetrv:v:23:y:2005:i:4:p:371-402
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
Econometric Reviews is currently edited by Dr. Essie Maasoumi
More articles in Econometric Reviews from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().