Search

It is common practice to evaluate fixed-event forecast revisions in macroeconomics by regressing current revisions on one-period lagged revisions. Under weak-form efficiency, the correlation between the current and one-period lagged revisions should be zero. The empirical findings in the literature suggest that the null hypothesis of zero correlation between the current and one-period lagged revisions is rejected quite frequently, where the correlation can be either positive or negative. In this paper we propose a methodology to be able to interpret such non-zero correlations in a straightforward manner. Our approach is based on the assumption that forecasts can be decomposed into both an econometric model and expert intuition. The interpretation of the sign of the correlation between the current and one-period lagged revisions depends on the process governing intuition, and the correlation between intuition and news.

This paper deals with the analysis and evaluation of sales forecasts of managers, given that it is unknown how they constructed their forecasts. Our goal is to find out whether these forecasts are rational. To examine deviations from rationality, we argue that one has to approximate how the managers could have generated the forecasts. We describe several ways to construct these approximate expressions. The analysis of a large set of a single manager's forecasts for sales of pharmaceutical products illustrates the practical usefulness of our methodology.

It is common practice to evaluate fixed-event forecast revisions in macroeconomics by regressing current revisions on one-period lagged revisions. Under weak-form efficiency, the correlation between the current and one-period lagged revisions should be zero. The empirical findings in the literature suggest that the null hypothesis of zero correlation between the current and one-period lagged revisions is rejected quite frequently, where the correlation can be either positive or negative. In this paper we propose a methodology to be able to interpret such non-zero correlations in a straightforward manner. Our approach is based on the assumption that forecasts can be decomposed into both an econometric model and expert intuition. The interpretation of the sign of the correlation between the current and one-period lagged revisions depends on the process governing intuition, and the correlation between intuition and news.

The paper compares the information contents of two of the most widely used sets of macroeconomic forecasts, namely, the macroeconomic forecasts produced by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). By testing whether the release of public sector forecasts had systematic impact on subsequent revisions in Consensus (private sector) forecasts, the paper finds that, for the period 1994?2003, private forecasters reacted to the information provided by the IMF on regions (such as non?G7 Europe and Latin America) for which the IMF’s forecasts are known to be more accurate or about which information is less available. What determines the information value of public sector forecasts, however, appears complex. The OECD’s impact was limited in influencing private sector forecasts for the G7 countries, though it had a superior forecast performance than the IMF. Some herding behavior was observed among private sector forecasters.

Experts often add domain knowledge to model-based forecasts while aiming to reduce forecast errors. Indeed, there is some empirical evidence that expert-adjusted forecasts improve forecast quality. However, surprisingly little is known about what experts actually do. Based on a large and detailed databas