The name is absent



10

where superscript j denotes the candidate forecast model (with 0 indicating the
benchmark),
etj+hh is the forecast error made by candidate forecast model j at time t
for forecast horizon h, and T denotes the number of forecasts made. Subsequently,
we report the
relative RMSFE (for each horizon h) by dividing the respective
RMSFE of each of our alternative specifications by the corresponding RMSFE of
the benchmark. If the relative RMSFE is below 1, the alternative specification
displays a better forecast performance than the benchmark. To test whether the
differences are statistically significant, we employ a DM test (Diebold and
Mariano 1995). This test is based on the null hypothesis that two non-nested series
of forecasts
{ ft0h}tT=1 and { ftjh}Tt=1 are of equal accuracy,

E(dj ) = EΓ(ejh )2-(e0h )21 = 0                     (3 4)

E (ut+h ) E l(et+h ) (et+h ) I ʊ ,                             l-’.4J

In this test, the loss function is the difference of the squared forecast errors of the
candidate forecasts. Because the sample mean loss differential is asymptotically
normally distributed, the large-sample DM test statistic is

djh

DMjh = -t=7 ,                     (3'5)

J/

T

where djh is the sample mean loss differential and γjh is the cumulative sample
autocovariance up to order
h-1.

Encompassing test

Even if a forecast { ftjh}rt=1 does not outperform the benchmark { ft0h}tr=1 , a combi-
nation of these two forecasts could nevertheless help to improve forecast accuracy.
Therefore, we consider here the combined forecast
{ ftch }rt=1 estimating λjh as the
corresponding “best” weight.

ftch=(1-λjh)ft0h+λjhftjh.                           (3.6)

If the null hypothesis λjh = 0 is true, { ft0h }tr=1 is conditionally efficient with re-
spect to
{ ftjh}tr=1 (Granger and Newbold 1973; 1986) or encompassing { ftjh}tr=1
(Hendry 1993). In this case, the DM-statistic can be calculated for each period
t as

d jh = (e0h -ejh ) e0h                                (3 7)

dt+h = (et+h -et+h ) et+h .                                (3.7)



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Intertemporal Risk Management Decisions of Farmers under Preference, Market, and Policy Dynamics
3. Ronald Patterson, Violinist; Brooks Smith, Pianist
4. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING SOCIAL WELFARE EFFECTS OF NEW AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY
5. FISCAL CONSOLIDATION AND DECENTRALISATION: A TALE OF TWO TIERS
6. Optimal Tax Policy when Firms are Internationally Mobile
7. Reversal of Fortune: Macroeconomic Policy, International Finance, and Banking in Japan
8. The name is absent
9. On the Existence of the Moments of the Asymptotic Trace Statistic
10. Standards behaviours face to innovation of the entrepreneurships of Beira Interior
11. Correlates of Alcoholic Blackout Experience
12. Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?
13. The name is absent
14. Keystone sector methodology:network analysis comparative study
15. Should informal sector be subsidised?
16. THE CO-EVOLUTION OF MATTER AND CONSCIOUSNESS1
17. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES
18. Transgression et Contestation Dans Ie conte diderotien. Pierre Hartmann Strasbourg
19. EFFICIENCY LOSS AND TRADABLE PERMITS
20. Biological Control of Giant Reed (Arundo donax): Economic Aspects