nep-for New Economics Papers
on Forecasting
Issue of 2008‒01‒26
two papers chosen by
Rob J Hyndman
Monash University

  1. Reported Earnings and Analyst Forecasts as Competing Sources of Information: A New Approach By H.M. Anderson; H. Chan; R. Faff; Y.K. Ho
  2. The FOMC versus the Staff: Where Can Monetary Policymakers Add Value? By Christina D. Romer; David H. Romer

  1. By: H.M. Anderson; H. Chan; R. Faff; Y.K. Ho
    Abstract: Abstract: We study information flows between earnings and forecasts, using suitably adapted Granger causality tests. This approach complements existing cross-sectional studies by abstracting from stock market reactions to information, and focussing on dynamic interactions between information flows instead. We find bi-directional causality in timeseries of analyst earnings forecasts and reported earnings, supporting our expectation that forecasts contribute to information that is reflected in future reports. Further, our evidence of feedback suggests that past reports and forecasts are both reflected in future forecasts, implying that the information in reports has inherent value, and that forecasts do not fully substitute for reports.
    JEL: G14 M41 C32
    Date: 2007–10
  2. By: Christina D. Romer; David H. Romer
    Abstract: Should monetary policymakers take the staff forecast of the effects of policy actions as given, or should they attempt to include additional information? This paper seeks to shed light on this question by testing the usefulness of the FOMC's own forecasts. Twice a year, the FOMC makes forecasts of major macroeconomic variables. FOMC members have access to the staff forecasts when they prepare their forecasts. We find that the optimal combination of the FOMC and staff forecasts in predicting inflation and unemployment puts a weight of essentially zero on the FOMC forecast and essentially one on the staff forecast: the FOMC appears to have no value added in forecasting. The results for predicting real growth are less clear-cut. We also find statistical and narrative evidence that differences between the FOMC and staff forecasts help predict monetary policy shocks, suggesting that policymakers act in part on the basis of their apparently misguided information.
    JEL: E37 E52 E58
    Date: 2008–01

This nep-for issue is ©2008 by Rob J Hyndman. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.