It is widely known that significant in-sample evidence of predictability does not garantuee significant out-of-sample predictability. This is often interpreted as an indiciation that in-sample evidence is likely to be spurious and should be discounted. In this paper we question this conventional wisdom. Our analysis shows that neither data mining nor parameter instability is a plausible explanation of the observed tendency of in-smaple 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. We conclude that results of in-sample tests of predictability will typically be more credible than results of out-of-sample tests.
Data mining Out-of-sample inference Predictability text Structural change