Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/152629 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2002
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
ECB Working Paper No. 195
Verlag: 
European Central Bank (ECB), Frankfurt a. M.
Zusammenfassung: 
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.
Schlagwörter: 
Data mining
Out-of-sample inference
Predictability text
Structural change
JEL: 
C12
C22
C52
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
689.67 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.