IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bes/jnlbes/v18y2000i3p265-73.html

Unit-Root Tests Are Useful for Selecting Forecasting Models

Author

Listed:
  • Diebold, Francis X
  • Kilian, Lutz

Abstract

We study the usefulness of unit-root tests as diagnostic tools for selecting forecasting models. Difference-stationary and trend-stationary models of economic and financial time series often imply very different predictions, so deciding which model to use is tremendously important for applied forecasters. We consider three strategies: always difference the data, never difference, or use a unit-root pretest. We characterize the predictive loss of these strategies for the canonical AR(1) process with trend, focusing on the effects of sample size, forecast horizon, and degree of persistence. We show that pretesting routinely improves forecast accuracy relative to forecasts from models in differences, and we give conditions under which pretesting is likely to improve forecast accuracy relative to forecasts from models in levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Diebold, Francis X & Kilian, Lutz, 2000. "Unit-Root Tests Are Useful for Selecting Forecasting Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 18(3), pages 265-273, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bes:jnlbes:v:18:y:2000:i:3:p:265-73
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bes:jnlbes:v:18:y:2000:i:3:p:265-73. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jbes/index.cfm?fuseaction=main .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.