The Value of a Probability Forecast from Portfolio Theory
A probability forecast scored ex post using a probability scoring rule (e.g. Brier) is analogous to a risky financial security. With only superficial adaptation, the same economic logic by which securities are valued ex ante â€“ in particular, portfolio theory and the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) â€“ applies to the valuation of probability forecasts. Each available forecast of a given event is valued relative to each other and to the â€œmarketâ€\x9D (all available forecasts). A forecast is seen to be more valuable the higher its expected score and the lower the covariance of its score with the market aggregate score. Forecasts that score highly in trials when others do poorly are appreciated more than those with equal success in â€œeasyâ€\x9D trials where most forecasts score well. The CAPM defines economically rational (equilibrium) forecast prices at which forecasters can trade shares in each otherâ€™s ex post score â€“ or associated monetary payoff â€“ thereby balancing forecast risk against return and ultimately forming optimally hedged portfolios. Hedging this way offers risk averse forecasters an â€œhonestâ€\x9D alternative to the ruse of reporting conservative probability assessments. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 63 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/economic+theory/journal/11238/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kroll, Yoram & Levy, Haim & Markowitz, Harry M, 1984. " Mean-Variance versus Direct Utility Maximization," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(1), pages 47-61, March.
- Meyer, Jack, 1987. "Two-moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 421-430, June.
- Leonard MacLean & Yonggan Zhao & William Ziemba, 2011. "Mean-variance versus expected utility in dynamic investment analysis," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 3-22, April.
- Epstein, Larry G, 1985. "Decreasing Risk Aversion and Mean-Variance Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 945-961, July.
- James E. Matheson & Robert L. Winkler, 1976. "Scoring Rules for Continuous Probability Distributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(10), pages 1087-1096, June.
- Robert Nau, 2001. "De Finetti was Right: Probability Does Not Exist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 89-124, December.
- Murphy, Allan H. & Winkler, Robert L., 1992. "Diagnostic verification of probability forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 435-455, March.
- Levy, H & Markowtiz, H M, 1979. "Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(3), pages 308-317, June.
- K. Borch, 1969. "A Note on Uncertainty and Indifference Curves," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 1-4.
- Mark Grinblatt & Sheridan Titman, "undated". "Portfolio Performance Evaluation: Old Issues and New Insights," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 22-88, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
- R. Winkler & Javier Muñoz & José Cervera & José Bernardo & Gail Blattenberger & Joseph Kadane & Dennis Lindley & Allan Murphy & Robert Oliver & David Ríos-Insua, 1996. "Scoring rules and the evaluation of probabilities," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 5(1), pages 1-60, June.
- Daniel Friedman, 1983. "Effective Scoring Rules for Probabilistic Forecasts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 447-454, April.
- Kraus, Alan & Litzenberger, Robert H, 1976. "Skewness Preference and the Valuation of Risk Assets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1085-1100, September.
- Milne, Frank, 2003. "Finance Theory and Asset Pricing: Second Edition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199261079, December.
- Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1990. "Unanimity and Compromise Among Probability Forecasters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 767-779, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:63:y:2007:i:2:p:153-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.