Manipulability of Future-Independent Tests
The difficulties in properly anticipating key economic variables may encourage decision makers to rely on experts’ forecasts. Professional forecasters, however, may not be reliable and so their forecasts must be empirically tested. This may induce experts to forecast strategically in order to pass the test. A test can be ignorantly passed if a false expert, with no knowledge of the data generating process, can pass the test. Many tests that are unlikely to reject correct forecasts can be ignorantly passed. Tests that cannot be ignorantly passed do exist, but these tests must make use of predictions contingent on data not yet observed at the time the forecasts are rejected. Such tests cannot be run if forecasters report only the probability of the next period’s events on the basis of the actually observed data. This result shows that it is difficult to dismiss false, but strategic, experts who know how theories are tested. This result also shows an important role that can be played by predictions contingent on data not yet observed.
|Date of creation:||15 Apr 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104|
Web page: http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/pier
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Morgan, J. & Stocken, P., 1998.
"An Analysis of Stock Recommendations,"
204, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
- Trueman, Brett, 1988. " A Theory of Noise Trading in Securities Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 43(1), pages 83-95, March.
- Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1996.
"An Easier Way to Calibrate,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
2059, David K. Levine.
- Wojciech Olszewski & Alvaro Sandroni, 2006.
"Strategic Manipulation of Empirical Tests,"
1425, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Vladimir Vovk & Glenn Shafer, 2005. "Good randomized sequential probability forecasting is always possible," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 747-763.
- Nabil I. Al-Najjar & Jonathan Weinstein, 2008.
"Comparative Testing of Experts,"
Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 541-559, 05.
- Sandroni, Alvaro & Olszewski, Wojciech, 2007. "Contracts and uncertainty," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, March.
- Yossi Feinberg & Colin Stewart, 2008.
"Testing Multiple Forecasters,"
Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 561-582, 05.
- LeRoy, Stephen F & Singell, Larry D, Jr, 1987. "Knight on Risk and Uncertainty," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(2), pages 394-406, April.
- Eddie Dekel & Yossi Feinberg, 2006.
"Non-Bayesian Testing of a Stochastic Prediction,"
1418, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- David Laster & Paul Bennett & In Sun Geoum, 1999. "Rational Bias in Macroeconomic Forecasts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(1), pages 293-318.
- Alvaro Sandroni, 2003. "The reproducible properties of correct forecasts," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 151-159, December.
- Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1989.
"Maxmin Expected Utility with Non-Unique Prior,"
- Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2004.
"The Strategy of Professional Forecasting,"
FRU Working Papers
2004/05, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Finance Research Unit.
- Alvaro Sandroni & Wojciech Olszewski, 2008. "Falsifiability," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-016, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
- Keane, Michael P & Runkle, David E, 1990. "Testing the Rationality of Price Forecasts: New Evidence from Panel Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 714-35, September.
- Shmaya, Eran, 2008. "Many inspections are manipulable," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(3), September.
- Lovell, Michael C, 1986. "Tests of the Rational Expectations Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(1), pages 110-24, March.
- Michael P. Keane & David E. Runkle, 1998. "Are Financial Analysts' Forecasts of Corporate Profits Rational?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(4), pages 768-805, August.
- P. Frevert, 1971. "Note," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 269-270.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pen:papers:08-014. 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: (Dolly Guarini)
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.