Page 348 - Special Topic Session (STS) - Volume 3
P. 348

STS550 Pierre Guérin et al.
                  results. Under the null hypothesis of no directional accuracy, one would
                  expect a success ratio of 0.5. We also report the results of the Pesaran and
                  Timmermann  (2009)  test  to  evaluate  the  statistical  significance  of  the
                  directional accuracy results. Across all forecasting approaches, the success
                  ratios  tend  to  be  stronger  for  forecast  horizon  ℎ = 1,  except  for  the
                  JPY/USD.  In  those  cases,  the  improvements  in  directional  accuracy  are
                  often statistically significant according to the Pesaran and Timmermann
                  (2009)  test.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  the  success  ratios  are
                  especially strong at distant forecast horizons for selected currencies, as
                  high as 72.6 per cent for the CAD/USD and 77.0 per cent for the JPY/USD
                  in  the  case  of  the  MS-3PRF  with  regime  changes  in  the  first  and  third
                  passes.
                      Overall,  while  the  differences  in  predictive  accuracy  tend  to  be  small
                  across forecasting approaches in terms of point forecasts, the gains in terms
                  of directional accuracy are strong with the MS-3PRF approach and typically
                  statistically  significant  according  to  the  Pesaran  and  Timmermann  (2009)
                      1
                  test.

                  References
                  1.  Camacho, M., Pérez-Quirós, G., and Poncela, P. (2012). Markov-switching
                      dynamic factor models in real time. CEPR Discussion Papers 8866, C.E.P.R.
                      Discussion Papers.
                  2.  Diebold, F. X. and Mariano, R. S. (1995). Comparing Predictive Accuracy.
                      Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(3):253–63.
                  3.  Greenaway-McGrevy, R., Mark, N., Sul, D., and Wu, J.-L. (2016). Identifying
                      Exchange Rate Common Factors. Mimeo Notre Dame.
                  4.  Kelly, B. and Pruitt, S. (2015). The three-pass regression filter: A new
                      approach to forecasting using many predictors. Journal of Econometrics,
                      186(2):294–316.
                  5.  Pesaran, M. H. and Timmermann, A. (2009). Testing Dependence Among
                      Serially Correlated Multicategory Variables. Journal of the American
                      Statistical Association, 104(485):325–337.
                  6.  Rossi, B. (2013). Exchange Rate Predictability. Journal of Economic
                      Literature, 51(4):1063–1119.







                  1 We also conducted several Monte Carlo exercises to assess the finite sample performance of
                  the proposed model. We find that the MS-3PRF performs favourably compared with alternative
                  modelling approaches whenever there is structural instability in factor loadings.


                                                                     337 | I S I   W S C   2 0 1 9
   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352   353