2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.01.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forecasting oil price volatility: Forecast combination versus shrinkage method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
64
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 155 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
3
64
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is obvious that a model with a larger MCS p ‐value is likely to have better forecasting power. Following Hansen et al (2011) and Zhang, Wei, et al, 2019), among others, we consider a significance level of 10%. That is, models with an MCS p ‐value larger than 0.1 are included in the MCS.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is obvious that a model with a larger MCS p ‐value is likely to have better forecasting power. Following Hansen et al (2011) and Zhang, Wei, et al, 2019), among others, we consider a significance level of 10%. That is, models with an MCS p ‐value larger than 0.1 are included in the MCS.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Degiannakis and Filis [65] opine that Direction-of-Change (DoC) is the core of market timing and portfolio trading strategies. us, following Degiannakis and Filis [65] and Zhang et al [59], we adopt the Direction-of-Change (DoC) test as another model evaluation approach. In detail, DoC is a ratio that accounts for the accurate predictions to the total predictions in the direction of a forecasted variable by a model.…”
Section: Robustness Checks Of Model Forecasting Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the two loss functions discussed above can hardly offer us the significance levels of forecasting difference among various models. erefore, this paper utilizes the model confidence set (MCS) test which is proposed by Hansen et al [58] and widely used in recent research studies [24,25,59], to achieve this goal and to determine the superior models. e MCS test is developed from several traditional and standard model evaluation methods [60][61][62][63] but with more obvious advantages over these traditional ones.…”
Section: Model Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, we implement least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) shrinkage method to handle all the considered endogenous and exogenous explanatory factors and select the most powerful influential factors automatically. Although previous studies [6,[29][30][31][32][33] simulate that LASSObased approaches show better out-of-sample forecasts and surpass both AR class models and time-varying parameter models, it is unclear whether LASSO operator is also outperforming other commonly used benchmark models in oil price forecasting. Examining the LASSO operator effectiveness may help oil market decision-makers identify significant influential indicators efficiently and seize investment opportunities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%