4.7 Article

Forecasting the prices of crude oil: An iterated combination approach

Journal

ENERGY ECONOMICS
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 472-483

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.01.027

Keywords

Oil price predictability; Iterated combination; Out-of-sample forecasts; Asset allocation

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [71671145, 71701170]
  2. Humanities and Social Science Fund of the Ministry of Education [17YJC790105]
  3. Fundamental research funds for the central universities [2682017WCX01]
  4. Doctoral Innovation Fund Program of Southwest Jiaotong University [D-CX201724]
  5. Service Science and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province [KL1704]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, we employ an iterated combination approach to examine oil price predictability with a large set of predictors, including 18 macroeconomic variables and 18 technical indicators. The empirical results show that iterated combination approach outperforms the standard combination approach for both in- and out-of-sample. Specifically, the iterated combination forecasts always yield significantly larger out-of-sample R-2 values and higher success ratios than the corresponding standard combination forecasts. Furthermore, we document that the results are robust to various settings, including alternative proxies of crude oil prices, three predictor sets, different forecasting windows, and various standard combination approaches. From an asset allocation perspective, we measure the economic value of the iterated combination approaches, where the leverage of oil futures trading is considered. The results suggest that the more accurate forecasts of the iterated combination approaches can generate substantially larger certainty equivalent return (CER) gains for a mean-variance investor in practice. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available