• 889 days Will The ECB Continue To Hike Rates?
  • 889 days Forbes: Aramco Remains Largest Company In The Middle East
  • 891 days Caltech Scientists Succesfully Beam Back Solar Power From Space
  • 1,291 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 1,296 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 1,298 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 1,301 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 1,301 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 1,302 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 1,304 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 1,304 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 1,308 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 1,308 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 1,309 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 1,311 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 1,312 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 1,315 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 1,316 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 1,316 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 1,318 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
Ian Campbell

Ian Campbell

Through his www.BusinessTransitionSimplified.com website and his Business Transition & Valuation Review newsletter Ian R. Campbell shares his perspectives on business transition, business valuation and world…

Contact Author

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

Economic Forecasting - How Credible?

A recent article that uses a recent Goldman Sachs analyst forecast on China's long-term growth rate as a bridge to discuss the methodologies employed by economists when making forecasts - and why the author thinks that most economists mis-forecast and simply miss prospective economic change (such as the 2008 financial crisis) because of those methodologies.

As I read the article, which I recommend to you, I believe the root argument put forth by the author can be simply stated as:

No one, economist or otherwise, can blithely assume that history will repeat itself when forecasting. Instead, one must review history and adjust it to reflect changed and changing forecast inputs and outputs that result from adjustments and structural alterations that have occurred between the time the historic results were generated and the time a current forecast is being made.

In simple terms I believe the author's position to be, which position I agree with, that it makes absolutely no sense to generate a 'next five year' forecast in 2012 for the U.S. economy based on the economic performance of the U.S. economy from 1980 to 2000 when the financial underpinnings and jobs mix (to note only two of many important changes) are entirely different in 2012 and prospectively than they were in those prior years.

Frequently in this Newsletter I have said I believe that many economists wrongly advance a theoretical forecast framework based on irrelevant history when reaching conclusions on what is prospectively going to happen in any particular economy at any given point in time - and hence many economists inherently are doomed to get things wrong before they put pen to paper (or now fingers on the keyboard).

I also think many financial analysts every day fall into the same 'locked into history trap'.

I strongly suggest, particularly if you are concerned about the stability and future direction of the financial markets that you read Here's A Massive Mistake That Analysts Make When Examining China. I suggest you do that not for any reason related specifically to China, but rather to think carefully about what the author has to say about economic (and indirectly financial markets) forecasting, and importantly decide whether you agree with his views or not.

Topical Reference: Here's A Massive Mistake That Analysts Make When Examining China, from Business Insider, Michael Pettis, October 27, 2012 - reading time 5 minutes, thinking time longer.

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment