Journals / Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

United States Department of Agriculture Forecasts: A Meta-Analysis Study

Pages
1–19
Publication Date
2020-04-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

About the third and the fourth questions, based on our findings, there are some clues that the results of the studies are heterogeneous, but we could not find enough evidences of publication bias.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The primary goal of this study is doing a meta-analysis research on two groups of published studies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We investigate four questions. 1) How the previously published studies evaluate the accuracy of the USDA forecasts? 2) How they evaluate the market reactions to the USDA forecasts? 3) Is there any heterogeneity in the results of the mentioned studies? 4) Is there any publication bias?
💡
Conclusion & Impact:About the third and the fourth questions, based on our findings, there are some clues that the results of the studies are heterogeneous, but we could not find enough evidences of publication bias.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:USDA forecasts

Özet

The primary goal of this study is doing a meta-analysis research on two groups of published studies. First, the ones that focus on the evaluation of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) forecasts and second, the ones that evaluate the market reactions to the USDA forecasts. We investigate four questions. 1) How the previously published studies evaluate the accuracy of the USDA forecasts? 2) How they evaluate the market reactions to the USDA forecasts? 3) Is there any heterogeneity in the results of the mentioned studies? 4) Is there any publication bias? About the first question, while some researchers argue that the forecasts are unbiased, most of them maintain that they are biased, inefficient, not optimal, or not rational. About the second question, while a few studies claim that the forecasts are not newsworthy, most of them maintain that they are newsworthy, provide useful information, and cause market reactions. About the third and the fourth questions, based on our findings, there are some clues that the results of the studies are heterogeneous, but we could not find enough evidences of publication bias.

🔖

Cite This Article

SANGİNABADİ, B. (2020). United States Department of Agriculture Forecasts: A Meta-Analysis Study. Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 1–19. https://ajindex.com/articles/416597

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Aulerich, N., Irwin, S., Nelson, C. (2007), “The Impact of Measurement Error on Estimates of the Price Reaction to USDA Crop Reports”, NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management, Chicago, Illinois, USA. No. 1313-2016-102638.
  2. Baujat, B., Mahé, C., Pignon, J. P., Hill, C. (2002), “A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta‐analyses: application to a meta‐analysis of 65 trials”, Statistics in medicine, 21(18), 2641-2652.
  3. Begg, C., Mazumdar, M. (1994), “Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias”, Biometrics, 50(4), 1088-1101.
  4. Colling, P. L., Irwin, S. H. (1990), “The reaction of live hog futures prices to USDA hogs and pigs’ reports”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,72(1), 84-94.
  5. Colling, P. L., Irwin, S. H., Zulauf, C. R. (1992), “Weak-and strong-form rationality tests of market analysts' expectations of USDA hogs and pigs reports”, Review of Agricultural Economics, 14(2), 263-270.
  6. Colling, P. L., Irwin, S. H., Zulauf, C. R. (1996), “Reaction of Wheat, Corn, and Soybean Futures Prices to USDA" Export Inspections" Reports”, Review of Agricultural Economics, 127-136.
  7. Colling, P., Irwin, S., Zulauf, C. (1997), “Future price responses to USDA's Cold Storage report”, Agribusiness, 13(4), 393-400.
  8. Darby, J. L. (2015), Information Content of USDA Rice Reports and Price Reactions of Rice Futures (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas). Egelkraut, T. M., Garcia, P., Irwin, S. H., Good, D. L. (2003), “An evaluation of crop forecast accuracy for corn and soybeans: USDA and private information agencies”, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 35(01), 79-95.
  9. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., Minder, C. (1997), “Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test”, British Medical Journal, 315(7109): 629-634.
  10. Flora, C. (1993), “Revisiting the USDA reports: Context, capital and organization”, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 8(4), 155-157.
  11. Fortenbery, T. R., Sumner, D. A. (1993), “The effects of USDA reports in futures and options markets”, Journal of Futures Markets, 13(2), 157-173.
  12. Glass, G. V. (1976), “Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research”, Educational researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
  13. Good, D. L, Irwin, S. H. (2005), “Understanding USDA Corn and Soybean Production Forecasts: Methods, Performance and Market Impacts over 1970-2004”, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Econom