<p>In macro, the standard approach to forecast variables which are intrinsically nominal like GDP seems to be to separate the forecast. This is, you want to have a model for real GDP and for inflation. The final forecast for nominal GDP is the "combination" of both. This is for instance the standard practice of <a href="https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx?panel=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Fed (of Atlanta)</a> and the <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2017/feb.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bank of England</a> (pages 39 to 41).</p>

<p>In your case of a financial variable, you could model the real (deflated) variable, and then, as inflation is given by the economy, just take the official inflation forecast of your country from the central bank. They are the real experts on this so is a safe thing to do in my opinion. Also, the market <strong>expectations</strong> of inflation, crucial in finance, are very much informed by central bank estimates. This approach gives you a cleaner estimation of your model too. As you say, your determinant is a rate, and thus inflation is just molesting in the left hand side.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-30T20:05:32.713Z
2017-03-30T20:13:11.753Z
2017-03-30T20:13:11.753Z
luchonacho
<p>Say I have a structural equation that is forecasting Y. Y is a nominal financial variable that grows with time due to inflation. I have an economic determinant that is a rate and therefore does not increase with time. Is it wise or necessary to deflate Y so that the variables behave the same way? I do not particularly want Y deflated as this regression will be forecasted and this just introduces another hard to forecast variable.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-29T12:35:39.283Z
If you think the rate is a good predictor of the real future value of Y, but Y also grows with inflation and you are interested in the nominal value of Y, then you will not get around at least implicitly forecasting inflation.
Tobias
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-29T15:40:33.580Z
Right, but implicitly forecasting it introduces less error (from a practical standpoint) than explicitly adding the variable. The other variables will do that work for me, but introducing another variable adds more error. I do not NEED to deflate Y, but I am wondering if doing so to mimic the behavior of the rate (unemployment) adds any value econometrically. A colleague suggested this to me, but I had never heard of that convention before.
user12679
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-30T16:40:40.480Z
What about inflating all your past values up to today's one. Your forecasting would then predict intrinsically today-related nominal/real values.
keepAlive
<econometrics><statistics><applied-econometrics>
Should I deflate a nominal variable when forecasting it?
user12679
# Should I deflate a nominal variable when forecasting it?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-29)

Say I have a structural equation that is forecasting Y. Y is a nominal financial variable that grows with time due to inflation. I have an economic determinant that is a rate and therefore does not increase with time. Is it wise or necessary to deflate Y so that the variables behave the same way? I do not particularly want Y deflated as this regression will be forecasted and this just introduces another hard to forecast variable.

**Tags:** econometrics, statistics, applied-econometrics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: If you think the rate is a good predictor of the real future value of Y, but Y also grows with inflation and you are interested in the nominal value of Y, then you will not get around at least implicitly forecasting inflation.  
> **username_0**: Right, but implicitly forecasting it introduces less error (from a practical standpoint) than explicitly adding the variable. The other variables will do that work for me, but introducing another variable adds more error. I do not NEED to deflate Y, but I am wondering if doing so to mimic the behavior of the rate (unemployment) adds any value econometrically. A colleague suggested this to me, but I had never heard of that convention before.  
> **username_2**: What about inflating all your past values up to today's one. Your forecasting would then predict intrinsically today-related nominal/real values.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-03-30. Score: -1

In macro, the standard approach to forecast variables which are intrinsically nominal like GDP seems to be to separate the forecast. This is, you want to have a model for real GDP and for inflation. The final forecast for nominal GDP is the "combination" of both. This is for instance the standard practice of [the Fed (of Atlanta)](https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx?panel=1) and the [Bank of England](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2017/feb.aspx) (pages 39 to 41).

In your case of a financial variable, you could model the real (deflated) variable, and then, as inflation is given by the economy, just take the official inflation forecast of your country from the central bank. They are the real experts on this so is a safe thing to do in my opinion. Also, the market **expectations** of inflation, crucial in finance, are very much informed by central bank estimates. This approach gives you a cleaner estimation of your model too. As you say, your determinant is a rate, and thus inflation is just molesting in the left hand side.


---

