  We demonstrate that the forecasting combination puzzle is a consequence of
the methodology commonly used to produce forecast combinations. By the
combination puzzle, we refer to the empirical finding that predictions formed
by combining multiple forecasts in ways that seek to optimize forecast
performance often do not out-perform more naive, e.g. equally-weighted,
approaches. In particular, we demonstrate that, due to the manner in which such
forecasts are typically produced, tests that aim to discriminate between the
predictive accuracy of competing combination strategies can have low power, and
can lack size control, leading to an outcome that favours the naive approach.
We show that this poor performance is due to the behavior of the corresponding
test statistic, which has a non-standard asymptotic distribution under the null
hypothesis of no inferior predictive accuracy, rather than the {standard normal
distribution that is} {typically adopted}. In addition, we demonstrate that the
low power of such predictive accuracy tests in the forecast combination setting
can be completely avoided if more efficient estimation strategies are used in
the production of the combinations, when feasible. We illustrate these findings
both in the context of forecasting a functional of interest and in terms of
predictive densities. A short empirical example {using daily financial returns}
exemplifies how researchers can avoid the puzzle in practical settings.
