The consensus was that the Fed would cut rates and borrowing would get cheaper. The cuts never came, and borrowing got more expensive. If you waited to buy a house on that forecast, the same median-priced home now costs $314 more a month. It is easy to dismiss that as an off year when no one keeps score.

So I graded them: 135 forecasts published over the past decade by fifteen institutions, Morgan Stanley, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Teneo and the IMF among them, against a public rubric, with a second researcher scoring every one independently. Just 16% named the event that went on to move markets. Only three calls said how it would reach a portfolio, the one thing an investor needs to act on. Even the one number banks routinely commit to, the year-end S&P 500 target, fared worse than a coin flip: they expected gains in 2022, when stocks fell 19%, and were too pessimistic in 2023, when they rose 24%. Wrong twice, in opposite directions.

Every December, banks, asset managers and geopolitical-risk firms publish year-ahead outlooks meant to guide investment decisions. No odds, no deadlines, no way to lose. Last year’s edition has a habit of disappearing when the new one shows up. “AI is a risk.” “Trump is a risk.” Both may be true. Neither is a forecast. They are themes.

Unknown probabilities are uncomfortable; anything that feels calculable brings relief, even when it adds no accuracy. The outlook sells the relief. It hands a board a structure for a decision that, more often than anyone admits, was already made. The document is there to validate it.

These outlooks can shape your savings even if you never read them. Pension funds, endowments and 401(k) plans put trillions of dollars to work with these reports on the table. When the consensus leans one way, so does the money. Going into 2023, most big banks forecast a recession that never came. A record amount of cash sat in money-market funds while stocks rallied. Savers and retirees missed those gains. The forecasters never had to answer for the call.

The outlook format was built for a world in which political risk was treated largely as an emerging-market problem. Now a tariff announced in Washington. A policy turn in Tokyo. Markets everywhere repriced in a single afternoon. The incentives driving those decisions may also be hidden. A leader may prolong a war that impoverishes his country because ending it threatens his coalition, his liberty or his fortune. An outlook built on his country’s economic interests misses what is driving him.

By now you are thinking of the analyst who got it right. Take Jiang Xueqin, the Yale-educated lecturer who became famous online after clips circulated of him predicting the US-Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The call was real. What it lacked was a denominator. Jiang has made hundreds of predictions, most of them unresolved or wrong. A hit is not evidence. Without the denominator it is an anecdote with good lighting.

Finance has been here before. For decades, investors paid fund managers for stock-picking skill. Then someone started keeping score. Over the 15 years to 2025, nine in ten active large-cap funds trailed the S&P 500 they were paid to beat. Nobody had to prove that stock-picking was impossible; a benchmark was enough. Passive funds now hold more US fund assets than active ones, and fees came down. The year-ahead outlook has escaped that reckoning because nobody has kept the score. Now somebody has, and anyone can run the same test on next year’s outlooks.

Keeping score does not mean demanding certainty. Before this summer’s World Cup, Opta’s model named the four likeliest semifinalists, Spain, France, England and Argentina, and all four got there. The model drew on observable data: player performance and past results. A striker could miss a penalty. A red card could change a match. But if you were placing a bet, those odds let you weigh the risk against the payout. A forecast does not have to be right every time to be worth having.

You will read a thousand headlines in 2027. A useful outlook tells you which ones to watch for and what each one would do: if this happens, then your money moves this way, by this date. Put a number on it when the evidence supports one. Less satisfying than “Ten Risks for 2027.” More useful. When the news starts barging in, you know what to look for, and you do not need anyone to tell you what it means.

The point is not to predict the event. It is to catch the signal that moves the odds.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.