In a deep forecasting pipeline for fat-tailed financial returns at short horizons, which matters more - the backbone architecture or the output head? We compare four modern backbones (TimesNet, DLinear, N-BEATS, iTransformer) under three output heads: a point head, a single-Gaussian density head, and a Gaussian mixture density head with K=4 components. On S and P 500 monthly log-returns (1871-2023) under anchored walk-forward validation, the three heads form a strict gradient: switching from point to Gaussian improves CRPS by about 1.3 percent; switching from Gaussian to mixture adds a further about 2.4 percent. Switching between backbones, in contrast, changes CRPS by less than 1.5 percent on the point-head row and on the backbone-mean axis; density-head backbone spread is larger (up to 5.1 percent on the h=1 Gaussian row, driven by N-BEATS) but the head gradient (3.7 percentage points) still dominates. The Model Confidence Set on squared errors does not exclude any of the 12 variants at the 5 percent level: the head separates them only on distributional metrics (CRPS, pinball, coverage), not on squared error. The mixture head incremental value over a single Gaussian is largest in the highest-volatility regimes (13.9 percent in 1970s stagflation at h=12), confirming the mixture captures tail risk beyond what a unimodal Gaussian can express. The picture is horizon-dependent: the head dominates at short horizons, but at long horizons (h >= 6) the backbone re-takes the lead - an h-split we document against classical baselines (section 5.1). We conclude that on fat-tailed returns at short horizons, the head dominates the backbone, and the mixture distribution adds genuine value over a single Gaussian during crisis periods when risk-management decisions actually matter.
🌊
