This paper tests the rationality of forecasts made by individuals who contribute to the Blue Chip consensus forecasting service and tries, by means of a questionnaire on forecasting methods, to establish why some forecasters appear more rational than others. Tests based on consensus forecasts prove unreliable as guides to the number of individuals who produce rational forecasts. Individual forecasts are more likely to be rational if they are based on a mainstream economic theory and incorporate a substantial element of judgment. Copyright 1991 by Ohio State University Press.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
William T. Gavin & Rachel J. Mandal, 2002.
"Evaluating FOMC forecasts,"
Working Papers
2001-005, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
[Downloadable!]
Other versions: