To Aggregate, Pool, or Neither: Testing the Rational Expectations Hypothesis Using Survey Data

It is well known that even if all forecasters are rational, estimated coefficients in unbiasedness regressions using consensus forecasts are inconsistent because forecasters have private information. However, if all forecasters face a common realization, pooled estimators are also inconsistent. In contrast, we show that when predictions and realizations are integrated and cointegrated, micro-homogeneity ensures that consensus and pooled estimators are consistent. Therefore, contrary to claims in the literature, in the absence of micro-homogeneity, pooling is not a solution to the aggregation problem. We reject micro-homogeneity for a number of forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. Therefore, for these variables unbiasedness can only be tested at the individual level.Rational Expectations, Micro-homogeneity, Heterogeneity Bias, Aggregation Bias, Survey Forecasts

Testing the Rational Expectations Hypothesis using Survey Data

Because of the importance of inflation expectations, Lloyd B. Thomas Jr. (Fall 1999, p. 125-44) reexamines "the evidence on the nature and performance of various measures of expected inflation, with special attention given to the issue of rationality" (p. 126). Thomas tests the unbiasedness hypothesis using the Livingston and Michigan survey forecasts for the 1960 to 1997 time period and is unable to reject the null hypothesis of unbiasedness. Unfortunately, two types of problems due to aggregation plague such tests: private information bias and micro-heterogeneity bias. Therefore, for these survey forecasts, consensus regressions should generally not be used to test rationality; rationality can only be tested at the individual level.

Financial integration in the pacific basin region: RIP by PANIC attack?

We exploit advances in panel data econometrics to test whether real interest parity holds in the Pacific Basin region. We test for a unit root in the difference between either the US, Japanese or Euro area real interest rate and the real interest rates from a panel of eleven Pacific Basin economies. Unlike extant studies that test for RIP using panel data, we use Bai and Ng's (2004) PANIC test which allows for a very general model of cross-section dependence, including the possibility of cross-unit cointegration. Ignoring the possibility of cross-unit cointegration can lead to severe size distortions and to an over-rejection of the null hypothesis of a unit root. We overturn earlier findings based on first-generation panel tests, and demonstrate that cross-unit cointegration leads to incorrect conclusions. We find that RIP holds in the Pacific region. Real interest rates converge to the US rate. We find no support for the hypothesis that Pacific Basin real interest rates converge to either the Japanese or Euro area rates.Real interest parity Pacific-basin capital market integration Panel unit root PANIC