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

By Bonham, Carl S.; Cohen, Richard H. | Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, July 2001 | Go to article overview

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


Bonham, Carl S., Cohen, Richard H., Journal of Business & Economic Statistics


It is well known that, even if all forecasters are rational, unbiasedness tests 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, microhomogeneity ensures that consensus and pooled estimators are consistent. Therefore, contrary to claims in the literature, in the absence of microhomogeneity, pooling is not a solution to the aggregation problem. We reject microhomogeneity for a number of forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. Therefore, for these variables unbiasedness can only be tested at the individual level.

KEY WORDS: Aggregation bias; Heterogeneity bias; Microhomogeneity; Survey forecast.

Survey data have been used extensively in direct tests of the rational-expectations hypothesis (REH). [See Holden, Peel, and Thompson (1985), Lovell (1986), or Pesaran (1987) for recent surveys of the literature on testing the REH.] These data are most commonly used in "consensus" form; that is, the cross-section of survey responses is averaged to form a single time series prediction. (Some authors have used other measures of central tendency, such as the median, geometric, or harmonic mean.) Testing the REH using consensus forecasts has, however, been criticized because aggregation may introduce at least two kinds of bias. Figlewski and Wachtel (1981, 1983) showed that, since each forecaster's information set contains some private information (known only to that forecaster), least squares (LS) coefficient estimates in consensus unbiasedness regressions are inconsistent. In addition, Keane and Runkle (1990) argued that consensus parameters may lead to false acceptance of the unbiasedness hypothesis because averaged data may conceal individual deviations from rationality. Thus, rationality tests need to be conducted using disaggregated data.

Rather than estimating individual regressions, Figlewski and Wachtel (1981, 1983) and Keane and Runkle (1990) advocated pooling all observations to increase degrees of freedom. However, Zarnowitz (1985) pointed out that, when the target variable is constant for all forecasters in a given time period, correlation between regressor and error results in downward bias of the pooled estimator.

It is important to note that most researchers have implicitly assumed stationary targets and predictions. However, many macroeconomic series are integrated. For cointegrated targets and predictions, we show that, when individual unbiasedness regressions share the same coefficients across forecasters--that is, microhomogeneity exists--both consensus and pooled parameters can be consistently estimated. Furthermore, if microhomogeneity does not hold, false acceptance of the unbiasedness hypothesis may occur in consensus tests, even in the unlikely event that offsetting individual biases allow parameters to be consistently estimated. Therefore, this article shows that microhomogeneity is crucial for both consensus and pooled tests of the unbiasedness hypothesis.

Section 1.1 describes the two types of bias that arise from improper use of consensus forecasts, and Section 1.2 describes the heterogeneity bias that arises from improper pooling. In Section 2, we test microhomogeneity in unbiasedness regressions using five forecast series from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF). We extend Zellner's (1962a) microhomogeneity test to the case of generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation and adapt a weighting matrix suggested by Keane and Runkle (1990), which accounts for the possibility that forecast errors follow moving average processes both for individuals and across survey respondents. We show that for nearly all forecast series microhomogeneity does not hold. At least for these heterogeneous forecasts, unbiasedness should only be tested at the individual level. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

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

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.