Evaluating the Rationality of The Wall Street Journal's Panel of Economists

Abstract

This paper will explore a methodology that will examine the difference between average and individual forecasts, concentrating on whether individual Wall Street Journal forecasters are unbiased and efficient. This result is important because the past literature has examined the accuracy of average forecasts, not individuals. In addition, a brief evaluation of Lamont's (2002) hypothesis will follow. Lamont determined that as forecasters become older and more established, in many instances deviations from the consensus forecast grew with time. The method adopted will allow for the testing of whether individual forecasts are unbiased and rational, telling more about how individuals, not averages, behave in broader contexts.