Working Paper: NBER ID: w13751
Authors: Christina D. Romer; David H. Romer
Abstract: Should monetary policymakers take the staff forecast of the effects of policy actions as given, or should they attempt to include additional information? This paper seeks to shed light on this question by testing the usefulness of the FOMC's own forecasts. Twice a year, the FOMC makes forecasts of major macroeconomic variables. FOMC members have access to the staff forecasts when they prepare their forecasts. We find that the optimal combination of the FOMC and staff forecasts in predicting inflation and unemployment puts a weight of essentially zero on the FOMC forecast and essentially one on the staff forecast: the FOMC appears to have no value added in forecasting. The results for predicting real growth are less clear-cut. We also find statistical and narrative evidence that differences between the FOMC and staff forecasts help predict monetary policy shocks, suggesting that policymakers act in part on the basis of their apparently misguided information.
Keywords: No keywords provided
JEL Codes: E37; E52; E58
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| differences between FOMC and staff forecasts (E52) | monetary policy shocks (E39) |
| FOMC forecasts (F) (E17) | inflation (X) (E31) |
| staff forecasts (S) (J23) | inflation (X) (E31) |
| FOMC forecasts (F) (E17) | unemployment (X) (J64) |
| staff forecasts (S) (J23) | unemployment (X) (J64) |
| FOMC forecasts (F) (E17) | real growth (X) (O40) |
| staff forecasts (S) (J23) | real growth (X) (O40) |