FRB経済見通しの発表のあり方について論じた論文Economic Logicが紹介しているが、その趣旨を端的に日銀に当てはめれば表題の通りとなる。


In January 2012 the Fed began reporting ranges of its economic forecasts along with central tendencies. Projections are collected from each member of the Board of Governors and each president of a Federal Reserve bank, up to 19 in all. The ranges are taken from these projections. The ranges thus measure differences of opinions among the participants. These ranges, while interesting, are not measures of uncertainty usually associated with economic forecasts. They are not, say, estimated standard errors of forecasts. There could be, for example, broad consensus about the mean paths of future economic variable values, making the ranges small, and yet considerable uncertainty around the mean paths—say because of uncertainty about Europe or Asia or U.S. fiscal policy.

This paper discusses what the Fed could report in a world in which it used a single macroeconometric model to make its forecasts and guide its policies. Suggestions are then made as to what might be feasible for the Fed to report given that it is unlikely to be willing to commit to a single model. A particular model—the MC model in Fair (2004)—is used as an illustration.





Economic Logicは、この論文の提言を以下のようにまとめている。

Indeed, the dispersion of median forecasts has rather little information, especially if there is the group think the Board is sometimes accused of, compared to the statistical variance in the forecasts of a single model. Using historical errors as a basis, one could simulate whatever model(s) the Fed uses, draw out for each potential future history policy reactions, and then report the dispersion in future federal fund rates. Much better than the current dispersion of median opinions. And maybe the public will look at it.



トラックバック - http://d.hatena.ne.jp/himaginary/20120724/how_to_report_fed_uncertainty