Are Ir<strong>rational</strong> Expectations Rational? 15If a firm forms the expectation of this particular stream of marginal costsas E 2 MC t+i and sets the price accordingly, it will set the price:· ¸Pj,2 ∗ φ∞X= [1 − z] z i E 2 MCφ − 1g t+i0A firm which expects the stream of marginal costs E g j,1 MC j,t+i will anticipatethat the discounted stream of profits from this price (i.e. Pj,2 ∗ )willbe:"· ¸#φ∞X1−φE 1 DPF 2 =[1 − z] z i E j,2 MCφ − 1g 1t+i .1 − z0"· ¸#φ∞X−φ− [1 − z] z i E j,2 MCφ − 1g X ∞j,t+i z i E g j,1 MC j,t+iWrite:∞Xz i E g ∞Xj,2 MC j,t+i = ζ z i E j,1 MC g j,t+i00Then we can write:00"· ¸ φE j,1 DPF 2 = ζ 1−φ [1 − z]φ − 1"· φ−ζ −φ φ − 1¸[1 − z]#∞X1−φx i E g 1j,1 MC j,t+i .1 − z0#∞X−φz i E g X ∞j,1 MC j,t+i z i E j,1 MC g j,t+i00The ratio of the expected discounted profits with Pj,2 ∗ to the expected discountedprofits with Pj,1 ∗ for a firm which expects the stream of marginalcosts given by E g j,1 MC j,t+i will therefore be:³E j,1 DPF 2= ζ(1−φ) φ´(1−φ) ³−φ´³φ−1 −φ´−φζφ−1³E j,1 DPF 1 φ´(1−φ) ³ (10)φ−1 − φ´−φφ−1which has a maximum of 1 when ζ =1.We use this framework to assess the loss of profits a firm would anticipatefrom choosing a less than complete set of information or deploying a methodof <strong>expectations</strong> formation different from RE. Our approach is as follows. Foreach simulation we generated a value for ε t and for u j,t . On the assumptionthat all previous realizations of the shocks were zero, we then, for givenvalues of θ, φ and β, 11 calculated four sets of optimal prices for a firm which11 In the simulations reported in Table 5, we assume φ =6, which implies a mark-upparameter (ϕ) of 1.2. This is the value assumed by Sbordone (2002) and is within therange (1.1 to 1.4) suggested as plausible by Galí et al (2001).
Are Ir<strong>rational</strong> Expectations Rational? 16was resetting its price. The first assumed RE - i.e. that the firm observesthetruevaluesofε t and u j,t separately and applies the correct α and γcoefficients to them to form its <strong>expectations</strong> of its future marginal costs. Thesecond assumes that the firm observes only the composite shock, η S j,t which(given our assumption that all previous shocks <strong>are</strong> zero) will equal ε t + u S j,t ,and then applies the ρ S s to this composite to form its <strong>expectations</strong> of futuremarginal costs. The third assumes a method of <strong>expectations</strong> formationclose to adaptive <strong>expectations</strong> in which E j,t ∆mc j,t+i = µ i ∆mc j,t and weimpose selected values of µ between 0 and 1. The fourth, naïve <strong>expectations</strong>,assumed that the a parameter µ =1.The four prices give rise to four streams of future profits for a particularstream of future realizations of ε and u j . We assumed that these futurerealizations were all zero and take the ratio of the streams of profits to thosegenerated by RE as our indicator of the firm’s expected loss of profits fromforming non-RE <strong>expectations</strong>. We express this ratio as DPF/DPF ∗ whereDPF ∗ denotes the discounted value of future profits from the optimal pricewhen both shocks <strong>are</strong> observed, and DPF denotes the discounted value offuture profits from the optimal price when some other method of forming<strong>expectations</strong> is assumed. The closer is this ratio to 1 (it will always beless than 1), the smaller the loss of profits from not observing the shocksseparately. As our parameters we use estimates of the ρs andofβ and θpresented in <strong>Demery</strong> and Duck (2001, Table 1) and their estimates of theαs andσ 2 ε from an MA(q) empirical model for ∆mc t . The value of q wasdetermined by the number of significant ρs ineachcountry.FortheUKweestimated an MA(5) process for ∆mc t ;fortheUSweassumedanMA(3).Using these as our parameter values, and for different assumed values of σ 2 u,we then solved for the values of the γs which<strong>are</strong>consistentbothwiththeq-order invertible MA process driving u j,t and with our estimated values ofthe ρs. 12 We simulated 1000 values of DPF/DPF ∗ and report their meansin Table 5.12 We used numerical techniques to derive the required values of the γs. For the UK thefive αs were 0.325, 0.375, 0.3212,0.1007 and 0.1480; and the ρs were 0.807, 0.5204, 0.4013,0.2278, amd 0.1763. For the US the equivalent figures were 0.2696, 0.3199, and 0.0825;and 0.294, 0.1829 and 0.1499.