Are some forecasters really better than others?

In any dataset with individual forecasts of economic variables, some forecasters will perform
better than others. However, it is possible that these ex post differences reflect sampling variation
and thus overstate the ex ante differences between forecasters. In this paper, we present a
simple test of the null hypothesis that all forecasters in the US Survey of Professional Forecasters
have equal ability. We construct a test statistic that reflects both the relative and absolute
performance of the forecaster and use bootstrap techniques to compare the empirical results
with the equivalents obtained under the null hypothesis of equal forecaster ability. Results suggests
limited evidence for the idea that the best forecasters are actually innately better than
others, though there is evidence that a relatively small group of forecasters perform very poorly.