At the beginning of 2017, Donald Trump was about to be inaugurated as the next United States president. In anticipation of President Trump's policy changes in the United States, with possible consequences for the world economy, we sourced copper price forecasts from analysts and research organizations. The graph shows two copper price scenarios versus the subsequent actual outcome:

· The forecasts made before Donald Trump won the US election (i.e., before November 2016).

· The forecasts made after Donald Trump won the US election (i.e., post-November 2016).

· The LME average market prices for the years Donald Trump has been president (Source IMF).

2017 2018 2019 2020 (Y-t-D Sep)

Pre-election

Average $5’137/mt $5’490/mt $6’063/mt $6’305/mt

Post-election

Average $5’490/mt $5’689/mt $5’864/mt $6’305/mt

Actual

Average $6’170/mt $6’530/mt $6’010/mt $5’838/mt

Difference (Average)

Pre-election $1’033/mt $1’040/mt ($53/mt) ($467/mt)

Post-election $680/mt $841/mt $146/mt ($467/mt)

When comparing the forecasts against the subsequent outcomes, could they be considered to have been reliable? The consensus forecasts for the pre-election group consisted of 8 participants. For the post-election consensus forecasts, the group consisted of 40 participants, including some prominent research organizations in the sector. In defense of the forecasts, the copper price had been tracking lower in 2016 and could justifiably account for underestimating in 2017 and 2018. By comparison, 2019 was remarkedly accurate, and perhaps without the COVID outbreak in 2020, the overall comparative results might have proven to be reliable again. However, for some mining industry executives, the results might support their skepticism about using consensus forecasts.

I am open to considering the use of consensus forecasts, but with some modifications in the compilation process. Just asking someone for an estimate without allowing them to share their thought process would seem akin to aggregating all the votes in an election without allowing them to explain their position on the issues. The challenge in implementing a more transparent consensus forecasting approach is creating the scope for participants to share their views alongside their forecasts and simultaneously see the predictions and justifications of other industry experts.

In order to evaluate the possibility that an appropriately structured consensus forecasting panel could yield reliable results, a web-based application was designed to evaluate the concept for a doctoral research project. The web application allows participants to register for the research project and make anonymous copper and gold forecasts together with their justification for their predictions. As mentioned, to fully evaluate the concept of using an "open source" approach to developing consensus metal forecasts, all registered participants can see the anonymous forecasts of all other participants, as well as the evolving consensus forecasts. For those interested in participating in the research project, the web application can be found at https://consensusmetals.herokuapp.com

In a week, the next US presidential elections will be held, and once again, the question will be what lies in store for the coming four years for miners. I acknowledge my forecasting track record is questionable and feel that at times my approach is best described as "gut feel" rather than any systematic approach. If my guesses are partly right and are aggregated with other similarly partially correct forecasts, perhaps together, we can achieve a more reliable outcome for the benefit of all contributors!