Harmanova, Musayeva, Sotolova, Valka:

Forecast:
 * Job well done! You've created a scenario that would, with only few minor adjustment be presentable in real life setting. The gaps make sense, the headline numbers make sense. There are three points that could be improved, see below.
 * Keeping the inflation target at 10.5% for the whole forecast period is dubious. The implication is that the CBA will keep inflation elevated, which is consistent with a fast nominal depreciation. However, you will recall we discussed that the CBA did not actually leave the nominal exchange rate targeting. Consistent with that is low inflation, and therefore also low inflation target.
 * The RIR gap in 2016 is deeply negative. In effect, your forecast says that in this period, the monetary policy was expansionary. The reason for that is you have tuned high real effective exchange rate (REER) trend depreciation using trend growth shocks, which increases the real interest rate (RIR). While in some cases that is reasonable, in this case it would be best to use trend level shocks to avoid increase in RIR trend. In effect, the forecast says that monetary policy would be very easy even with nominal interest rates above 20%. That's a bit dubious.
 * The output trend growth is around zero at the end of the forecast. It's not clear why, you do not comment on it in the text. It's not implausible though.
 
Text:
 * The text could use more economic logic to help the reader understand where the numbers come from. In this regard the second paragraph is a nice example how to do it. Sentences that just describe the numbers aren't very valuable, since the reader can check the numbers in tables.
 * Overall I think the text could be enriched by adding more "economic substance", more descriptions of the transmission mechanisms from the shock to the outcomes (headline variables). 
 * There is no mention of monetary policy - how will they react, will they change their target, etc. In real life, these are very important considerations.
 
 
 
Bajanik, Cery, Pavelka, Szitas:
 
Forecast:
  * Unfortunately I do not like it very much. You used the wrong shocks to construct the forecast. The numbers are not consistent with the text.
  * Nominal exchange rate depreciates much less than it did in reality. Also, the real exchange doesn't make sense. Frst, it depreciates strongly, resulting in very high REER gap. Then it appreciates back, and ends up being less than 10% weaker in 2017 compared to 2014. In reality, the REER depreciated by some 40%. Also, the REER trend depreciated first, created large overvaluation (negative REER gap) and only then the nominal exchange rate depreciated. See the forecast of the previous group.
  * You explain the nominal FX depreciation by FX rate shocks. Basically, you say to the model that the central bank, for some mysterious reason, weakened exchange rate a lot, which then caused high inflation. That's not the story you write in the text, and that's not what happened in reality.
  * The output gap does not go negative over the forecast. So the country is hit by a big shock and the domestic demand is doing fine, there is barely any impact on domestic demand. That's not consistent with the text either. The whole decline of the GDP growth is caused by the potential. That doesn't sound correct.
  * The inflation target remains constant throught the forecast. That makes the inflation trajectory even more puzzling. Why did the central bank weaken the exchange rate so much if the inflation target remained low?

 
Text:
  * Usually the forecast discusses expectations of future, and therefore we use future tense :)
  * I like that you started with a background section, laying out the key features of the Azeri economy. However, you write that the central bank started doing inflation targeting. I do not think that's correct, as we discussed.
  * "The depreciation of the exchange rate should not affect the weakening of AZ's competitiveness, because oil prices are determined on world markets in dollars." Try as I might, I don't understand this sentence.
 * I like that you included section on monetary policy. However, the forecast should describe reality, not the model. In reality, the central bank was targeting exchange rate, not using the IFBRF.
 * Contrary to the text, the FX rate depreciation will affect the Azeri competitiveness - domestic goods will become more competitive comapred to imports. So Azeri people will not buy iPhones so often, but they will go eat in local restaurants more often. Consumption will shift away from imports towards domestically produced goods.
 * See my comments on the text of the previous group, most of them apply to your text too.
 

Shabalin, Pleskot, Hashimli:

Forecast:
  * Inflation target turns negative. That's nonsense.
  * REER trend first appreciates and then depreciates. That also nonsense.
  
Text:
  * The text is poor. It does not explain the forecast at all. Risk section is confused. Seems to have been written in 15 minutes.
  
  

General comments for all groups:
 * For two out of three groups, I found your level of writing to be good. That is encouraging, since writing is hard but important. Congratulations, and please keep developing your writing skills in future. In particular, it's very useful to be able to write a "story" - not just a collection of isolated paragraphs, but consistent text where one paragraph relates to another in natural way. 
 * The texts did not talk about monetary policy enough. Recall that when understanding model impulse responses, we had to talk about monetary policy often. That's because, in reality, the monetary policy is important. Talk about how the policy reacts to shocks, what are the policy preferences, ... That's the essense of economics.