  Holston, Laubach and Williams' (2017) estimates of the natural rate of
interest are driven by the downward trending behaviour of 'other factor'
$z_{t}$. I show that their implementation of Stock and Watson's (1998) Median
Unbiased Estimation (MUE) to determine the size of the $\lambda _{z}$ parameter
which drives this downward trend in $z_{t}$ is unsound. It cannot recover the
ratio of interest $\lambda _{z}=a_{r}\sigma _{z}/\sigma _{\tilde{y}}$ from MUE
required for the estimation of the full structural model. This failure is due
to an 'unnecessary' misspecification in Holston et al.'s (2017) formulation of
the Stage 2 model. More importantly, their implementation of MUE on this
misspecified Stage 2 model spuriously amplifies the point estimate of $\lambda
_{z}$. Using a simulation experiment, I show that their procedure generates
excessively large estimates of $\lambda _{z}$ when applied to data generated
from a model where the true $\lambda _{z}$ is equal to zero. Correcting the
misspecification in their Stage 2 model and the implementation of MUE leads to
a substantially smaller $\lambda _{z}$ estimate, and with this, a more subdued
downward trending influence of 'other factor' $z_{t}$ on the natural rate.
Moreover, the $\lambda _{z}$ point estimate is statistically highly
insignificant, suggesting that there is no role for 'other factor' $z_{t}$ in
this model. I also discuss various other estimation issues that arise in
Holston et al.'s (2017) model of the natural rate that make it unsuitable for
policy analysis.
