3. What for?
• The big question:
• What about the quality of the MIP indicators?
• The small question:
• How safe are the MIP indicators?
Our Response
3
4. Some insights:
Expert Opinion poll is not a survey:
• No sampling
• Assumption that the respondents are the real experts
• Likelihood and impact
• 166 answers in 2 weeks
Results:
• By country (about 2/3 of the 28 Member States)
• By indicator (11 headlines)
4
5. Likelihood Analysis
1. Impact factor weighting
2. Computing the total score
3. Normalization (64<=x<=256)
4. Computing the uncertainty (percentage)
5. Computing the safe probability (equivalent to 1
minus the uncertainty)
5
6. Results
• Interesting relevant findings for:
• Deflated House Price
• Financial Accounts
• Balance of Payment
• Unit Labour Cost
• Government Debt
Croatia
6
7. Analysis of revision of MIP
scoreboards
• Small revisions, likely to bring in noise rather than
news
• Large revisions, likely to bring in news rather than
noise
• Policy: Never revise data. In this case you have
neither news nor noise
7
8. Vintages
• 2 vintages, 1 set of revisions
• MIP headline data
• Last 5 years (2007-2011)
8
10. Background references
• ESS guidelines on revisions
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-13-
016/EN/KS-RA-13-016-EN.PDF
• OECD/Eurostat Task Force on “Performing Revisions
Analysis for Sub-Annual Economic Statistics”
• http://www.oecd.org/std/40315546.pdf
1. Basic/ core measures: targeting users that require quick, easy to
understand information
2. Additional/ advanced measures: targeting users that require more in-
depth analysis
3. Sophisticated / special user measures: information for detailed
research purposes.
10
11. Summary of statistics to be used
for analysis of revisions (1)
1. Mean absolute revision
2. Median absolute revision
3. Arithmetic average or mean revision
4. Statistical significance of the mean revision
5. Median revision:
6. % of positive revisions:
7. % of negative revisions:
8. % of zero revisions:
9. Adjusted t-statistic for significance of mean revision
10.Critical values of t statistic for significance of mean revision
11.Standard deviation of revision
12.Root mean square revision
13.Quartile deviation
11
12. Summary of statistics to be used
for analysis of revisions (2)
14.Minimum revision
15.Maximum revision
16.Range of revision
17.Skewness
18.% sign (later) = sign (earlier):
19.Acceleration / deceleration
20.Relative mean absolute revision:
21.Average absolute value of first published estimate
22.Correlation between revision and earlier estimate (test if revisions are
„noise )‟
23.Correlation between revision and later estimate (test if revisions are
„news )‟
24.Serial correlation of revisions:
25.Decomposition of the Mean Squared Revision 12
15. MAX and MIN revisions of 2011
data by individual Member State
Revisions of 2011 data upward downward
Current account (as %of GDP) SK CY
Net international investment positions (as %of GDP) LU FI
Share of world exports CZ DE
Real effective exchange rates (REER) NA NA
Unit labour cost RO LU
Private debt (as %of GDP) UK LU
Private credit flow (as %of GDP) IE EE
Deflated house price index EL RO
Government sector debt (as %of GDP) IE RO
Financial sector liabilities NL LU
Unemployment NA IE
15
16. Open discussion: the way forward
• Safebook:
• consistent results with robust methodology (fine
tuning of questions)
• Further involvement of ESTAT domain managers
and ESS experts
• Revision analysis done using:
• different stats
• more vintages
• higher frequencies
16
The aim of this presentation is to give some insight of the work done by the MIP team with particular focus on the approach adopted. The results are not presented, since they are available in the supporting document
Our preliminary answer to the big one:
In order to answer to this question we need to have a look to the inventories/quality report and run a risk assessment in the framework of a stocktaking exercise. Per each country and per each indicator of course!!
Our preliminary answer to the small one:
Let&apos;s run an expert opinion poll among our team in order can give you a ranking. Per each country and per each indicator of course!
In practice
Conducted in October 2013 by the Eurostat MIP team, based on some 30 questions covering some 10 different quality dimensions.
Some additional insights on the way the safe probability is computed
Detailed findings can be found in the supporting document. The outcome was used for the reservation notes of the MIP press release and for the Statistical Annex
The aim of this slide is not to provide you with new definitions. Routine revisions are not necessarily small, and Major revisions are not necessarily large.
improving accuracy but disturbing for the users;
these are also disturbing for users and the implications are more severe since it may overturn earlier recommendations/decisions;
This is also disturbing for the users eager to get “fresh” data continuously!
The vintages of the last two AMR exercises, i.e. the two frozen data sets available at the dates of 1th of November 2012 and 1st of November 2013 respectively.
The MIP headlines include a mixture of growth rates and flow/stock variables.
In order to tackle this issue, the absolute revisions between the two vintages were calculated per each indicator.
2011 year data were mostly concerned by revisions. PC and PD mostly downward, while CA and NIIP mostly upward
Clear need for deeper analysis. Looked into literature.
Focus on the indicators and not the countries.
We then conducted a graphical analysis of the revisions starting with the visualization of the standard deviations of the revisions within Member States per each year for the period 2007 onwards (the dynamics).
The graph above signals that three indicators (Net Investment International Position, Private Credit and Private Debt), are those where larger revisions occurred. In particular it can be spotted that large revision occurred in 2008, 2009 and 2010 (starting from the first years of the crisis).
In order to better show the behaviour for the other indicators, the three mentioned above were removed from the graph.
This graph shows that the revisions between the two vintages are more pronounced for the most recent data (2011) than for the historical data (2007), possibly explained by the routine revisions of the more recent data. In addition, it can be seen that there are important revision seen for the Unit Labour Cost indicator.
IE, RO ,LU, 3 times
Test if revisions are news or noise
ESS guidelines on Revisions
Results
DMES is invited to comment on the results