i don't follow APM very much. always suspected they were dodgy and the latest sydney figures confirm that.
I've looked at RPD stats and while i haven't done an in depth analysis it would appear that they are revised down more than up, but not by a large amount.
Analysis of Leith van Onselen's complaint reveals it to be this:
APM in assessing the change from the September quarter to the December quarter have used the latest September quarter figures and the latest December quarter figures.
That is the only logical course of action to take. APM have done what the ABS do EVERY QUARTER when they announce their results. When the ABS report quarterly changes they report the change from the previous revised quarter figure. To do otherwise would be stupid. The ABS adopt the same approach with all of their data releases like employment etc. I have never read Leith van Onselen complaining about the ABS using the practice of which he is now complaining. He is a hypocrite.
Leith's headline is an out and out lie. APM correctly reported their figures. They reported the changes based on the previous period's revised figures - as they should and as the ABS always do.
Leith van Onselen has yet again made up shit for the consumption of his doom and gloom audience.
fair comment, but let me ask a couple of questions ..
Did the APM publish the revised figures before doing this latest report ?
and
does the ABS cite they are using revised numbers from the previous quarter with any new release that uses them ?
Did the APM publish the revised figures before doing this latest report ?
and
does the ABS cite they are using revised numbers from the previous quarter with any new release that uses them ?
APM published the revised September figures in the December report, which is the same way the ABS does it.
Here's another comment from the Macrobusiness site, which in my opinion is quite defamatory, suggesting APM 'cook the books' ...
Quote:
maybe made to look like like sloppy just in case someone picks it up? Make two “errors” one that is in your advantage and one that is not. When you draw the line the gain from the error that is in your advantage is outweighing by far the loss from the other. That’s the way to cook the books so it may be blamed on sloppiness if it gets discovered
Leith also accuses APM of sloppiness. But there is nothing sloppy about revising figures as more data becomes available. In fact this is best practice. It would be sloppy NOT to revise the figures. Leith's credibility is utterly destroyed here.
i don't follow APM very much. always suspected they were dodgy and the latest sydney figures confirm that.
I've looked at RPD stats and while i haven't done an in depth analysis it would appear that they are revised down more than up, but not by a large amount.
My observation over the years is that figures are generally revised up when the market is moving up, and generally revised down when the market is moving down. When revisions change from predominantly up to predominantly down, and vice versa, it often seems to signal a turning point in the market. This applies to all the data providers who revise, not just RPData but also ABS and APM. It applies to non-housing data too. Not a hard and fast rule, but just something I have observed happening more often than not.
APM published the revised September figures in the December report, which is the same way the ABS does it.
Here's another comment from the Macrobusiness site, which in my opinion is quite defamatory, suggesting APM 'cook the books' ...
Leith also accuses APM of sloppiness. But there is nothing sloppy about revising figures as more data becomes available. In fact this is best practice. It would be sloppy NOT to revise the figures. Leith's credibility is utterly destroyed here.
so both ABS and APM publish revised figures and both of them clearly state those previous figures were revised ? is that correct ?
If so then that's interesting... pretty poor attempt to discredit APM.
btw rather than saying they were moderate gains, I would call them flat.
Seriously .. would you call a drop of that magnitude a moderate fall ?
Analysis of Leith van Onselen's complaint reveals it to be this:
APM in assessing the change from the September quarter to the December quarter have used the latest September quarter figures and the latest December quarter figures.
That is the only logical course of action to take. APM have done what the ABS do EVERY QUARTER when they announce their results. When the ABS report quarterly changes they report the change from the previous revised quarter figure. To do otherwise would be stupid. The ABS adopt the same approach with all of their data releases like employment etc. I have never read Leith van Onselen complaining about the ABS using the practice of which he is now complaining. He is a hypocrite.
Leith's headline is an out and out lie. APM correctly reported their figures. They reported the changes based on the previous period's revised figures - as they should and as the ABS always do.
Leith van Onselen has yet again made up shit for the consumption of his doom and gloom audience.
I guess if he is going to make up shit the best thing he can do is smear it underneath your nose. I'm sure he is reading this and pissing himself laughing.
APM published the revised September figures in the December report, which is the same way the ABS does it.
Here's another comment from the Macrobusiness site, which in my opinion is quite defamatory, suggesting APM 'cook the books' ...
Leith also accuses APM of sloppiness. But there is nothing sloppy about revising figures as more data becomes available. In fact this is best practice. It would be sloppy NOT to revise the figures. Leith's credibility is utterly destroyed here.
I agree 100% that there is nothing wrong with publishing revised figures as they come to light.
It is, however, sloppy to not cite that the data has been revised.
ABS: REVISIONS
Estimates for the two most recent quarters of the HPI series are preliminary and subject to revision (see paragraphs 15 to 19 of the Explanatory Notes).
The series for the median price of established house transfers (unstratified) and the number of established house transfers (published in Tables 7 and 8 respectively) are also subject to revision as the ABS receives more data from the Valuers-General. A change to data provision and a review of ABS processes in the September quarter 2011 have led to larger than usual revisions to these series.
APM: ???
It is also very sloppy to revise previous data, publish new data, and cite a direction based on that without mentioning that the previous data was revised for that document.
Illegal ? nope Fraudulent ? prob not Sloppy ? certainly. I don't think you can argue against that based on the sep and dec documents I just looked... not one mention of revised data at all.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy