The bottom line here is that house prices did rise in the December quarter according to the latest APM data.
What Rubbish ! How on earth do you know prices did not fall based on what you know today ?
Indeed, based on the fact that APM have demonstrated their data is wrong enough last quarter, how can you state this with confidence ? Wait for the (quietly) revised number and then make your claim.
You can, however, claim that based on APM's latest (provision) data and their previously flawed (now revised) quater's data, prices went up.
Um... what part of 'according to the latest APM data' didn't you understand? :rolleyes:
But fine, you can take the position that all future ABS/GDP/CPI etc figures are misreported and misrepresented if you want.
Just to clarify here. Leith's claim of misreporting/misrepresentation was not about the fact that the APM preliminary results for September were later revised.
Leith's claim is that APM misrepresented/misreported by comparing the latest December figures with the latest September figures to show that house prices had (based on the latest data) risen. This is where Leith screwed up. APM were absolutely right to compare the latest December figures with the latest September figures. This is exactly what the ABS does, and this was the right thing for APM to do. APM did not misreport or misrepresent anything by comparing the latest December figures with the latest September figures.
Leith thinks we should compare the latest December figures with the unrevised September figures to show a fall. This is wrong.
The fact that the September data was later revised is a side issue. The quarterly data is always revised.
Um... what part of 'according to the latest APM data' didn't you understand? :rolleyes:
But fine, you can take LVO's position that all future ABS/GDP/CPI etc figures are misreported and misrepresented if you want.
lol.. ok, well based on previously flawed data that has had to be quietly revised without any indication, and on currently flawed data that will be quietly revised in the future, it seems that prices may have risen.
The caveat is that when next quarter's revised data is released (and the revision is quietly placed in the table without any mention it is revised), the rise might turn out to be a drop.
It's not as impressive when you tell it like it is eh ?
btw, I take it you have not problem with anyone producing data and then revising it without notice ever again ?
You and Strindberg's claim that "APM have done what the ABS do EVERY QUARTER when they announce their results" is false... ABS clearly label revisions, APM seem to avoid it. I really do wonder what their reasoning is.
Quote:
But fine, you can take LVO's position that all future ABS/GDP/CPI etc figures are misreported and misrepresented if you want.
fine, we are in agreement then .. I will criticize that ABS has not shown it's revisions every time it does, and you will do so when APM do so. righto.. my job will be easy enough.
Just to clarify here. Leith's claim of misreporting/misrepresentation was not about the fact that the APM preliminary results for September were later revised.
The fact the September data was revised is a side issue. The quarterly data is always revised.
Actually, just to clarify here, shadow is wrong.. Leith cites both misreporting and quiet revision.
Quote:
I don’t think APM’s mis-reporting that house prices rose (marginally) was deliberate, just sloppy.
Quote:
APM should have disclosed that their previous release was revised down rather than report that house prices have improved. This is misleading in my view.
No-one is complaining about revised data... the issue is revised data that is simply put into a table with not indication it is revised.
You still fail to understand how suspect revised figures look if they are not treated in the same way that ABS do.
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.
interesting, i wonder what causes that? my observation was only during the period of falls, so we agree.
This is a summary of false statements from Leith's blog.
Quote:
'APM misreports own house price data'
'the rise in December’s house prices were caused entirely by a 0.5% downward revision in September’s results'
'Australian house prices actually fell by -0.4%, with Melbourne (-0.8%)'
'they did also mis-represent unit prices'
'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'
These statements are all false, perhaps defamatory.
It's worth taking a look at last week's ABS labour force release in which they reported that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 5.2% in December and unchanged from November.
The November rate published in December (here) was 5.3%.
It appears therefore that the November rate was revised down from 5.3% to 5.2%. I can locate NO mention of that revision. There was no mention by the ABS of the revision in the media release, the summary release, the full PDF release or in the XLS table. There may be a revelation of the revision somewhere - but where?
There is no mention of any revision to the November data.
Click on the summary and media release.
There is no mention of any revision to the November data.
Click explanatory notes.
There is no mention of any revision to the November data.
Click on downloads and click on the full PDF release.
The PDF contains no mention of any revision to the November data.
Click on downloads and table 2 XLS which contains the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in column AB.
The unemployment rate is shown as 5.2% for both November and December. All trace of the previously published 5.3% rate for November has disappeared. There is no mention that the November rate was revised.
With last weeks release, the ABS reported that the SA unemployment rate was unchanged from November to December at 5.2%. LVO also reported that there was no change and made no mention that the November figures had been revised. He compared the December figure with the REVISED November figure. A policy for which he attacks APM. He's a hypocrite.
It's worth taking a look at last week's ABS labour force release in which they reported that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 5.2% in December and unchanged from November.
The November rate published in December (here) was 5.3%.
It appears therefore that the November rate was revised down from 5.3% to 5.2%. I can locate NO mention of that revision. There was no mention by the ABS of the revision in the media release, the summary release, the full PDF release or in the XLS table. There may be a revelation of the revision somewhere - but where?
I will be honest and state that I did not follow all of your instructions to see the old/raw data. All I did was look at the one link you sited with the latest release. I will take you at your word that the previous data was revised between last publication and this one.
I agree, the page you link does not have the word revise, revision or such like.
So there you go... if they did, indeed revise (as the usual), ABS did not make note of it specifically on that document.
What they do have is a link via 6202.0 - Labour Force, Australia, Nov 2011 Quality Declaration which takes you to another page that includes
The changes which have been made to the Labour Force Survey have included changes in sampling methods, estimation methods, concepts, data item definitions, classifications, and time series analysis techniques. In introducing these changes the ABS has generally revised previous estimates to ensure consistency and coherence with current estimates. For a full list of changes made to the Labour Force Survey see Chapter 20 in Labour Statistics: Concepts, Sources and Methods (cat. no. 6102.0.55.001).
Overall, not what I expected either as it is not specifically on the document, although there is a note right beside the heading taking you to a quality declaration.
Better than nothing, but would be nicer to see a mention of revision specifically on that document.. does ABS send out PDF versions of those documents without the quality statement ?
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