So can I try to summarise? At least outline my conclusion after following this lengthy debate......
1) LVOs headline claim is I think misleading and false. Really quite a rookie mistake (or very manipulative) to make such a big deal about figures that compare revised period figures to the latest ones to draw conclusions. APM use the accepted / correct approach in this regard, exactly the same as the ABS does for all their data releases that are subject to later revision.
2) Yes, APM seem to not put a big effort into highlighting the revisions from the past release in their next one - this could definitely be improved. However, the ABS itself has been shown to sometimes commit the same sin. Anyone who wants to do serious data analysis can easily determine the revisions if they want to.
3) Finally, in the case of the APM release, the revisions are net "neutral" in that they are positive for units and negative for houses - a point acknowledged by LVO in his original article. So there does not seem to be evidence of any great data manipulation or conspiracy to hide the reality of the market. Besides, we also have RP-Data, Residex, some of the REIs and ultimately the ABS to corroborate or disprove any suspect numbers.
For Aussie property bears, "denial", is not just a long river in North Africa.....
Catweasel laugh. It all a rather heated and a nasty. Perhaps a mouzealots can arrange a hit on its contrarian the blogger. Could imagine a Strindbag wrapped around a blogger's ankles as it sinks its teeth into a flesh.
I think you're bear who has been waiting for years for a crash you were promised by your pin-up boys like LVO and you are the sort who lap up any bearshit regardless of its truth. You think that it's fine and dandy to make up shit and throttle any and all exposure of such shenanigans. Hence your post.
Defenders of made up crap in this thread are now trying change the issue - move the goalposts. They, and Leith in his comment, are trying to make the issue the non-disclosure of revisions. If that really was the basis of complaint in Leith's blog, then why the hell did Leith not even mention that issue in the blog? I'll tell you why. When he wrote the blog he didn't imagine his hypocrisy would be exposed, even by his own supporters. The issue of the disclosure of the revisions is something he thought of afterwards as a face saving exercise. He screwed up. He never admits his screw-ups. He has a blog still claiming that the age of the average UK FHB is 37 rather than the actual 29. He makes stuff up. He'll say anything that he knows his Mish/zerohedge gloomers want to read, just so he can help H&H to get a bit more ad revenue.
The issue is his blog headline. He claims APM misreported. They did not. But don't expect him to change his headline to a truthful one. Truth is not something he knows anything about.
I know nothing about the guy. Never read any of his stuff and only know his name because of your ongoing obsession with him.
He must rattle your little cage though; what with all these threads you need to start about him and macrobusiness? Apparently they're starting to get some attention though and that's the real stinger, isn't it?
See, once something's published it's essentially fact to the uninformed who stumbles across it. I don't even know what your latest moan is about, but I know you're worried there might be some education or mis-education going on - the plebs might read something, get spooked and and bring down your precious little housing market.
You can calm down, if the housing market is crashing it won't be under the weight of some obscure guy's alleged mistakes.
But maybe you can call the internet police and have him thrown in bloggers' jail for attempting to incite a housing crash.
I know nothing about the guy. Never read any of his stuff and only know his name because of your ongoing obsession with him.
He must rattle your little cage though; what with all these threads you need to start about him and macrobusiness? Apparently they're starting to get some attention though and that's the real stinger, isn't it?
See, once something's published it's essentially fact to the uninformed who stumbles across it. I don't even know what your latest moan is about, but I know you're worried there might be some education or mis-education going on - the plebs might read something, get spooked and and bring down your precious little housing market.
You can calm down, if the housing market is crashing it won't be under the weight of some obscure guy's alleged mistakes.
But maybe you can call the internet police and have him thrown in bloggers' jail for attempting to incite a housing crash.
Lol, I also learnt about Steve Keen, Chris Joye, Michael Yardney, etc through people's posts here. Personally, I see nothing wrong with any of it.
I put trolls and time wasters on my ignore list so if I don't respond to you, you are probably on it ....
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.
David Llewellyn-Smith has today repeated Leith van Onselen's error in regards to the APM house price index.
In a blog titled 'APM’s magical March quarter house price rises' Llewellyn-Smith falsely accuses APM of 'trumpeting fictitious gains' by comparing the current quarter's house price data with the revised data for the previous quarter. What he fails to realise, is that this absolutely the appropriate method of comparison. One should always compare the most recent data, and in this case, the most recent data shows prices to be rising. The gains are not 'fictitious'.
APM is simply using the same methodology used by the ABS. Note that the ABS does not announce revisions either. Interested readers are free to look for the ABS revisions by comparing past release with current release - just the same as with APM revisions.
Do we hear Llewellyn-Smith whining about the ABS 'trumpeting fictitious data' when they compare the current quarter's house price, inflation, or employment data with the revised data for the previous quarter? Of course not, because this is standard practice. Llewellyn-Smith only bleats about APM (and RPData etc) because he views them as 'vested interests', 'spruikers' and part of his hated so-called 'politico-housing complex'.
Llewellyn-Smith also sarcastically states 'I can see why house prices never go down', implying that APM always revise their figures in such a way as to make it look like house prices never fall. In fact, in December, APM revised their index up for 5 cities and down for 3 cities. In September, they revised 3 up and 5 down. There is no evidence that APM make false revisions in any particular direction in order to show house prices never going down.
Llewellyn-Smith has zero credibility. He simply feeds his followers the made-up bear fodder that they so desire.
Um... what part of 'according to the latest APM data' didn't you understand? :rolleyes:
The part where it is revised or not, given that it is not marked revised when revised. According to you, it is always revised, so does 'according to the latest APM data' mean the unrevised data or revised data?
Quote:
But fine, you can take the position that all future ABS/GDP/CPI etc figures are misreported and misrepresented if you want.
They probably are, but at least they are marked as 'revised' when they revise them. Your position is that marking revised data as revised is an unnecessary redundancy, because ALL figures are revised in their subsequent publication. Correct?
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