Statistical construction error

August 20, 2011

Yes, the title is meant to have two readings.

The effect

The Numbers Guy, among other examples, talks about the UK Office for National Statistics needing to revise its estimate for the construction sector output because of an error.

Original: 2.3% growth

Corrected: 0.5% growth

Here is the Telegraph article cited by The Numbers Guy.

The cause

The spreadsheet that is used to calculate the statistic was not updated properly.

Questions

Have they not read “Spreadsheet Addiction”?

Why are they not using R?

Does this scare anybody else?

Epilogue

Who would take the repercussions when the bottle is to blame?

from “Down the Mountain” by Robin E. Contreras

Subscribe to the Portfolio Probe blog by Email

Latest posts

Leave a Reply

Related posts

  • Replacing market indices

    April 2, 2012

    If equity markets suddenly sprang into existence now, would we create market indices? I'm doubtful. Why an index? The Dow Jones Industrial Average was born in 1896.  This was [...]

  • Beta is not volatility

    March 26, 2012

    The missing link between beta and volatility is correlation. Previously "4 and a half myths about beta in finance" attempted to dislodge several myths about beta, including that beta [...]

  • Low (and high) volatility strategy effects

    March 23, 2012

    Does minimum variance act differently from low volatility?  Do either of them act like low beta?  What about high volatility versus high beta? Inspiration Falkenblog had a post investigating [...]