Revision confidence limits for recent data on trend levels, trend - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

revision confidence limits for recent data on trend
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Revision confidence limits for recent data on trend levels, trend - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Conference on Seasonality, Seasonal Adjustment and their implications for Short-Term Analysis and Forecasting 10-12 May 2006 Revision confidence limits for recent data on trend levels, trend growth rates and seasonally adjusted levels Peter B.


slide-1
SLIDE 1

10-12 May 2006

Revision confidence limits for recent data

  • n trend levels, trend growth rates and

seasonally adjusted levels

Peter B. Kenny

Conference on Seasonality, Seasonal Adjustment and their implications for Short-Term Analysis and Forecasting

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Revision confidence limits for recent data on trend levels, trend growth rates and seasonally adjusted levels

Peter B. Kenny (PBK Research)

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Statement of problem

  • The latest seasonally adjusted and trend values

will be revised as new data are added…

  • …even if the unadjusted data are not changed.
  • Data compilers know this, but it is not usually

highlighted in statistical output.

  • Even the compilers seldom have a quantitative

idea of the likely extent of revisions.

  • There are situations where knowledge of the

likely extent of future revisions will aid data users in interpreting current data.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Possible solution

  • SEATS output includes estimates of revision

standard error for trend and seasonally adjusted.

  • X-12-ARIMA has no corresponding output…
  • …so can we define a procedure to obtain one?
  • If X-12-ARIMA analysis includes an ARIMA

model, we can formulate the requirement as:

– What range of revisions is consistent with the future evolution of the ARIMA model of the series?

  • Look for a mathematical representation of this

requirement.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Calculation Method (1)

  • The default forecast of the ARIMA model

assumes all innovations are zero.

  • Actual realisations are generated by sampling a

set of innovations from a Gaussian model.

  • We could generate a large set of realisations

and see the extent of revisions (Monte Carlo).

  • But it would be more convenient to have a way
  • f expressing the revisions as a function of the

innovations.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Calculation Method (2)

  • Use the ‘black box’ method – find the response
  • f the filter system to an impulse innovation at

each forecast time point.

  • Consider how far ahead to estimate revisions –

we must be confident that the ARIMA model will provide a reasonable representation.

  • Chosen forecast horizon is 36 months.
  • How far back to calculate revision limits? – more

than 36 months back change is negligible.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Calculation Method (3)

  • The first step is to carry out a full modelling and

estimation run, identifying an ARIMA model and producing 36 months of forecasts (with zero innovations).

  • Table B1 from this run is the basis for all the

later variations with non-zero innovations.

  • We need to assume that the effects of the future

innovations on past values are additive.

  • Experiment shows that we cannot make this

assumption if extreme values are modified.

– (This applies only to revision limit estimation)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Calculation Method (4)

  • First run to calculate base series for trend and
  • seas. adj. – apply x-11 with no modification of

extremes to saved Table B1.

  • Modify saved B1 by assuming an innovation of
  • ne s.e. in the first forecast period (all others

remain zero).

  • Apply x-11 to this modified series, again with no

extremes.

  • Repeat with the non-zero innovation in forecast

period 2, 3, …, 36.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Calculation Method (5)

  • Calculate differences between the 36 variant

results and the base case.

  • These are the coefficients of the linear

approximation to the relationship between the actual innovations and the revision to the base trend and s.adj. series.

  • Since the innovations are by definition

independent, the sum of squares of these coefficients gives the variance of the revision.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Illustration and Testing

  • Use Box-Jenkins airline passengers series.
  • Initial modelling with X-12-ARIMA identifies

model ( 0 1 1)(0 1 1) and trading day effect.

  • Rerun with TD gives model (1 1 0)(0 1 1) - the

TD effect is weekday – weekend contrast.

  • Take (1 1 0)(0 1 1) with TD as basic model for

this series.

  • Model (0 1 1)(0 1 1) with TD is a close second

and is used as a variant.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Figure 1: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Original, SA and Trend

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 Original SA Trend

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Figure 2: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Revision Limits for X-11 SA

350 400 450 500 550 1958 1959 1960 1961 Estimate Upper bound Lower bound

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Figure 3: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Revision Limits for X-11 Trend

350 400 450 500 550 1958 1959 1960 1961 Estimate Upper bound Lower bound

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Figure 4: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Revision Limits for X-11 Alternative SA

350 400 450 500 550 1958 1959 1960 1961 Estimate Upper bound Lower bound

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Figure 5: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Revision Limits for Seats SA

350 400 450 500 550 1958 1959 1960 1961 Estimate Upper bound Lower bound

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Figure 6: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Revision Limits for Seats Trend

350 400 450 500 550 1958 1959 1960 1961 Estimate Upper bound Lower bound

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Figure 7: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Comparison of Trend Revision Limits for Seats and X-11

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1958 1959 1960 1961 X-11 Seats (PBK formula) Seats (Maravall formula)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Figure 8: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Comparison of Formula and Monte Carlo Trend Revision Limits (no extreme modification)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1958 1959 1960 1961 X-11 (PBK formula) X-11(Monte Carlo)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Figure 8a: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Comparison of Formula and Monte Carlo Trend Revision Limits (with extreme modification)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1958 1959 1960 1961 X-11 (PBK formula) X-11(Monte Carlo) X-11(MC with no extreme removal)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Figure 8b: Box-Jenkins Airline Data

Comparison of Formula and Monte Carlo SA Revision Limits (with extreme modification)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1958 1959 1960 1961 X-11 (PBK formula) X-11(Monte Carlo) X-11(MC with no extreme removal)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Example 2

  • UK Claimant Count Unemployment.
  • No longer the preferred measure – superseded

by harmonised measure based on Labour Force Survey.

  • But a useful indicator –

– precise (no sampling) – rapidly available – clear turning points

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Figure 9: UK Claimant Count Unemployment

Original, SA and Trend

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Original SA Trend

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Figure 10: UK Claimant Count Unemployment

Revision Limits for X-11 Trend

820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Estimate Upper bound Lower Bound

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Figure 11: UK Claimant Count Unemployment

Revision Limits for X-11 Trend (data to March 2005)

820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Estimate Upper bound Lower Bound

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Figure 12: UK Claimant Count Unemployment

Revision Limits for X-11 Trend (data to April 2005)

820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Estimate Upper bound Lower Bound

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Example 3

  • UK Consumer Price Index
  • Harmonised (standard European measure)
  • Growth rate is official inflation target for Bank of

England Monetary Policy Committee.

  • No official seasonal adjustment
  • Growth rate is 12-month change in unadjusted

index level.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Figure 13: UK Consumer Price Index

Original, SA and Trend

90 95 100 105 110 115 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Original SA Trend

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Figure 14: UK Consumer Price Index

Revision Limits for X-11 Trend (H9)

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Estimate Upper bound Lower Bound

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Figure 15: UK Consumer Price Index

Revision Limits for X-11 Trend (H23)

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Estimate Upper bound Lower Bound

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Figure 16: UK Consumer Price Index

Revision Limits for X-11 Trend Growth Rate (H23)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Growth rate (% p.a.)

Estimate Upper bound Lower Bound

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Outstanding Questions

  • We are looking at revisions in the X-11 process;

what about revisions to regARIMA (level shifts, trading day factors, etc.)?

  • If the published s.adj. is based on 12 months’

forecasts, should we still use 36 to estimate the revision limits?

  • If there are serious doubts about the additivity of

the individual innovation effects, should we use the Monte Carlo approach?

  • How best to present the results graphically?
slide-32
SLIDE 32

UK Claimant Count Unemployment

Current situation (data to April 2005)

820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Trend Estimate Upper bound Lower Bound S.A.Estimate

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Summary and Conclusions

  • The examples show that the inclusion of revision

limits can give useful information to data users.

  • SEATS can already provide limits; the method

proposed here enables X-12-ARIMA to do the same.

  • The method does not involve long computation;

even if we use the Monte Carlo approach it is just a matter of minutes.

  • More research is needed!