SOME EXAMPLES OF THE COMPARISON DIRECT VS INDIRECT
- Slides: 28
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE COMPARISON DIRECT VS. INDIRECT ADJUSTMENT OF MEXICAN ECONOMIC INDICATORS February 2012
Discrepancy between the aggregate (direct) and the sum of its components (indirect) Total Investment: Seasonal adjusted series Annual percentage variation Quaterly percentage variation 15 8 6 10 4 5 2 0 0 -2 Direct -5 Direct Indirect -4 Indirect -6 -10 -8 I II III IV I II III IV I 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -15 I II III IV I II III IV I 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -10
Total Investment and its components(Public and Private), Original series 2 400 000 Millions of pesos Total Public Private 2 000 1 600 000 1 200 000 800 000 400 000 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 0
Total Investment and its components(Public and Private), Original series Annual percentage variation 40 30 20 10 0 -10 Total Public Private I II III 2004 IV I II III 2005 IV I II III 2006 IV I II III 2007 IV I II III 2008 -20 IV I II III 2009 IV I II III 2010 IV I 2011 -30
Total Investment and its components(Public and Private), Original series Model specifications Indicator Total Model ARIMA Easter Outliers (0 1 0) 8 Private (0 1 0) (1 0 0) 3 Public (1 0 0) (0 1 0) LS 2009. 1
Total Investment and its components(Public and Private), Original series Total Investment (Annual percentage variation)
Total Investment: Original series adjusted by easter effect Annual percentage variation
Total Investment: Easter factor 103 102 101 100 99 Direct Indirect 98 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 97
Total Investment: Seasonal factor 108 106 104 102 100 98 96 Direct Indirect I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 94 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 92
Total Investment: Irregular factor 102 101 100 99 98 Direct Indirect I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 97 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 96
Total Investment, Seasonal adjusted series 2 300 000 Millions of pesos 2 100 000 1 900 000 1 700 000 Direct Indirect 1 500 000 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV 2010 I 2011 1 300 000
Total Investment, Seasonal adjusted series 8 Quarterly percentage variation 6 4 2 0 -2 Direct -4 Indirect -6 -8 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 -10
Total Investment, Trend-cycle Millions of pesos 2 200 000 2 050 000 1 900 000 1 750 000 Direct Indirect 1 600 000 1 450 000 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 1 300 000
Total Investment, Trend-cycle Quarterly percentage variation 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 Direct -6 Indirect -8 -10 -12 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 -14
Discrepancy between the aggregate (direct) and the sum of its components (indirect) Demand for goods and services: Seasonal adjusted series Annual percentage variation Quaterly percentage variation 15 8 10 6 4 5 2 0 0 -5 -2 Direct Indirect -4 -10 -6 -15 I II III IV I II III IV I 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -20 -8 I II III IV I II III IV I 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 -10
Demand for goods and services, Original series Demand for goods and services Final consumption expenditure Gross fixed capital formation 9 700 000 14 000 Millions of pesos 12 000 7 700 000 10 000 5 700 000 8 000 6 000 3 700 000 4 000 1 700 000 2 000 -300 000 I II III IV I II III IV I 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0
Demand for goods and services, Original series Annual percentage variation 40 30 20 10 0 Demand for goods and services -10 Final consumption expenditure I II III 2004 IV I II III 2005 IV I II III 2006 IV I II III 2007 -20 IV I II III 2008 IV I II III 2009 IV I II III 2010 IV I 2011 -30
Demand for goods and services, Original series Model specifications Indicator Total Final consumption expenditure Gross fixed capital formation Exports of goods and services Changes in inventories Model ARIMA Easter Outliers (0 1 0)(0 1 1) 10 LS 2008. 4 LS 2009. 1 AO 2009. 2 (0 1 0) 8 LS 2009. 1 (0 1 0) (1 1 0) LS 2009. 1 (0 1 1)
Demand for goods and services, Original series Demand for goods and services (Annual percentage variation)
Demand for goods and services: Original series adjusted by easter effect Annual percentage variation
Demand for goods and services: Easter factor 100, 6 100, 4 100, 2 100 99, 8 Direct 99, 6 Indirect I II IV I 2003 II IV I 2004 II IV I 2005 II IV I 2006 II IV I 2007 II IV I 2008 II IV I 2009 II IV I 2010 2011 99, 4
Demand for goods and services: Seasonal factor 104 102 100 98 96 Direct Indirect I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 94
Demand for goods and services: Irregular factor 102 101 100 99 Direct Indirect 98 97 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 96
Demand for goods and services, Seasonal adjusted series Millions of pesos 12 800 000 12 300 000 11 800 000 11 300 000 10 800 000 Direct Indirect 10 300 000 9 800 000 I II IV I 2003 II IV I 2004 II IV I 2005 II IV I 2006 II IV I 2007 II IV I 2008 II IV I 2009 II IV I 2010 2011 9 300 000
Demand for goods and services, Seasonal adjusted series Quarterly percentage variation 8 6 4 2 0 -2 Direct -4 Indirect -6 -8 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 -10
Demand for goods and services, Trend -cycle 12 700 000 Millions of pesos 12 200 000 11 700 000 11 200 000 10 700 000 Direct 10 200 000 Indirect 9 700 000 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 9 200 000
Demand for goods and services, Trend -cycle Quarterly percentage variation 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 Direct Indirect -6 -8 -10 I II IV 2003 I II IV 2004 I II IV 2005 I II IV 2006 I II IV 2007 I II IV 2008 I II IV 2009 I II IV I 2010 2011 -12
Which decomposition is better? Indirect adjustment, that is preferred by users because the analysis is easier, or Direct adjustment, that technically could be more accurate since it takes into account the aggregate data