1. LAMAS Working Group 7-8 December 2016
Agenda Item 4.2 Quality monitoring of MUR estimates
Eurostat

2. Background Importance of MUR data (among the main PEEIs)
Need to monitor quality:
to better interpret the results and avoid false signals to the users
to help countries comparing the performance of the different methods
NOT for publication
Agreement (by TF and then LAMAS) on the main quality indicators to be used for measuring revisions / volatility of MUR data
Need to test those indicators on all countries, for the same reference period, and fine-tune the thresholds where needed
Eurostat

3. Main indicators and thresholds
V1: The ‘Correlation of month-on-month changes’ that should remain within the [-0.3; 0.75] interval
V2: The ‘Frequency of double large inversions’ to be below 5%
R2: The ‘Frequency of very large revisions in levels’ to be checked against the 10% threshold
R3: The ‘Frequency of large revisions in month-on-month changes’ that should remain below 10%
Eurostat

4. AT, BE, CZ, DK, ES, FR, IE, LU, MT, NL?, SK
  Results
Low revisions
R2 < 10%
AND
R3 < 10%
Low revisions in levels OR M-on-M changes OR
High revisions
R2 >10%
R3 >10%
High Smoothness
(V1 > 0.75)
DE, FI IS
Medium Volatility / Smoothness
V1 Є [-0.3 ; 0.75]
HU, UK, NO, PL
AT, BE, CZ, DK, ES, FR, IE, LU, MT, NL?, SK
BG, CY, EE, EL, HR, LT, PT, SI
High Volatility
(V1 < -0.3 OR V2 > 5%) SE
RO, IT

5. LAMAS is invited:
To take note of the 1st results of the quality monitor of MUR data
To agree on focusing on 4 core indicators of which 2 measure volatility (V1, V2) and 2 measure revisions (R2, R3)
=> EoV: 20/25 MSs in favour
To take note of the resulting typology of MUR estimates as summarized in the table
To agree that Eurostat updates this quality monitor on an annual basis for presentation at LAMAS (not for publication)
=> EoV: 22/26 MSs in favour
Eurostat