@einsteinjs: As did @Anneinak, I too found that Reuters article fascinating. I had thought, but chose not to say, that it was Iran who had submarined an agreement. It is interesting to learn that it was SA, as well as to learn of their (apparently honorable) motivation. While every country in that area of the world is deeply in the red in my book of credibility, it's a +1 for SA on this.
Not all sources are equal. I agree the article is fascinating. I also believe some of it (maybe all of it) is true. A lot of fighting happened in this meeting and people left angry. Now they are talking to the press. I am hesitant to take the word of so many anonymous insiders and officials over the official OPEC statement. I am also curious to know what SA believes happened at the meeting.
Sorry but there was clearly no announcement, other than loose talk, by OPEC, regarding the quotas. They clearly chose not to mention them. A non-announcement doesn't qualify as an announcement in my book. If they announce "we are doing away with quotas", or "we no longer have no quotas", in a written press release, then that's an announcement. Simple elision does not suffice.
At best I think you'll get a void out of this one, not a 100% score, based on the Turkey Day precedent.
@000: Announcement may not be the right word here. Perhaps OPEC's statement? I am referring to the words on their website about the meeting. I agree with you about the possibility of the question being voided.
I have enjoyed reading your blog. I am not numbers person so I don't always understand what you are doing but it is really interesting.
Crude prices fell on Monday in the first trading session after OPEC-members failed to agree on output targets to reduce a bulging glut that has resulted in oil prices falling by more than 60 percent since June 2014.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries failed to agree on an oil production ceiling on Friday at a meeting that ended in acrimony after Iran said it would not consider any production curbs until it restores output scaled back for years under Western sanctions.
[...]
"Past communiques have at least included statements to adhere... or maintain output in line with the production target (of 30 million barrels per day). This one glaringly did not," Barclays bank said.
Not only did OPEC decide to keep its output target high, but analysts said that it would likely continue to exceed its quota as individual members offer discounts to customers in defense of market share.
[...]
"The effective removal of the OPEC quota leaves the market in a more vulnerable position. Prices are likely to weaken this week as the market turns its attention back on U.S. supply," ANZ bank said, referring to near record U.S. crude inventories of almost 490 million barrels.
"The formal production target was not even discussed, essentially signalling to the market that members would continue production at individual requirements. With Iran exports likely to start increasing next year, this increases the likelihood of further weakness in crude oil markets," it added.
~~~
COMMENT: I really feel for the adjudicators sometimes. I mean, really, it's obviously impossible to see every possible outcome when wording a question, but some of the hairy situations they find themselves in when trying to decide how to rule on a question mustn't be fun, especially when they undoubtedly receive emails from unhappy forecasters.
I have no sympathy for the judges! GJP has had 4 years to perfect the tradecraft of posing questions. They should be able to pose a good question, that's part of the secret sauce.
Another part of the secret sauce is training forecasters properly. They have really been holding back on this. The "training" page does not include as much training as we got last year in my cohort, and the amount of training I got in that cohort, I have the impression, is less than the amount of training they can do. Part of the social contract with us should be to give us the best training they can. This improves the quality of the site output and won't detract from the sales of their private forecasting business. Unless the sales pitch is "we can show you how to do better than the hoi polloi in GJOpen". I hope that's not the pitch, because they are also tying our hands behind our back by not doing things like closing resolved bins of multi-part questions like the Crude Oil question.
Interesting articles from Reuters. Thanks for posting. But I agree with 000 that, if GJO is being at all consistent, this question will be voided for the same reason as the NRF Thanksgiving shopping question: There was no announcement. For the NRF question, we could find the answer in the survey data published on NRF's site. But NRF did not include a total number for Thanksgiving weekend in its press release. So there was no "report", as the question required. In this case, there is no mention at all of output target in OPEC's press release. Even if we could figure out what OPEC means by it, that won't satisfy the question.
@000: You present many challenging points. 1) In that I only joined (late) last season, I do not know the project history. Are the questions this season all that different? 2) Is it maybe only the difference between "a government project" and a commercial endeavor? 3) I'm noticing similarities in certain question structures (independent of the content). For example, is impeachment the act or the process? Same with an IPO, is it an act or process? In this and the S-300 question, is it the de facto or de jure or de bono (my crappy latin construction) outcome that matters? Are these structures intentional? 4) Perhaps they were too focused on the forecasting side and skipped the "asking the right question" bit. 5) In the long-run, I think the best we can hope for is consistency in scoring.
[Edit: Also, last season I was able to see the ranks of competitors on individual questions. I am not sure why this feature is unavailable now. It's a good morale booster. Even if your overall score is poor, it's possible to maybe get a morale boost by seeing that you did exceptionally well versus the group on a particular question.]
@praedico. And I thought I could trust you... I am not buying the void argument. In the absence of an announcement the q is clear. We all agree no announcement has been made. We are all interpreting what the lack of announcement means. I didn't follow the NRF q but it sounds like they said it would resolve by the number inow a report that was not produced. That's fair enough to void. In this case the q requires an announcement of a change. The lack of announcement is being interpreted as change but it is not an actual announcement of a change. Currently we have confusion as to whether a change has happened, but we dont have an announcement (from opec, not a delegate with a view or analyst) i can well see it's clarified by an actual opec announcement officially in their press releases in line with other matters requiring clsrification As per Einstein article; then it will be resolved. Will they do that before the deadline then becomes the forecast of this q... I am still forecasting no as I don't think they will be able to publish a clarification saying they all agreed to abondon ceilings... I think they've messed up and are trying to fix, but won't announce until ducks aligned.... the alignment of the delegates I am banking will take them into next year
@clinton: I see your point. But "judgement" implies inference. What can we reasonably infer from the event? If inference were not involved, it would (or should) be called the Good "Observation" project. They don't need human brains to determine that OPEC made no literal announcement of a change.
[Edit: We're dealing with an omission. I'm going to hang my hat on the notion that by the customary precedent they themselves have set, failure to literally announce an agreement as to the ceiling is an announcement of no agreement, and hence, no ceiling. FYI: the last time they failed to reach agreement, no communique was issued. Issuance of a communique with no agreement is an omission that speaks loud and clear.]
OPEC fails to agree production ceiling
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-opec-meeting-idUSKBN0TM30B20151204
“We have no ceiling now.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-meeting-ends-with-no-production-cuts-1449248892
"failed to agree on an overall crude output ceiling"
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/vienna/opec-fails-to-agree-crude-output-ceiling-to-meet-21568484
"We cannot put a number now"
http://m.apa.az/en/news/235976
"sheds symbolic output ceiling" ... "abandoning an official output ceiling"
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/12/04/opec-to-keep-pumping-crude/#36898101=0
"Ceilingless" ... "The ceiling of 30 million barrels a day, in place since 2011 and now abandoned"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-04/opec-unity-shattered-as-saudi-led-policy-leads-to-no-limits-ihs9xu51
I beg to differ with some. If they have eliminated, or failed to agree upon, a so-called ceiling; that would indeed be a change.
@einsteinjs: As did @Anneinak, I too found that Reuters article fascinating. I had thought, but chose not to say, that it was Iran who had submarined an agreement. It is interesting to learn that it was SA, as well as to learn of their (apparently honorable) motivation. While every country in that area of the world is deeply in the red in my book of credibility, it's a +1 for SA on this.
Not all sources are equal. I agree the article is fascinating. I also believe some of it (maybe all of it) is true. A lot of fighting happened in this meeting and people left angry. Now they are talking to the press. I am hesitant to take the word of so many anonymous insiders and officials over the official OPEC statement. I am also curious to know what SA believes happened at the meeting.
Sorry but there was clearly no announcement, other than loose talk, by OPEC, regarding the quotas. They clearly chose not to mention them. A non-announcement doesn't qualify as an announcement in my book. If they announce "we are doing away with quotas", or "we no longer have no quotas", in a written press release, then that's an announcement. Simple elision does not suffice.
At best I think you'll get a void out of this one, not a 100% score, based on the Turkey Day precedent.
@000: Announcement may not be the right word here. Perhaps OPEC's statement? I am referring to the words on their website about the meeting. I agree with you about the possibility of the question being voided.
I have enjoyed reading your blog. I am not numbers person so I don't always understand what you are doing but it is really interesting.
A different Reuters story, but pointing in the same direction (i.e. affirmative resolution or void -- probably void):
Dec 6: "OPEC decision to keep output high pulls oil prices close to 2015 lows" --> http://www.reuters.com/article/global-oil-idusl3n13w06m20151207
Crude prices fell on Monday in the first trading session after OPEC-members failed to agree on output targets to reduce a bulging glut that has resulted in oil prices falling by more than 60 percent since June 2014.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries failed to agree on an oil production ceiling on Friday at a meeting that ended in acrimony after Iran said it would not consider any production curbs until it restores output scaled back for years under Western sanctions.
[...]
"Past communiques have at least included statements to adhere... or maintain output in line with the production target (of 30 million barrels per day). This one glaringly did not," Barclays bank said.
Not only did OPEC decide to keep its output target high, but analysts said that it would likely continue to exceed its quota as individual members offer discounts to customers in defense of market share.
[...]
"The effective removal of the OPEC quota leaves the market in a more vulnerable position. Prices are likely to weaken this week as the market turns its attention back on U.S. supply," ANZ bank said, referring to near record U.S. crude inventories of almost 490 million barrels.
"The formal production target was not even discussed, essentially signalling to the market that members would continue production at individual requirements. With Iran exports likely to start increasing next year, this increases the likelihood of further weakness in crude oil markets," it added.
~~~
COMMENT: I really feel for the adjudicators sometimes. I mean, really, it's obviously impossible to see every possible outcome when wording a question, but some of the hairy situations they find themselves in when trying to decide how to rule on a question mustn't be fun, especially when they undoubtedly receive emails from unhappy forecasters.
I have no sympathy for the judges! GJP has had 4 years to perfect the tradecraft of posing questions. They should be able to pose a good question, that's part of the secret sauce.
Another part of the secret sauce is training forecasters properly. They have really been holding back on this. The "training" page does not include as much training as we got last year in my cohort, and the amount of training I got in that cohort, I have the impression, is less than the amount of training they can do. Part of the social contract with us should be to give us the best training they can. This improves the quality of the site output and won't detract from the sales of their private forecasting business. Unless the sales pitch is "we can show you how to do better than the hoi polloi in GJOpen". I hope that's not the pitch, because they are also tying our hands behind our back by not doing things like closing resolved bins of multi-part questions like the Crude Oil question.
Interesting articles from Reuters. Thanks for posting. But I agree with 000 that, if GJO is being at all consistent, this question will be voided for the same reason as the NRF Thanksgiving shopping question: There was no announcement. For the NRF question, we could find the answer in the survey data published on NRF's site. But NRF did not include a total number for Thanksgiving weekend in its press release. So there was no "report", as the question required. In this case, there is no mention at all of output target in OPEC's press release. Even if we could figure out what OPEC means by it, that won't satisfy the question.
@000: You present many challenging points. 1) In that I only joined (late) last season, I do not know the project history. Are the questions this season all that different? 2) Is it maybe only the difference between "a government project" and a commercial endeavor? 3) I'm noticing similarities in certain question structures (independent of the content). For example, is impeachment the act or the process? Same with an IPO, is it an act or process? In this and the S-300 question, is it the de facto or de jure or de bono (my crappy latin construction) outcome that matters? Are these structures intentional? 4) Perhaps they were too focused on the forecasting side and skipped the "asking the right question" bit. 5) In the long-run, I think the best we can hope for is consistency in scoring.
[Edit: Also, last season I was able to see the ranks of competitors on individual questions. I am not sure why this feature is unavailable now. It's a good morale booster. Even if your overall score is poor, it's possible to maybe get a morale boost by seeing that you did exceptionally well versus the group on a particular question.]
@praedico. And I thought I could trust you... I am not buying the void argument. In the absence of an announcement the q is clear. We all agree no announcement has been made. We are all interpreting what the lack of announcement means. I didn't follow the NRF q but it sounds like they said it would resolve by the number inow a report that was not produced. That's fair enough to void. In this case the q requires an announcement of a change. The lack of announcement is being interpreted as change but it is not an actual announcement of a change. Currently we have confusion as to whether a change has happened, but we dont have an announcement (from opec, not a delegate with a view or analyst) i can well see it's clarified by an actual opec announcement officially in their press releases in line with other matters requiring clsrification As per Einstein article; then it will be resolved. Will they do that before the deadline then becomes the forecast of this q... I am still forecasting no as I don't think they will be able to publish a clarification saying they all agreed to abondon ceilings... I think they've messed up and are trying to fix, but won't announce until ducks aligned.... the alignment of the delegates I am banking will take them into next year
@clinton: I see your point. But "judgement" implies inference. What can we reasonably infer from the event? If inference were not involved, it would (or should) be called the Good "Observation" project. They don't need human brains to determine that OPEC made no literal announcement of a change.
[Edit: We're dealing with an omission. I'm going to hang my hat on the notion that by the customary precedent they themselves have set, failure to literally announce an agreement as to the ceiling is an announcement of no agreement, and hence, no ceiling. FYI: the last time they failed to reach agreement, no communique was issued. Issuance of a communique with no agreement is an omission that speaks loud and clear.]