@einsteinjs, would they have been asking the question if the latest meeting were likely to be the same as the 2 decades of meetings? If they expected it to be different, in what ways could it be different? NRF/Turkey promoters, faced with an ugly number, chose not to report any number. So apparently, not announcing difficult things is not unprecedented, hence might be anticipated, in fraught situations. Amirite?
@000: We're getting a bit meta here, but I can see why they wanted to ask us a question about OPEC and the ceiling given the news in the last few months (from what I understand, at least in the past, questions weren't composed and implemented on a whim. There were usually layers of "approval" or at least "review," such that a question may have been written 3 months before it actually 'goes to press.') In thinking about what THEY might have been thinking then, I could see that there may have been a thought that there might have been a good chance that OPEC was going to alter its production quota given the low price of oil, increase in Iran oil production, etc. To that end, I can se where you're coming from in being prepared for all options, but I can also see how it wasn't accounted for given how OPEC has operated most recently.
RE: NRF -- I agree with you. There's no doubt that the number was going to be even lower than last year's and it was in the NRF's best interest NOT to show the continued decline -- so they "changed their methodology."
Re: NRF question, I was surprised that the NRF didn't include the total expected sales number in its press release. They clearly had the number, and that is the number that the press wants to know. They claim they changed the methodology this year, but, even if that were true, I can't see why it would dissuade them from publishing a number. It would only mean that they shouldn't compare this year's number to last year's number. Most likely 000 and einsteinjs are right: They didn't like the number, so they didn't advertise it.
Like einsteinjs, I don't really blame GJO for these "announcement/no announcement" muddles. GJO would have every reason to expect that the NRF and OPEC would both publish numbers in their press releases. I just hope that there is consistency in evaluating or voiding questions like these. There have been a few other questions that I've felt needed clarification, however. My understanding of the Rousseff impeachment question (mentioned by clinton) is that it resolves if 2/3 of the Chamber of Deputies votes to impeach, which would kick the issue to the Senate, where it would be investigated. Impeachment doesn't imply removal from office.
@praedico, I'm polluting the waters here bringing up the impeachment q. I am also advised a leave of absence ahead of the senate vote is reqd - so that is an error on my part.. My point was more that people may be undertaking the timing on different aspects dependent on what they think the charge will be. I think that the q will resolve on if the CoD vote passing 2/3s, albeit officially there are steps to go within the senate that other people may be taking into consideration. Wont go on any more about that.......
Since going .com, GJ staff has opted to reject most requests for question clarification . I hope that they are regretting and reconsidering that decision. Had they defined "any" (as in "any" change), as some of us requested, there'd be a lot less mud in the water right now.
I continue to assert that at by least precedent (and possibly by policy) a vote is required at every meeting to establish or maintain a ceiling. In the absence of such an affirmative vote, my argument is that the ceiling was eliminated de facto, and that the elimination of the ceiling represents "any" change.
I have yet to see anything that supports the argument that OPEC considers a production ceiling, once established, will remain in effect until changed, or that that is what was decided at this meeting.
Re: clarifications -- I think I've maybe seen one (or two?) clarifications issued, if that. I put in a couple of requests for clarifications, but then when I didn't hear anything back for weeks, I figured that this wasn't something they were doing (until I received a message about a month and a half after a question closed). From my understanding, the plan is to make that process more transparent, but I imagine that they're pretty busy with lots of things right now.
Before we leave this topic I think we should be very clear about what has occurred. Here, according to @jeremylichtman and linked by @scholarandcat, is the essential criteria GJP used to resolve this question: "We also opted to require an announcement by OPEC that there had been a change in the quota. They made no such announcement. In fact, they mentioned neither the quota ..."
We have, in fact, an instance of confirmation bias that is rather amusing. Implicit in the reasoning is the requirement that the only acceptable method of communication of an announcement is via an organizational press release. But, it can be easily shown that this is no more than a biased selection of evidence. Consider the following: What would be the state of affairs if, upon conclusion of the meeting, the exact same press release was issued, and Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri told the press corps that there WAS a decision to increase the ceiling to 32 mbpd? Now of course this did not happen. But what if it had? As Secretary General, El-Badri is the "legally authorized representative" of OPEC. Who would insist then, if this had been the case, that the press release was, as a matter of evidence, to hold preference over the words of El-Badri? No one. It would be unwarranted to do so. We would all agree that OPEC made an announcement, in an uncustomary way, to change the ceiling.
Now the facts of the situation were that the press release was silent on the topic and, as widely reported, El-Badri, speaking directly on the topic, said: "We chose to postpone this decision until the next OPEC meeting ..." So, rather than deal with the complexity of the situation as it in fact manifested itself, GJP has fallen back to ignoring the complexity and relying on a piece of evidence that is unwarranted. A piece of evidence that is silent on the topic! Whereas, on the other hand, we have a legally authorized representative of the organization making a statement regarding the very subject we are concerned with. It's rather humorous that the selected preferred criteria is an item that does not even speak to the subject!
Now I grant that whether "postponing a decision" on the ceiling can legitimately be interpreted as a "change in the ceiling" is complex. I have argued that "the decision" was fundamental to "the ceiling," among other things, but I won't re-hash these again. The point is that there WAS an OPEC announcement as to the ceiling, and rather than seek to resolve its meaning, GJP has instead decided to ignore it.
The resolution criteria should have stated "Positive resolution to question requires an announcement via an organizational press release which specifically mentions the quota." @GJDrew, @kmcochran, @WarrenHatch, what are your thoughts?
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, would they have been asking the question if the latest meeting were likely to be the same as the 2 decades of meetings? If they expected it to be different, in what ways could it be different? NRF/Turkey promoters, faced with an ugly number, chose not to report any number. So apparently, not announcing difficult things is not unprecedented, hence might be anticipated, in fraught situations. Amirite?
@000: We're getting a bit meta here, but I can see why they wanted to ask us a question about OPEC and the ceiling given the news in the last few months (from what I understand, at least in the past, questions weren't composed and implemented on a whim. There were usually layers of "approval" or at least "review," such that a question may have been written 3 months before it actually 'goes to press.') In thinking about what THEY might have been thinking then, I could see that there may have been a thought that there might have been a good chance that OPEC was going to alter its production quota given the low price of oil, increase in Iran oil production, etc. To that end, I can se where you're coming from in being prepared for all options, but I can also see how it wasn't accounted for given how OPEC has operated most recently.
RE: NRF -- I agree with you. There's no doubt that the number was going to be even lower than last year's and it was in the NRF's best interest NOT to show the continued decline -- so they "changed their methodology."
Re: NRF question, I was surprised that the NRF didn't include the total expected sales number in its press release. They clearly had the number, and that is the number that the press wants to know. They claim they changed the methodology this year, but, even if that were true, I can't see why it would dissuade them from publishing a number. It would only mean that they shouldn't compare this year's number to last year's number. Most likely 000 and einsteinjs are right: They didn't like the number, so they didn't advertise it.
Like einsteinjs, I don't really blame GJO for these "announcement/no announcement" muddles. GJO would have every reason to expect that the NRF and OPEC would both publish numbers in their press releases. I just hope that there is consistency in evaluating or voiding questions like these. There have been a few other questions that I've felt needed clarification, however. My understanding of the Rousseff impeachment question (mentioned by clinton) is that it resolves if 2/3 of the Chamber of Deputies votes to impeach, which would kick the issue to the Senate, where it would be investigated. Impeachment doesn't imply removal from office.
@praedico, I'm polluting the waters here bringing up the impeachment q. I am also advised a leave of absence ahead of the senate vote is reqd - so that is an error on my part.. My point was more that people may be undertaking the timing on different aspects dependent on what they think the charge will be. I think that the q will resolve on if the CoD vote passing 2/3s, albeit officially there are steps to go within the senate that other people may be taking into consideration. Wont go on any more about that.......
Since going .com, GJ staff has opted to reject most requests for question clarification . I hope that they are regretting and reconsidering that decision. Had they defined "any" (as in "any" change), as some of us requested, there'd be a lot less mud in the water right now.
I continue to assert that at by least precedent (and possibly by policy) a vote is required at every meeting to establish or maintain a ceiling. In the absence of such an affirmative vote, my argument is that the ceiling was eliminated de facto, and that the elimination of the ceiling represents "any" change.
I have yet to see anything that supports the argument that OPEC considers a production ceiling, once established, will remain in effect until changed, or that that is what was decided at this meeting.
Re: clarifications -- I think I've maybe seen one (or two?) clarifications issued, if that. I put in a couple of requests for clarifications, but then when I didn't hear anything back for weeks, I figured that this wasn't something they were doing (until I received a message about a month and a half after a question closed). From my understanding, the plan is to make that process more transparent, but I imagine that they're pretty busy with lots of things right now.
The process is very transparent. [1]
[1] http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/benghazi-obama-theres-no-there-there.jpg
I just saw this in my activity feed:
https://www.gjopen.com/comments/comments/66320
Thank you to @jeremylichtman for posting their response. Now we know what the question writers were thinking.
Before we leave this topic I think we should be very clear about what has occurred. Here, according to @jeremylichtman and linked by @scholarandcat, is the essential criteria GJP used to resolve this question: "We also opted to require an announcement by OPEC that there had been a change in the quota. They made no such announcement. In fact, they mentioned neither the quota ..."
We have, in fact, an instance of confirmation bias that is rather amusing. Implicit in the reasoning is the requirement that the only acceptable method of communication of an announcement is via an organizational press release. But, it can be easily shown that this is no more than a biased selection of evidence. Consider the following: What would be the state of affairs if, upon conclusion of the meeting, the exact same press release was issued, and Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri told the press corps that there WAS a decision to increase the ceiling to 32 mbpd? Now of course this did not happen. But what if it had? As Secretary General, El-Badri is the "legally authorized representative" of OPEC. Who would insist then, if this had been the case, that the press release was, as a matter of evidence, to hold preference over the words of El-Badri? No one. It would be unwarranted to do so. We would all agree that OPEC made an announcement, in an uncustomary way, to change the ceiling.
Now the facts of the situation were that the press release was silent on the topic and, as widely reported, El-Badri, speaking directly on the topic, said: "We chose to postpone this decision until the next OPEC meeting ..." So, rather than deal with the complexity of the situation as it in fact manifested itself, GJP has fallen back to ignoring the complexity and relying on a piece of evidence that is unwarranted. A piece of evidence that is silent on the topic! Whereas, on the other hand, we have a legally authorized representative of the organization making a statement regarding the very subject we are concerned with. It's rather humorous that the selected preferred criteria is an item that does not even speak to the subject!
Now I grant that whether "postponing a decision" on the ceiling can legitimately be interpreted as a "change in the ceiling" is complex. I have argued that "the decision" was fundamental to "the ceiling," among other things, but I won't re-hash these again. The point is that there WAS an OPEC announcement as to the ceiling, and rather than seek to resolve its meaning, GJP has instead decided to ignore it.
The resolution criteria should have stated "Positive resolution to question requires an announcement via an organizational press release which specifically mentions the quota." @GJDrew, @kmcochran, @WarrenHatch, what are your thoughts?