好色先生TV

This month鈥檚 Office for National Statistics figures have provided a conundrum for commentators. Are they good or are they bad?

Chris Giles, the Financial Times Economics Editor tweeted that they were the 鈥渇irst semi-decent construction figures for some time鈥�. Meanwhile BBC business tweeted 鈥淐onstruction output falls again鈥�.

Those trying to take a view from these interpretations might be a bit confused. I suspect there might also be a little muttered frustration about lies, damn lies and statistics.

As to whether the figures are good or bad, I suspect that all depends on how you look at them. That鈥檚 not a cop out by the way.

Personally I鈥檇 suggest a different question we might ask. Do these figures really enlighten us about the direction of the construction industry?

Well not really, at least not on their own.

Certainly a rise in October on a non-seasonally adjusted basis is better than a fall. And a rise of 8.3% is not to be sneezed at. The figures did show that.

But if we look at the amount of construction work done (as measured by the ONS) over the 12 months to October there was about 拢500 million less than in the 12 months to September. So on that measure the industry is still shrinking fast, although not as fast as it was.

That鈥檚 the great thing about statistics. You can pick your measures and suggest very different things.

That said, one thing to bear in mind when picking your choice of measure for analysing construction data is that they are exceptionally volatile. It鈥檚 wise, if you can, to pick a measure that dampens some of the noise.

I鈥檇 be very wary about drawing too much from one month鈥檚 figures and I suspect that would be the advice you鈥檇 get from most seasoned watchers of construction data. There鈥檚 too much randomness and noise and the published figures are prone to fairly big revisions as new survey data arrives.

But also, for me and I suspect for others who keep a close eye on construction data, it鈥檚 hard to view the output figures in isolation of other data on construction. They are not, after all, created out of thin air, they relate to a real world which can be measured and is measured in various ways.

So, for instance, the new work element of these figures ultimately relates to the amount of work contractors win. The relationship may be fairly loose and there may be issues with the measuring of new orders, but there is a link.

Therefore it鈥檚 worth being at least conscious of the new orders data when considering the output data.

A few days ago the latest new orders figures were published. that if we pinned all our trust on those figures the prospects for new work in construction, as opposed to repair and maintenance, looked pretty hideous. There was little or no sign of growth in the sectors we pretty much rely on for growth, new private housing and commercial.

This was inevitably an invitation to the data gods to chuck out an oddity. And so it was. It was new work that enjoyed the biggest upward bounce in October, particularly the commercial sector and private housing, along with infrastructure.

The fact that there鈥檚 a pretty high level of infrastructure work going on is no secret. What鈥檚 of greater interest to me is how well the private housing and commercial sectors are doing.

Well on pretty much any measure you care to pick other than October鈥檚 output compared with September鈥檚 output on a monthly non-seasonally adjusted basis, the sectors are down.

On the grounds that you鈥檇 be insane to bet your house on one month鈥檚 construction data, I am drawn to conclude that the latest figures are interesting, but they do little to shift the reality that the overall picture is pretty ugly.