WOOL STATISTICS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 827, 27 May 1910, Page 10

WOOL STATISTICS.

SOME EXTRAORDINARY DIS- ■ CREPANCIES. On. March 14 last thb ! commercial ■ editor of the "-Manchester Guardian" headed - his columns with a paragraph ill which he severely criticised the Now Zealand olticial wool return's for January last. Ho had discovered a difference of 110 less than 39,000 bales between tho figures compiled by Messrs. Dalgety and Go. and those issued by • the Government. There' certainly is a • ' wide discrepancy between the two sets of' statistics,- but tho writer in the "Guardian" • rather weakened a good case by, for the nonce, falling into, a Bimple. error. Tho paragraph reads: "During .the last, few months there nas been something seriously wrong with Router's messages cabled from "Wellington, New Zealand, giving the values of the various classes of exports. Reuter's figures are evidently official, "and some explanation should he forthcoming from the Agent-General for the Dominion in London. During the month of January Itc-nter gave the Vf.lue of tho wool exports at £1,812,000, ail increase of £904,000. compared with January, 1909. This would be equivalent to an. increase of at least oO.OUO bales of wool, and yet wo know from Messrs,"Dalgety's cablegram that' the increase amounted to only 11,000 bales. Similarly Reuter's Agency has just cabled that during February the value of the wool exports from, the Dominion amounted to £1,830,000, ap increase of £678,000 over February, 1909. This is equal to an increase 'of about- 34,000 bales of wool, yet according to Messrs. Dalgety's cablegram the increase was no more than 1000 bales. There can • be no doubt about the correctness of Messrs. Dalgety's figures, and we'await with interest the'explanation' which no doubt will bo forthcoming from the New Zealand Government. When cynics on .. the Stock Ex'chai:£o see: ' cablegrams similar to those Quoted above, .'giving glowing accounts' of- exports, .etc., they ■ generally think- they, are the forerunners of a loan,'hut. 'perhaps 'in th 4' case.of 'these New-.-Zfealand figures some •■other, satisfactory explanation will be given." The figures cabled by Reuter's Agency' are those, supplied, in. the Government 'Produce Leaflets. "It is .not quite -ob* vions on what basis the "Guardian'?, writer arrives at the.increase of 50,000 which he - declares the Government figures indicate. - The Government quantities themselves show no such increase. The leaflet'figures, provide .the following comparisons'(taking, the .weight; of a bale at 400. lb.) :-r-" ...... - . . "Value - • ■ - per Value, bale. Lbs. Baleß. £ £s. Jan., 1909 .... 30,693,000 76,732 908,000 16 0 Jan.: 1910 ... 45,490,000 113,720 1,812,000 11 16 Increase ... .14,797,000 ' 361988 • 904,000 4 4 What the "Guardian" writer appears to have done is t-o have forgotten about tho increase: in price since January, 1909, and to have taken the increase of £904,000 in as representing the value of 50,000 new bales at £18 per bale —a figure about equal to the London value' in January last. The error .is an' easy one to fall into. At the same time, there is a wide disagreement between Messrs.'Dalgety's'figures find ihb'se of the Government, as the table below indicates. Messrs. Dalgety give only the number of single - bales - shipped, as per manifest of outward' vessels. The Government compiles its returns, from figures which exporters arc bound by law to supply, to' the Customs within six days of the sailing of any vessel: ■ Dalgety.' Govt. Differ'ce. Bales. Bales. Bales. Jan.. 1909 121,882 76,732 45,150 Jan., 1910 132,759 113,720 19,039 Increase 10,977 36,988 26,011 Such discrepancies as this table exhibits do not conduce to a belief in the reliability of statistics. However, several things have- to be borne in mind. The Government, figures are; the Gustoms returns for the month, as stated, and tho cargoes of vessels sailing within six days of the end of each month are generally carried forward into, tho next succeeding month. Moreover, the Government quantities are shown only in-lb. weight, and the conversion into bales is on a hypothetical basis of 4001b. per bale. Nevertheless,' it is difficult, - indeed, to reconcile sucli extraordinary ' differences as the two sets of statistics reveal, and it is obvious that caution is necessary in making deductions from the monthly returns.