Cookies help us display personalized product recommendations and ensure you have great shopping experience.

By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
SmartData CollectiveSmartData Collective
  • Analytics
    AnalyticsShow More
    sales and data analytics
    How Data Analytics Improves Lead Management and Sales Results
    9 Min Read
    data analytics and truck accident claims
    How Data Analytics Reduces Truck Accidents and Speeds Up Claims
    7 Min Read
    predictive analytics for interior designers
    Interior Designers Boost Profits with Predictive Analytics
    8 Min Read
    image fx (67)
    Improving LinkedIn Ad Strategies with Data Analytics
    9 Min Read
    big data and remote work
    Data Helps Speech-Language Pathologists Deliver Better Results
    6 Min Read
  • Big Data
  • BI
  • Exclusive
  • IT
  • Marketing
  • Software
Search
© 2008-25 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: Don’t Gloat Over Excel Model Failures
Share
Notification
Font ResizerAa
SmartData CollectiveSmartData Collective
Font ResizerAa
Search
  • About
  • Help
  • Privacy
Follow US
© 2008-23 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
SmartData Collective > Data Management > Culture/Leadership > Don’t Gloat Over Excel Model Failures
AnalyticsCommentaryCulture/LeadershipNewsStatistics

Don’t Gloat Over Excel Model Failures

paulbarsch
paulbarsch
6 Min Read
excel model failure
SHARE

excel model failureTwo noted economists, Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt, recently had their findings on country debt to GDP ratios questioned, as it was discovered an Excel spreadsheet error led to some grave miscalculations.

excel model failureTwo noted economists, Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt, recently had their findings on country debt to GDP ratios questioned, as it was discovered an Excel spreadsheet error led to some grave miscalculations. And while plenty of financial bloggers and economists took the opportunity to gloat over Rogoff and Reinhardt’s misfortune, there is a larger point here: just because mathematical calculations are wrong, it doesn’t mean a particular idea isn’t directionally sound.

In 2010, Rogoff and Reinhardt published a paper on the link between high public debt and slower economic growth. Their findings showed that when a country reached a debt level of greater than 90% of GDP, that country’s growth would slow to a crawl. This paper was subsequently used as the empirical basis for fiscal austerity—or belt tightening—for many European countries.

However, since the publishing of Rogoff and Reinhardt’s 2010 paper, their findings have been under intense scrutiny. Facing pressure to release their methodology and data, Rogoff and Reinhardt finally let other statisticians examine the study’s underlying calculations.

More Read

Structured Data vs Unstructured Data
A Quick Guide to Structured and Unstructured Data
An Introduction To Hands-On Text Analytics In Python
“Analytics are defined as the extensive use of data, statistical and quantitative analysis,…”
Tips for Managing Priorities in a Data Team
Perks of Predictive Analytics for Businesses Big and Small

When Rogoff and Reinhardt’s Excel spreadsheets were released, a pair of graduate students discovered some coding errors. One key error omitted five countries from the calculations, which changed the mean of negative 0.1% economic growth to a positive 2.2%, a pretty significant switch! In other words, the conclusion that the “magic number of 90% debt to GDP equates to slow growth” wasn’t so magical after all.

Predictably, mainstream economists like Paul Krugman were quick to pounce. In his column, “Holy Coding Error, Batman”, Krugman called the error “embarrassing”, a “failure” and concluded it was reason enough to discount the underlying message that countries with higher debt could see slower growth in the future.

Krugman’s gloating aside, we should note that just because calculations supporting a particular idea are wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean the proverbial “baby” should be tossed out with the “bathwater”.

Here’s why: an article on WSJ’s Market Watch cites a few studies showing 88% of spreadsheets contain errors of some kind. Ray Panko, a professor of IT management at University of Hawaii says that spreadsheet “errors are pandemic”.

Now whether you believe the 88% number is correct, or even if you discount it by half—as a consultant friend of mine suggests—it’s still a whopper of a number!

Going forward, with the knowledge a fair percentage of excel calculations are likely flawed in some manner, it makes sense that while we should expect the numbers supporting an idea need to be accurate, we should also understand that there could be errors. And because there could be calculation errors, we need to decide if the idea—outside any erroneous calculations—is a sound idea, or not. 

Of course, there are instances where it’s critical to get mathematical calculations correct such as launching rockets, landing planes, engineering a building or bridge etc. But let’s also be careful not to immediately throw away an idea as “false” simply because it’s discovered someone made a correctible excel spreadsheet error.

Getting back to the Rogoff and Reinhardt commotion, this is exactly what Financial Times columnist Anders Aslund has in mind when he writes, “(While) the critique of Reinhart and Rogoff correctly identifies some technical errors in their work, one cannot read it and conclude the case for austerity is much weakened. High public debt is still a serious problem.”  I would add this is especially true for countries where their debt is not denominated in their own currency.

With the realization that most spreadsheets have errors, we should check, double check, and triple check Excel calculations to ensure accuracy. Peer review of excel calculations is also a recommended approach.

But let’s also not be so quick to throw out perfectly good ideas where it’s discovered some excel miscalculations, or omissions have skewed the results.  After all, a key idea may not be precisely supported by the maths, but still may be directionally correct.  Or as New York Fund Manager Daniel Shuchman says, we don’t need to touch the stove to prove it’s hot.

Questions:

What are the key lessons in the Rogoff and Reinhardt debacle?  Mistakes in treating correlation for causation? Sloppy coding? Applying too much historical data where conditions may have changed?  Applying too little data (cherry-picking)? What say you?

(image: Excel failure / shutterstock)

TAGGED:spreadsheets
Share This Article
Facebook Pinterest LinkedIn
Share

Follow us on Facebook

Latest News

sales and data analytics
How Data Analytics Improves Lead Management and Sales Results
Analytics Big Data Exclusive
ai in marketing
How AI and Smart Platforms Improve Email Marketing
Artificial Intelligence Exclusive Marketing
AI Document Verification for Legal Firms: Importance & Top Tools
AI Document Verification for Legal Firms: Importance & Top Tools
Artificial Intelligence Exclusive
AI supply chain
AI Tools Are Strengthening Global Supply Chains
Artificial Intelligence Exclusive

Stay Connected

1.2kFollowersLike
33.7kFollowersFollow
222FollowersPin

You Might also Like

Spreadsheets: Use Them, Don’t Abuse Them

10 Min Read
spreadsheet business intelligence tool
AnalyticsBig DataBusiness IntelligenceData ManagementITSoftwareSQLStatistics

Spreadsheets: Still the King of Business Intelligence Tools

4 Min Read

Why Budgeting Is “Mission Critical” in Higher Education

5 Min Read

Big Data Is More Valuable with Kapow

6 Min Read

SmartData Collective is one of the largest & trusted community covering technical content about Big Data, BI, Cloud, Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, IoT & more.

AI chatbots
AI Chatbots Can Help Retailers Convert Live Broadcast Viewers into Sales!
Chatbots
ai in ecommerce
Artificial Intelligence for eCommerce: A Closer Look
Artificial Intelligence

Quick Link

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Follow US
© 2008-25 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Go to mobile version
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?