Quite difficult to find an appropriate room for my inquiry, but given that this is my first post, I guess I'll forgive me!
I'm checking money growth (ever heard M1, M3, MZM, and so on?) whose data is released by the Fed.
According to this valuable source, M3 seasonally adjusted data for the end of May was 8683 (billions of dollars), with a 1.48% change on three months ago. But if I take the "Not-seasonally adjusted" data for M3 at the end of May, I get 8659, with a null (+0.03%) variation with respect to the month of February.
Needless to say, the two data are quite different! Despite the continuous efforts by Greenspan, money growth was irrilevant in the latter case!
So my question is: according to your experience, which of the two version - namely, SA or NSA - are preferable, and, above all, WHY? I figure that if the Fed show NSA data, it should be respectable, isnt'it? But if it's true, than the money machine didn't work anymore...
Greetings
I'm checking money growth (ever heard M1, M3, MZM, and so on?) whose data is released by the Fed.
According to this valuable source, M3 seasonally adjusted data for the end of May was 8683 (billions of dollars), with a 1.48% change on three months ago. But if I take the "Not-seasonally adjusted" data for M3 at the end of May, I get 8659, with a null (+0.03%) variation with respect to the month of February.
Needless to say, the two data are quite different! Despite the continuous efforts by Greenspan, money growth was irrilevant in the latter case!
So my question is: according to your experience, which of the two version - namely, SA or NSA - are preferable, and, above all, WHY? I figure that if the Fed show NSA data, it should be respectable, isnt'it? But if it's true, than the money machine didn't work anymore...
Greetings