The recent divergent reportage on Philippine remittance trends is an illustration of selective perception or how facts are presented or framed in media according to the biases of the reporter or the news outfit.
Is it a case of being Half Full?
The Inquirer.net bannered with ``Remittances hit record high in March Q1 total up 2.7% at $4.06 B"
Or it is a case of Half Empty?
The abs-cbnnews.com headlines flashed, ``Pace of remittance growth slows to 3% in March"
As shown above, both have been dealing with stated "facts"- slowing year on year growth but nominal volume is at record highs, yet news headlines from different mainstream media outfits portrayed an antipodal stance.
So a reader may ask which truly reflects the state of remittance trends?
Well, based on the expectations of the economic "consensus" whose sentiment or analysis has been reflected by the chart above from World Bank, the general trend for world remittances has been expected to decline because of the present crisis. Obviously by comparing the chart above and the previous chart this downshift in growth expectations have been essentially validated.
Is it a case of being Half Full?
The Inquirer.net bannered with ``Remittances hit record high in March Q1 total up 2.7% at $4.06 B"
Or it is a case of Half Empty?
The abs-cbnnews.com headlines flashed, ``Pace of remittance growth slows to 3% in March"
As shown above, both have been dealing with stated "facts"- slowing year on year growth but nominal volume is at record highs, yet news headlines from different mainstream media outfits portrayed an antipodal stance.
So a reader may ask which truly reflects the state of remittance trends?
But the same consensus had also expected remittance trends to go negative. And this is where the 'positive' surprise or defying the consensus came in.
The positive surprise can be construed as a Black Swan (in terms of expectations and possibly on the impact to the domestic economy), therefore, in my view merits a positive angle.
Why is this important? Because how information are framed can materially influence one's biases or analysis.
The positive surprise can be construed as a Black Swan (in terms of expectations and possibly on the impact to the domestic economy), therefore, in my view merits a positive angle.
Why is this important? Because how information are framed can materially influence one's biases or analysis.
It can be seen as some form of "power of suggestion" or sublime indoctrination or shaping the public's outlook in the manner how media wants you to see it. And biased or inaccurate analysis may lead to misdiagnosis, wrong prescriptions or decisions and eventual losses and angst.
For instance, the consensus have latched their predictions on the fate of the Peso's value mainly on remittances. Thus, for them, falling remittances equals a weaker Peso (against the US dollar). The fact that remittances hasn't nominally collapsed and whose growth hasn't turned negative suggests that their projections have also been wayward.
For us, aside from other "unseen" factors such as portfolio flows, expectations on inflation, yield differentials and economic growth, systemic low leverage, improving state of the financial markets, greater regional integration and others; the "positive surprise", which contradicts the consensus, further boosts the Peso's chances against the US Dollar over the medium to long term.
One must keep in mind that information doesn't automatically translate to knowledge.
