Economics 11/11/2009: Lagging indicators and leading signals

McKinsey have published their review of the global economic conditions survey for November. Good read as always (here). Few snapshots of main results first:

"For the first time in a year, a majority of respondents—51 percent—say economic conditions
in their countries are better now than they were in September 2008.... [but] only 19 percent say an upturn has begun. This figure rises to a remarkable 33 percent, however, among respondents in Asia’s developed countries."

Cool, but... 49% state that economy either did not improve or worsened relative to September 2008. 64% expect their economy to be better than in September 2008 by the end of Q1 2010 (up from 61% reading in September 2009). So almost 50% believe that their economy is no better now than at the beginning of this recession (full 4 quarters ago) and some 36% believe that it won't come out of the recession even after 6 quarters of straight contraction.

"A larger share of executives also expects the good news to continue, with 47 percent expecting GDP growth to return to pre–September 2008 levels in 2010 or 2011, compared with 40 percent
six weeks ago." Key point here is that this is an improvement in the indicator, not the actual growth signal (which would require a reading above 50%).

"Although the global news is good, there are marked regional differences; executives in the developed countries of Asia are generally the most optimistic, and those in Europe are the least." This tell us what we all knew - European companies are suffering still through the remnants of old pains, banks are yet to suffer most of their pains, and households - well, households in Europe are in a perpetual pain given sticky unemployment and slow consumption growth and household investment. Thus: "Everywhere except Europe, more executives describe the economy over the next several months as “battered but resilient” than say it is frozen, stalled, or regenerated." (see pic below)So much for the European Century story.

But what are the causes of this pessimism in Europe / optimism in Asia scenario? One can speculate:

For example, despite all the crises, all public spending and monetary easing, business leaders worldwide still see Government regulation as one of top three problems (chart below).
What this tells me is that structural issues that have precipitated the current recession have not been addressed. Can one be out of crisis when the causes of crisis in the first place remain intact?

Another interesting issue - future profitability.
I am not sure how you feel about this, but it makes me very uncomfortable for several reasons:

1. Again, Europe acts as a global drag (just as it was before this crisis), and this is before the hefty tax increases necessary for underwriting recent profligate spending are factored in;
   
2. US - think of this as the indicator of future equity values and you can see just how massively is overbought the US equity market;
3. Overall, all countries which used large state reserves of liquidity to finance current crisis measures (India, China, Asia-Pacific) are on the tearing path for profitability relative to Europe and North America.
   

Now take the outlook for 12 months ahead:
Let's look at this closer:

1. Low customer demand for our products or services: the main driver for all types of firms - with profits at risk (66%), static (46%) and expected to rise (41%). Just think what this means for countries that like Ireland are staring at higher taxes into foreseeable future and destroyed households' net worth;
2. Loss of business to low cost competitors: do I need to say anything here in terms of threats to Ireland Inc? Well, let me put 5 cents in - think of wages path in this economy. While private sector did some cutting (and hardly enough to reach long run equilibrium wages) public sector did none and is unlikely to do much (the latest plan for 6.85% cuts is (a) insufficient, and (b) won't happen in real terms). So overall level of wages in Ireland is really stuck somewhere around 2006 levels.
3. Competition from new entrants is the worry for leaders in profitability, but it will also impact the developed world economies. Why? Because to counter such entry you need new investment and to have new investment you need capital. Currently, capital is mopped up by Governments financing their deficits through Central Banks' issuance of new cash. Later it will be cleaned out by higher taxes. Not a good prospect going forward.
4. Low levels of innovation - again go back to capital in (3) and the same investment cycle restart bottlenecks. Ditto for Inability to get funding - Number 7 on the list.
   

We can go on, but you can see where all this is leading us -

• our current fiscal and monetary policies will be haunting us down the line into the so-called recovery,
  
• while more frugal Governments in China, India (you get the irony here?), Asia and so on, having stayed pre-crisis off the path of unsustainable increases in public spending at rates much faster than growth in their real economies, were able to absorb the crisis with lesser burden of debts.

This is where optimism is now resting globally. We are, therefore, back to the paradigm of "Smaller Governments, Happier Economies"... and healthier households, one might add?

Economics 10/11/2009: Our Unique Path to Solvency

Updated: FX outlook (below)

And so two things come to pass in the last few days that will have a significant bearing on Ireland in years to come.

Issue 1: the ECB has firmly set its sight on exiting from money printing business sooner rather than later. Per ECB's statement last week, the bank will close off its 1 year discount window, cutting maturity of the loans available to the banking sector in the euro area from 1 year long term maturity to 3 months traditional maturity. This will mean two things for Irish banks who are the heaviest borrowers from the ECB by all possible measures (see here):

1. Irish banks will face much faster transmission of any rates increases into their cost of borrowing increases;
2. Irish banks will see higher cost of borrowing directly due to them being unable to access 3-12 months maturity instruments outside the interbank lending markets (currently they are collecting a handsome subsidy from the ECB’s discount window by borrowing at rates well below those offered in euribor).

And all of this will mean that our banks will once again see their margins squeezed by the credit markets, implying an even greater incentive for them to go after their paying customers with higher mortgage rates, credit cards rates and banking fees and costs.

Issue 2: earlier this week, the EU produced an estimate that the Union members’ total public debt could reach 100% of GDP by 2014 up from 66% in 2007. Last month, the Commission forecast that EU debt levels will rise to 84% in 2010 and 88.2% in 2011. Now, it says that not only the debt will top 100% of GDP in 2014, but that it will keep on rising after that. And the Commission named the row of culprits most responsible for fiscal debacle: Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Spain and the UK. This is linked to the earlier paper from the Commission that looked at long-term demographic challenges to deficit financing, where Ireland and other countries were presented as basket cases in terms of pensions liabilities and expected healthcare costs associated with ageing population.

This, of course means the following two things for Irish economy:

1. Despite all extension for 2013 deadline for Mr Cowen to deliver SGP-compliant budget for Ireland, the EU is going to put more pressure on Ireland to bring its house in order. Not doing so will risk derailing of stimulus exits and deficits rollbacks by the likes of Italy, followed by Austria, Spain, Portugal and France. This simply cannot be allowed for the fear of undermining euro’s credibility and with it any plans Brussels might have for the tidy earnings from reserve currency seignorage in the future;
2. Brussels will be pushing harder and harder for own tax revenue source – some sort of a unified federal tax – in order to divorce itself from the precarious and uncertain (i.e volatile) sources of state-level revenues.

The net effect of all of this – taxes will go up. To put this into perspective, should the EU allow us the deadline of 2014 to sort out our deficit, this will mean our debt will be up by another €20-22bn and our cumulative interest bill will rise (by the end of 2014) by another €5.5-7bn.

Alternatively, consider the annual bill for this debt – at 4.7-6% per annum (a reasonable range starting from today’s low rates and reaching into rates consistent with ca 1.75-2.0% base ECB rate), the new, shall we call it ‘delay the pain SIPTU’-debt, will cost us every year something to the tune of €940-1,320 million, or just about what Mr Cowen is now promising to shave off the public sector pay bill.

So do the math – accumulation of liabilities (interest only) of up to €1.3bn per annum and political process delivering promises of savings of €1.3bn after two years of the crisis… Path to solvency indeed.


Now, per one reader's request, here is my view on what this means for the euro:

Macro side: unwinding of deficits will mean a steep fall off in Government consumption and investment, so both - short term and longer term demand for euro will fall. This will be offset by the simultaneous unwinding of quantitative easing, so supply of euro will also decline. Three scenarios and paths are possible from there:

1. If the two offset each other, we are down to interest rate differences to drive currency pairs against the euro (more on this below);
2. If monetary tightening will be lagging fiscal constraints, then euro will be heading south vis-a-vis dollar but not by much as it is highly unlikely that Obama Administration will be able to sustain its own deficits for much longer;
3. If monetary tightening leads fiscal tightening, then euro might head further north vis-a-vis the dollar.
4. Interest rates effects are most likely to drive euro up for several reasons: the US Fed is likely to continue easing as fiscal stimulus runs out; the ECB has reputation building (re-building?) to do; US has higher tolerance for inflation.
5. Last issue to watch over is the financial sectors demand for liquidity. Here, the US is more likely to face smaller demand for liquidity than euro area and this will imply a net positive to the dollar upside.
   

So my view is that dollar-euro pair will remain volatile over some time, with some limited upside to the dollar in the medium term. Carry trades in dollar will be continuing especially as the BRICs and the rest of the world launch into a new investment cycle in early 2010. Depending on whether this will coincide with monetary/ fiscal tightening in the euro area, we might see temporary testing of $/€1.65 barrier.

Euro-sterling story is a different story. The UK will be unwinding fiscal stimulus, while continuing monetary easing (banks are still in need of capital and writedowns will remain pronounced), which means we shall see plenty excess supply of sterling. The pressure is to the downside here and parity can be approached once again (remember that 0.98 moment in December 2008?).

Economics 04/11/2009: NAMA's first falls in the land of legal finance

International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) has issued an interesting opinion on Nama worth a read. Here are the main points (mind the legalese):

“…from an international perspective, a particular aspect of the NAMA Bill that has the potential to have a significant adverse effect on the transaction by participating institutions ...of domestic and cross-border financial transactions, including privately negotiated or “over-the-counter” (OTC) derivative transactions (“Relevant Transactions”).

ISDA’s main concern focuses on partial nature of property transfers under Nama.

“We note that ...the fact that the NAMA Bill envisages that partial property transfers – [i.e transfer of of some, but not all, of a participating institution’s rights and obligations arising under a Protected Arrangement, an arrangement with third parties legally protected under the international, Irish, UK, US or other national laws] - may be effected raises a significant risk of legal uncertainty for Protected Arrangements.” [In other words, what might be kosher for the Irish authorities under Nama might be violating international legal rights and obligations of parties related to Nama-impacted loans]

“If some, but not all, of such rights and obligations were “cherry-picked” for transfer pursuant to the NAMA Bill, the net position of that participating institution’s counterparty (and, indeed, of that participating institution) would be disrupted notwithstanding the provisions of Section 213” [of Nama legislative proposal].

“...During the UK consultations [on bailout packages] industry put particular emphasis on the possibility that the stabilisation measures provided for in the UK Banking Act 2009, which included a partial property transfer power (the power to effect a transfer of some but not all of the property, rights and liabilities of an affected UK institution), could be used to "cherry-pick" transactions, or even parts of transactions, under a netting arrangement, or otherwise disrupt the mutuality of obligations under a netting or set-off agreement... It is notable that, in the UK context, the validity of the industry concern in this regard was always acknowledged by the relevant authorities (HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority), so that the consultation process, in this regard, focused on how best to structure the relevant protections.” [This of course is not the case with Irish Nama case]

“As you are probably aware, the relevant protections were set out in Article 3(1) of The Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Partial Property Transfers) Order 2009, as amended by The Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Partial Property Transfers) (Amendment) Order 2009. Article 3(1) provides that a partial property transfer, within the meaning of the legislation, may not provide for the transfer of some, but not all, of the "protected rights and liabilities" between the affected UK institution and a third party under a "netting agreement". [Once more, in Nama case, no due diligence was even performed in this area – it appears from the note by ISDA that the Irish authorities have totally failed to consider the impact of Nama transfers on third parties]


So what does this mean for participating institutions and their counterparties?

“Risk management policies of parties to Relevant Transactions tend to require such parties to monitor credit exposure to counterparties under Relevant Transactions and, where relevant, put in place appropriate risk-reducing close-out netting and collateral arrangements. In the case of a party that is subject to prudential supervision (such as an Irish or foreign bank), whether it can treat its exposure to a Relevant Transactions counterparty as net, and take related collateral arrangements into account for risk reducing purposes, will also be key to the level of capital that the party is required to allocate to Relevant Transactions with that counterparty.” [So standard legal framework requires third parties to hedge risk vis-à-vis Nama-impacted institutions, but this process is at risk under Nama partial transfers. Which implies that Nama actions will spill over to third parties outside Nama jurisdiction. The legal bonanza that will be Nama is now risking crossing many borders…]

“A supervised institution will not be able to recognise close-out netting or a related collateral arrangement unless it can satisfy its supervisor that the close-out netting or collateral arrangement is enforceable with a high degree of legal certainty and with no unduly restrictive assumptions or material qualifications.” [This is the crux of the argument – if Nama will only partially impact security of collateral, this partiality will imply that counterparties to Irish banks’ transactions will not be able to properly assess the security of collateral held by the banks and in cases where such security is jointly held by an Irish institution and a non-Irish one, there will be no means for assessing the risks incurred by non-Irish institutions due to Nama take over of the loans or underlying collateral titles. Nama, therefore, will risk inducing new risk on unrelated institutions.]

Absent Nama “such opinions can be obtained in respect of potential [Nama-]participating institutions in respect of many industry close-out netting and collateral agreements. If the position in this regard were to change [a change which will be triggered by Nama coming into force], the commercial and financial implications for potential participating institutions and their counterparties to Relevant Transactions would be severe in that:

(a) supervised institutions [aka all non-Irish banks and credit providers] would be constrained in their ability to extend credit, or otherwise incur exposures, to participating institutions;

(b) supervised participating institutions themselves would find their own ability to conduct business constrained by much heavier capital requirements and their access generally to liquidity would be impaired”. [In other words, Nama will mean that participating banks will have to pay a heavy premium in terms of capital provisions due to the Nama-induced deterioration of their own collateral rights].

“…a concern remains that a [Nama-]participating institution’s counterparty’s net exposure could be disrupted by a partial property transfer of the type outlined [above]. If such a partial transfer of a bank asset by a participating institution to NAMA or a NAMA group entity occurred (or by NAMA or a NAMA group entity to a third party) occurs, the fact that the participating institution’s counterparty may terminate the agreement with the participating institution and enforce the close-out netting and collateral provisions will not provide comfort [at the immediate and massive cost to the Irish banks participating in Nama] if, as a result of the transfer, the transactions the subject of the netting/collateral arrangement have changed so that its net exposure differs from that which would have pertained but for the partial transfer.”

So, ISDA “strongly recommends that safeguards be introduced to the NAMA Bill to ensure that a Protected Arrangement may only be transferred as a whole under the NAMA Bill, or not at all, and that individual rights and obligations under the Protected Arrangement should not be vulnerable to cherrypicking.”

[In effect this will severely restrict two aspects of Nama operations:

1. this provision will increase the share of non-performing loans in the overall take up of loans by Nama, putting more pressure on Nama bottom line; and
2. this provision will also mean that some of the most toxic loans (with complex collateral rights, significant redrawing of covenants in the past, and/or substantial cross collateralization) will either have to be left with the banks as a whole or bought into Nama as a whole.]
   

But ISDA has expressed another concern: “An additional issue of concern to us is the proposal that, after acquisition of a bank asset by NAMA, …NAMA may change a term or condition of that bank asset where it is of the view that it is no longer reasonably practicable to operate that term or condition. ...the absence of legal certainty that would arise from this unilateral right to amend other contractual terms of Relevant Transactions – particularly when taken together with the provisions of Section 107 of the NAMA Bill – seems likely to have a negative impact on the ability of participating institutions to transact Relevant Transactions.” [In other words, if Nama is to have serious teeth in changing the terms and conditions of loans, it will risk freezing the entire future ability of the Irish banks to have meaningful access to international counterparties.]

[If anyone thinks things are tough in Irish financial markets now, wait till these aspect of Nama as an entity operating outside international norms and regulations come to play…]

Economics 04/11/2009: Live Register - don't touch that champagne yet...

While the Live Register figures (out today) have shown some significant moderation trend for some months now, the latest data remains gloomy. There is a misplaced emphasis on reading the headline statistics too much and ignoring the underlying movements of displaced workers.

The conclusion advanced by many analysts is that October figure shows a seasonally adjusted decline in the LR of 3,000 - the largest drop in LR since the 3,900 decline in April 2005 and the first decline since March 2007. Good news.

The headline numbers of people in receipt of unemployment benefits now stands at 422,500 or 62% above the same period a year ago. This calls for a revision of the expect year-end number to below 500,000. Many analysts jumped in with a conclusion that this will mean the exchequer can breath easier now, because each 10,000 fewer people on LR means the savings of Euro100mln to the Exchequer. Hmmmm... I don't think so.

The savings above reflect the assumption that those off LR are moving into jobs. What if they move into the welfare? Ok, 10,000 people off the LR means savings of Euro 100mln from lower unemployment benefits. If you move to supplementary welfare benefits, the cost of these is identical to job seeker allowance (Euro 204.30 per week), but you will also qualify for more assistance. A temporarily unemployed person might be able to pay out of savings for housing and job searching costs and might be staying outside state-financed training and education programmes. A long-term unemployed person will not, implying a massive cost run up for the state. A 10,000 cost basis for an unemployed LR-listed person quickly turns into a 20-40,000 cost tag for a long-term unemployed.

Now, LR data does not give us a breakdown of tenure in unemployment or other characteristics, but what we do know from today's data is that:

1. Males dominated the reductions in LR numbers with a fall of 2,300 amongst males and just 700 amongst the females. Let me ask you this question - if males increases in LR were driven by construction sector collapse, have any of you seen so many new cranes working in Dublin or elsewhere in the country to warrant 2,300 of these construction workers getting jobs all of a sudden? Neither did I. So most likely, these males are simply exceeding the time limit on unemployment benefits and are now eligible for much more substantial aid available under the general social welfare rates and allowances.
2. Timing of males unemployment increases suggests that we are now seeing reductions in male unemployment coincident with roughly 9-12 months lag from entry point. What does this tell us? Indirectly, this might mean that those who became now long-term unemployed by official definition are simply opting to sign onto welfare rolls and exit the labour force.
3. We are in the beginning of a new academic year. Is it possible that a number of those previously unemployed now became full-time students again? It is. While this is great news, as it means that they will stand a chance of enhancing their education, it is not the good news regarding unemployment in this country.
4. Emigration is another likely factor driving some of the declines in unemployment. Back in September data, details on Irish v Non-Irish nationals on LR showed that the rate of unemployment increases amongst non-nationals was contracting faster than for the Irish nationals. Detailed figures on this matter for October will come out on Friday, so stay tuned.
5. Lastly, the main bit of information relevant to this analysis. Out of 3,000 fewer LR signees, 2,900 came from under 25-year old group. Only 100 of the reductions came from the over 25 years old group. Incidentally, this suggests that LR reductions due to emigration are most likely impacting primarily Irish nationals leaving the state, rather than Accession states’ nationals going back to their countries of origin.

This speaks loudly in support of my assertion that the following forces (in decreasing magnitude of their contribution to falling unemployment) are at play:

• Labour force exits into welfare benefits;
• Net outward emigration of the young.

In my view, both reasons offer nothing to cheer about.

Economics 03/11/2009: Exchequer drama continues

So Exchequer returns for October are in. As usual, charts illustrate:

The miracle of 'stabilising revenues' first. Per above chart, stabilisation, across some categories, has been achieved simply by choosing an unrealistically conservative target for October revenue. The reasons for this conservatism are a matter of guess, but:

• DofF undoubtedly knew that there will be gains in revenue in October due to seasonality, yet they opted to neglect these;
• There was, most likely, an expectation that improved October returns relative to target will provide Government with some added cushion for the Budget day; yet
• Because receipts have deteriorated so far throughout the year, the DofF 'piggy bank' lowering of the target for October was not enough to generate a surplus over the target.

The Grand Plan backfired:

As charts above highlights, tax heads are performing worse and worse relative to 2008 across the board. Worryingly - Corpo taxes and Income taxes are tanking once again and this is before self-assessed tax forms poured in.

Hence, measured in terms of their respective contributions to meeting the tax profile set out in April 2009 Budget, we are now down to just two tax heads with net positive contribution - Corpo (which will see its positive effect eroded as timing changes imply that Corporation Returns are now all but exhausted for the rest of this year) and a tiny positive contribution from Excise that is about to turn negative. In short, it looks like by November all tax heads will be underperforming targets - which will be a real feat of forecasting, then. 

Subsequently, no one should be surprised by the fact that Exchequer deficit is widening on 2008 figure. Borrowing is once again diverging beyond 2008 levels (chart above). And the gap between total receipts and total expenditure is widening (chart below)

Couple more charts: one below showing just how conservative was October target and how this has led to the so-called 'improvement' in on-target performance.

And the following chart shows that the data does not support an assertion that April Budget was successful in arresting or stabilising the expansion of our deficit:

So much, then, for all the brave proclamations about 'making necessary adjustments' and 'taking the right medicine'...

Economics 02/11/2009: Central Bank Credit Data - Renewed Crisis Dynamics

So Irish Central Bank monthly data – out last Friday – provides some more fodder for thought about what is going on with credit flows in the country most dependent on ECB repo window (see here).

First consider the aggregates on money supply side:
This clearly shows that whilst M1 money supply has expanded by just under €3bn (or 3.4%) between August and September 2009, M2 money supply has contracted by over €4.1bn or 2.11%. The contraction is primarily driven by the decline in deposits with set maturity of up to 2 years which have fallen by a whooping €7.43bn or 7.9%. Part of this was probably used to deleverage shorter-term debt securities (up to 2 years in maturity) – which have declined by €2.66bn or just under 5.5%. But whatever happened with the rest of deposits is hard to explain out of the CB data. Deposits with medium term maturity constitute the most stable measure of future lending capacity in the credit sector and this decline does not signal much needed stabilization in future lending conditions.

Now to more detailed data on consolidated balance sheet. First, liabilities side:

The above chart clearly shows that all liabilities, save for Non-Government Deposits and Government Deposits with the Central Bank, are still trending up. Net external liabilities are certainly in reversion after June local trough and are now dangerously reaching for February 2009 crisis levels. Bad news?

Well, aggregates are showing something very similar:
Total liabilities are now in excess of the non-Government credit volumes once again for the second time this year. First this condition was observed in January-February 2009. Next, we have crossed once again to the situation of private sector credit falling below total liabilities in August 2009. September 2009 re-affirmed the trend as the gap between two time series widened to the second highest level in 2009 so far with January gap of €27.7bn and September gap of €22.0bn. So non-Government credit flows are no longer covering total liabilities… Bad stuff? Wait…
On the assets side, the above shows that save for Government debt which is converted through accountancy double-entry into Government Credit (up 77.9% year to date in September), not much else is rising, with fixed assets down 14% year to date, interest earnings on non-government credit down 49.6%, official external reserves up 11.35%.

On private sector credit decomposition:
Total private sector credit (PSC) has declined from the peak achieved back in November last year to current €378.1bn or 6.4%. This is dire and the decline is actually accelerating since beginning of September. Table summarizes:
The same is true for non-mortgage credit and mortgage credit. Importantly, the data on mortgage credit and non-mortgage borrowing shows that there is no deleveraging in sight for Irish households. Residential mortgage lending today continues to remain at well above the peak markets level for house prices. In 2007, average monthly level of mortgage debt in Ireland stood at €131.1bn. In September 2007, the level was €136bn or 8.83% below the latest level recorded in September 2009. Thus, as negative equity pressures continue to increase due to falling house prices and as rents continue to destroy yields on property, Irish mortgage holders are simply prevented from deleveraging in the credit cycle by falling incomes and rising taxes.

This does not bode well for the short-term prognosis for the Irish financial system (reliant heavily on low default on mortgages assumptions amidst a full blown meltdown of the development loans) and for the Irish construction sector and property markets (reliant on some sort of a return of the buyers to the collapsed market for properties). It also does not support any hope of the stabilization in the property-related tax revenues.
Hence, although credit contraction has set in firmly back in June (with credit to private sector posting negative growth in yoy terms since then), mortgages credit is lagging (implying that we are yet to witness true crunch on mortgages – something that is likely to happen once the banks set out in earnest to rebuild their margins by hiking mortgages rates post-Nama) and non-mortgage credit is back on the rise (potentially reflecting accumulation of credit arrears by financially stretched households).

The same picture, of building pressure on the arrears side can be glimpsed from the changes in trends for credit cards spending. New purchasing using credit cards has lagged repayments in January-August 2009. In September, more charges were incurred than paid down. The same (albeit on a vastly smaller scale) took place in business cards. Hence, balances are now rising across all credit card debts, as shown in the chart below.

Net result of all of this: outstanding indebtedness of Irish private sectors is no longer declining. The rate of growth in overall debt levels has hit 0 in May 2009, bounced back to positive territory in June-July 2009 and failed to hit negative (deleveraging territory) since then.

Economics 31/10/2009: Latest data on Irish Resident Foreign Assets Holdings

CSO released (yesterday) latest data on Resident Holdings of Foreign Portfolio Securities. Charts below illustrate the trends.

First the aggregate stuff:
Notice that 2006-2007 overall trend implies peaking of foreign assets holdings by Irish residents at 2007, and a decline in asset holdings in 2008 to the levels below those recorded in December 2006. This is clearly reflective of the general external crisis in asset markets and is expected to record even further and more dramatic deterioration in 2009. Holdings of bonds and notes also declined from a peak on 2007, but less dramatically in relative terms - reflective of flight to safety into public debt markets by many investors. Again, similar trend to global. Equity holdings took the most sever beating, in line with global markets.

One interesting point is that Money Markets instruments holdings (not plotted above) have also declined in 2007 and 2008. This suggests two idiosyncratic developments in Ireland:

• risk reductions took place in 2007, well before the full-blown global crisis of 2008, but in line with a financial markets crunch that began in August 2007;
• both cash and equities were likely to have been used by Irish residents to offset leveraged losses (these are the most liquid instruments that can be used readily to meet margin calls) and this process was on-going in 2007, suggesting serious leveraging exposure to derivatives markets in Irish resident portfolios - a conclusion that would time declines in money markets instruments back to August 2007, when derivatives markets collapse triggered subsequent run on equities).

Now to some more detailed sub-categories of assets. Starting with total foreign asset holdings by country of asset origin:
There is a clear indication here that Irish resident portfolia are heavily geared toward UK and US assets (nothing surprising, as these allocations are only slightly ahead of global diversified portoflia bias toward these two countries). There is also present a relatively heavy allocation bias toward European and EEC securities. However, the real area of geographic diversification imbalance is found amongst the middle income (BRICs) and emerging markets allocations.

Ditto for bonds and Notes:
In terms of Equity allocations:
There is a clear imbalance in Irish resident positions with equity exposure to only a select subset of OECD economies. There is virtually no presence of high growth economies in the overall equity portfolios in Ireland.