3/8/20: Ireland's Real Surreal Economy

In recent months, I have mentioned on a number of occasions the problem of Ireland's growing GDP-GNI* gap. The gap is a partial (key, partial) measure of the extent to which official GDP overstates true extent of economic activity in Ireland.

In general terms, GDP is an estimate of the total value of all goods and services produced within a nation in a year. The problem is, it includes capital and investment inflows into the country from abroad and is also distorted by accounting manipulations by domestic and foreign companies attributing output produced elsewhere to output produced in the country. In Ireland's case, this presents a clear-cut problem. Take two examples:

1. An aircraft leasing company from Germany registers its 'capital' - aircraft it owns - in Dublin IFSC. The value of aircraft according to the company books is EUR10 billion. Registration results in 'new investment inflow' into Ireland of EUR10 billion and all income from the leases on these aircraft is registered to Ireland, generating annual income, of, say EUR100 million. EUR 10.1 billion is added to Irish GDP in year of registration and thereafter, EUR 0.1 billion is added annually. Alas, none of these aircraft ever actually enter Ireland, not even for services. Worse, the leasing company has 1/4 employee in Ireland - a lad who flies into Dublin once a month to officially 'check mail' and 'hold meetings', plus an Irish law firm employee spending some time - say 8 hours a week - doing some paperwork for the company. Get the idea? Actual economic activity in Ireland is 12 hours/week x EUR150 per hour x usual multiplier for private expenditure = say, around EUR230,000; official GDP accounting activity is EUR100 million (in years 2 on) and EUR10.1 billion (in year 1).
2. A tech company from the U.S. registers its Intellectual Property in Ireland to the tune of EUR10 billion and attributes EUR 2 billion annually in sales resulting from the activities involving said property from around the world into Ireland. The company employs 1,000 employees in Dublin Technology Docks. Actual economic activity in Ireland is sizeable, say EUR 7 billion. Alas, registered - via GDP - activity is multiples of that. Suppose IP value grows at 10% per annum. In year 1 of IP transfer, company contribution to GDP is EUR 2 billion + EUR 10 billion + EUR 7 billion Normal Activity. In Year 2 and onwards it is EUR 2 billion + 10%*EUR 10 billion + EUR 7 billion Normal Activity. 

Now, normal GNI calculates the total income earned by a nation's employees and contractors, etc, and businesses, including investment income, regardless of where it was earned. It also covers money received from abroad such as foreign investment and economic development aid.

So GNI does NOT fully control for (1) and (2). Hence, CSO devised a GNI* measure that allows us to strip out (1) above (the EUR 10 billion original 'investment'), while leaving smaller parts of it still accounted for (employment effects, appreciation of capital stock of EUR 10 billion, etc), but largely leaves in the distorting effects of (2).  Hence, GNI* is a better measure of actual, real activity in Ireland, but by no means perfect.

Still, GNI*-GDP gap is telling us a lot about the nature and the extent of thee MNCs-led distortion of Irish economy. Take a look at the chart next, which includes my estimates for GDP-GNI* gap for 2020 based on consensus forecasts for the GDP changes in 2020 and the indicative data on flows of international trade (MNCs-dominated vs domestic sectors) implications for potential GNI* changes:

As it says in the chart, Irish GDP figures are an imaginary number that allows us to pretend that Ireland is a super-wealthy super-duper modern economy. These figures are a mirage, and an expensive one. Our contributions to international bodies, e.g. UN, OECD et al, is based on our GDP figures, and our contributions to the EU budget are, partially, based on GNI figures. None are based on GNI*. For the purpose of 'paying our way' in global institutional frameworks, we pretend to be a Rich Auntie, the one with a Gucci purse and no pension. For the purpose of balancing our own books at home, we are, well, whatever it is that we are, given GNI*. 

This distortion is also hugely material in terms of our internal policies structuring. We use international benchmarks to compare ourselves to other countries in terms of spending on public goods and services, public investment, private entrepreneurship etc. Vast majority of these metrics use GDP as a base, not GNI*. If we spend, say EUR10K per capita on a said service, we are spending 14% of our GDP per capita on the service, but 23% of our GNI*. If, say, Finland spends 20% of its GDP per capita on the same service, we 'under-spend' compared to the Finns on the GDP basis, but 'over-spend' based on GNI* basis.

There is a serious cost to us pretending to be a richer, more developed, more advanced as an economy, than we really are. This cost involves not only higher contributions to international institutions, but also potential waste and inefficiencies in our own domestic policies analysis. Gucci purse and no pension go hand-in-hand, you know... 

23/1/16: Corporate Profits v GDP: Not a Good Sign

One interesting relationship in recent weeks has been flashing red: the relationship between annual nominal GDP growth rates for the U.S. and the reported growth rates in corporate profits for non-financial corporations. 

Source: Author own calculations based on data from Fred

As shown in the chart above, growth rate in non-financial corporations’ profits has recently dipped below zero, posting -4.26% reading in 3Q 2015. The last time corporate profits took a nose dive was in 1Q 2014. Over the last four U.S. recessions, corporate profits growth rates have been a relatively consistent lead indicator of troubles brewing ahead.

Things are not exactly on a healthy side. While two quarters separated by more than a year of positive data may be just a glitch, it is worth noting that since 1989 on, there have been no period in which a recession was not preceded by decline in corporate profits, sometimes (1991 case) as far out as 2 years ahead.

But you can take my word with a grain of salt, so here’s Citi Index of corporate profits… 

Bloomberg headline that accompanied it: “Global earnings downgrades haven’t been this bad in 7 years”.

Ah, the repaired world…

1/1/2015: Population Ageing and Economic Growth

What happens to economic activity with population ageing? And, crucially, what happens in the context of free mobility of labour, currency union and open trade and capital mobility? These are the questions to be answered for European policymakers, facing rapid increases in population age and in some countries (Germany and Italy already) facing decreases in working age population.

An interesting paper on the subject was just published in the U.S. authored by Maestas, Nicole and Mullen, Kathleen and Powell, David, study titled "The Effect of Population Aging on Economic Growth" (October 2014, RAND Working Paper Series WR-1063: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2533260).

Per authors, "Population aging is widely expected to have detrimental effects on aggregate economic growth. However, we have little empirical evidence about the actual existence or magnitude of such effects. In this paper, we exploit differential aging patterns at the state level in the United States between 1980 and 2010. Many states have already experienced high growth rates of the 60 population, comparable to the predicted national growth rate over the next several decades. Furthermore, these differential growth rates occur partially for reasons unrelated to economic growth, providing a natural approach to isolate the impact of aging on growth."

The study predicts "the magnitude of population aging at the state-level given the state’s age structure in an initial period and exploit this predictable differential growth to estimate the impact of population aging on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, and its constituent parts, labor force and productivity growth."

The result is an estimate showing "that a 10% increase in the fraction of the population ages 60 decreases GDP per capita by 5.7%. We find that this reduction in economic growth caused by population aging is primarily due to a decrease in growth in the supply of labor. To a lesser extent, it is also due to a reduction in productivity growth. We present evidence of downward adjustment of earnings growth to reflect the reduction in productivity."

13/11/2014: Size of Government vs Growth

BCA Research are usually not known for silly charts and comparatives. But yesterday, they did produce a blooper …

As chart above (via BCA) shows, there appears to be a strong linear relationship between higher Government Spending as % of GDP (averaged over 2008-2014) and lower real GDP per capita growth. In fact it is very strong - at 63% explanatory power (as measured by R-Sq).

The problem with the above chart is that

1) There are likely influential outliers in the data - Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore

2) We are not quite certain that a linear relationship is a reasonable one

3) There are questions with the sample range: for example 2008-present is a sample covering the period of higher spending due to crisis (including banks measures, but also automatic stabilisers, such as unemployment insurance etc), and

4) GDP per capita is a better metric than GDP itself, but it disfavours younger economies and older economies (where a greater share of population is not at work due to age, education and training) in contrast to middle-aged economies.

So here is the exercise carrying across longer range of data (2000-2014 averages) and on the basis of actual real GDP.

Chart above shows that positive relationship continues to exist when we switch to a longer period average and base our estimates on real GDP metric, as opposed to GDP per capita. It also shows that the relationship is pretty similar for the measure of Government size either by expenditure or revenues. The former is more subject to change over time due to banks rescue measures, while the latter is more prone to change due to GDP changes.

Crucially, however, the relationship is by far not as strong as in the BCA data: we only get a R-Sq of 34.9% for Government Expenditure and even lower R-Sq of 25.3% for Government Revenue relationship to real GDP growth. 

Also note, I run analysis for logarithmic and cubic relationships and these confirm the above R-Sq readings, suggesting that a linear relationship is a reasonably good approximation to reality.

However, we still have the potential problem of outliers in the above. Which appear to be the same ones as in BCA case. So I take 1.5 sigma weight to the mean for each data set and remove all observations that fall outside 1.5 sigma range. This removes 4 countries altogether from the set and also removes another 2 countries from the set covering Government Revenue.

Chart above shows just how dramatically the relationships change when we control for influential outliers. Both R-Sq readings collapse to the point of being no longer significant at all. In other words, absent influential outliers, there is no statistically significant relationship between long-term average real GDP growth and Government spending or revenue.

Which strongly suggests that BCA findings are biased to the upside in terms of reported relationship between the size of Government and GDP by:

1) Demographic effects; and

2) Idiosyncratic factors relating to four Asia-Pacific Tiger economies.

Note: I tested the second set of estimated relations for sensitivity to model specification, including non-linear models (log, cubic, quadratic and exponential) and the result stands - there is no statistically significant relationship.

4/7/2014: Q1 2014: Domestic Demand dynamics

In the previous posts I covered the revisions to our GDP and GNP introduced by the CSO, top-level GDP and GNP growth dynamics, and sectoral decomposition of GDP.  These provided:

1. Some caveats to reading into the new data 
2. That the GDP has been trending flat between Q2-Q3 2008 and Q1 2014, while the uplift from the recession period trough in Q4 2009 being much more anaemic than in any period between 1997 and 2007. The good news: in Q1 2014, rates of growth in both GDP and GNP were above their respective averages for post-Q3 2010 period. Bad news: these are still below the Q1 2001-Q4 2007 averages.
3. Evidence that in Q1 2014, four out of five sectors of the economy posted increases in activity y/y. 

Now, let's consider Domestic Demand data. In the past I have argued (including based on econometric evidence) that Domestic Demand dynamics are most closely (of all aggregates) track our economy's actual dynamics, as these control for activities of the MNCs that are not domestically-anchored (in other words, they include effects of MNCs activities on Exchequer and households, but exclude their activities relating to sales abroad and expatriation of profits and tax optimisation).

Of the components of Domestic Demand:

• Personal Consumption Expenditure on Goods and Services stood at EUR19.915 billion in Q1 2014, which is up EUR42 million (yes, you do need a microscope to spot this - it is a rise of just 0.21% y/y. Good news is that this is the first quarter of increases in Consumption Expenditure after four consecutive quarters of decreases. Previously we had a EUR125 million drop in Personal Consumption Expenditure in Q4 2013 compared to Q4 2012.
• Net Current Government Expenditure stood at EUR6.614 billion in Q1 2014 which is EUR167 billion up on Q1 2013 (+2.59% y/y) and marks third consecutive y/y increase in the series.  Over the last 6 months, Personal Consumption fell by a cumulative EUR83 million and Government Net Current Expenditure rose EUR617 million. Austerity seems to be hitting households more than public sector?..
• Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation (basically an imperfect proxy for investment) registered at EUR6.864 billion in Q1 2014, up EUR191 million y/y. Which sounds pretty good (a 2.86% rise y/y in Q1 2014) unless one recalls that in Q4 2013 this dropped 11.35% y/y. Over the last 6 months Fixed Capital Formation is down EUR798 million y/y in a sign that hardly confirms the heroic claims of scores of foreign and irish investors flocking to buy assets here.
• Exports of Goods and Services, per QNA data, stood at EUR47.164 billion in Q1 1014, up strongly +7.41% y/y, the fastest rate of y/y growth since Q1 2011 and marking fourth consecutive quarter of growth. I will cover exports data in a separate post, as there is some strange problem with QNA data appearing here.
• Imports of Goods and Services were up too, rising to EUR37.635 billion a y/y increase of EUR2.086 billion.  
• Over the last 6 months, cumulatively, y/y Exports rose EUR4.970 billion and Imports rose EUR3.741 billion.
• Total domestic demand (sum of Personal Expenditure, Government Current Expenditure, Gross Fixed Capital Formation and Value of Physical Changes in Stocks in the economy) stood at EUR33.828 billion. This represents a y/y increase of just EUR335 million or 1.0%. This is the first quarter we recorded an increase since Q4 2013 saw a y/y drop in Total Domestic Demand of 3.83%. Over the last 6 months, cumulatively, Irish domestic economy was down EUR1.087 billion compared to the same 6 months period a year before.

The above are illustrated in the two charts below:

Lastly, let's take a look at nominal data, representing what we actually have in our pockets without adjusting for inflation. Over Q1 2014, nominal total demand rose by EUR499 million y/y, while over the last 6 months it is down EUR570 million y/y. So in effect all the growth in Q1 2014 did not cover even half the decline recorded in Q4 2013. One step forward after two steps back?..

Chart below summarises nominal changes over the last 6 months and 12 months.

4/7/2014: Q1 2014: GDP & GNP dynamics

In the previous posts I covered the revisions to our GDP and GNP introduced by the CSO and sectoral decomposition of GDP. The former sets out some caveats to reading into the new data and the latter shows that in Q1 2014, four out of five sectors of the economy posted increases in activity y/y. These are good numbers.

Now, let's consider GDP and GNP data at the aggregate levels.

First y/y comparatives based on Not Seasonally-Adjusted data:

• GDP in constant prices came in at EUR44.445 billion in Q1  2014, which marks an increase of 4.14% y/y and the reversal of Q4 2013 y/y decline of 1.15%. 6mo average rate of growth (y/y) in GDP is now at 1.49% and 12mo average is at 1.14%. Over the last 12 months through Q1 2014, GDP expanded by a cumulative 1.13% compared to 12 months through Q1 2013.
• Net Factor Income outflows from Ireland accelerated from EUR7.013 billion in Q1 2013 to EUR7.584 billion. Given the lack of global capes, this suggests that MNCs are booking more profit out of Ireland based on actual activity uplift here, rather than on transfers of previously booked profits. But that is a speculative conjecture. Still, rate of profits expatriation out of Ireland is lower in Q1 2014 than in Q1 2012, Q1 2011 and Q1 2010, which means that MNCs are still parking large amounts of retained profits here. When these are going to flow to overseas investment opportunities (e.g. if, say, Emerging Markets investment outlook improves in time, there will be bigger holes in irish national accounts).
• GNP in content prices stood at EUR36.861 billion in Q1 2014, up 3.35% y/y and broadly in line with the average growth rate over the last three quarters. This marks the third consecutive quarter of growth in GNP. Over the last 6 months, GNP expanded by 2.98% on average and cumulative growth over the last 12 months compared to same period a year before is 2.67%.

Two charts to illustrate:

The above clearly shows that the GDP has been trending flat between Q2-Q3 2008 and Q1 2014, while the uplift from the recession period trough in Q4 2009 has been much more anaemic than in any period between 1997 and 2007.

The good news is that in Q1 2014, rates of growth in both GDP and GNP were above their respective averages for post-Q3 2010 period. Bad news is that these are still below the Q1 2001-Q4 2007 averages.

GNP/GDP gap has worsened in Q1 2014 to 17.1% from 16.4% in Q1 2013. The same happened to the private sector GNP/GDP gap which increased from 18.3% in Q1 2013 to 19.1% in Q1 2014. This implies that official statistics, based on GDP figures more severely over-estimate actual economic activity in Ireland in Q1 this year, compared to Q1 last.

Chart to illustrate:

Switching to Seasonally-Adjusted data for q/q comparatives:

• GDP in constant prices terms grew by 2.67% q/q in Q1 2014, reversing a 0.08% decline in Q4 2013 and marking the first quarter of expansion. 6mo average growth rate q/q in GDP is now at 1.30% and 12mo at 1.26%. 
• GNP in constant prices terms grew by 0.48% q/q in Q1 2014, a major slowdown on 2.24% growth in Q4 2013. Q1 2014 marked the third quarter of expansion, albeit at vastly slower rate of growth compared to both Q3 2013 and Q4 2013. 6mo average growth rate q/q in GNP is now at 1.36% and 12mo at 1.34%. 

Chart to illustrate:

Finally, let's re-time recessions post-revisions.

Red bars mark cases of consecutive two (or more) quarters of negative q/q growth in GDP and GNP:

18/6/2014: IMF's Growth Forecasts for Ireland: Consistently More Bearish

This the fifth and last post on IMF's assessment of Irish economy released today.

In previous posts, I covered IMF's assessment of Irish banks (here), Irish banks prospects with respect to the ECB stress tests (here), Irish households' balance sheets (here) and growth projections (here).

This time around, lets take a look at IMF's past and present forecasts for growth. These are presented as charts, plotting evolution of growth forecasts from June 2011 through June 2014.

First, IMF's GDP growth forecasts. You can see the deterioration of outlook year on year into 2014 for all three forecast years. IMF claims that things will finally improve in 2015 when GDP growth is forecast at 2.4%. But last year, the Fund forecast 2014 growth (not 2015) at 2.2% and in 2012 the Fund expected 2014 growth to be 2.6% and so on. 

In simple terms, Fund's forecast published in June 2011 saw Irish real GDP growing by a cumulative 9.8% in 2014-2016. A year ago in June 2013 that same forecast fell to 7.8%, and today's forecast is down to 6.74%. Some material difference, disregarding the fact that GDP levels from which the above growth rate have been computed are already lower than assumed back in 2011 or 2013.

Next: Domestic Demand (a combination of private and public consumption, and public and private investment):

The upgraded forecast for 2014 compared to the Fund predictions published a year ago is a welcome sign. But at 1.1% y/y growth this is hardly consistent with anything more than a stagnation. However, after 2014, the Fund is still projecting ver-lower rates of growth compared to its previous forecasts. In June 2011, the Fund projected 2014-2016 cumulative growth in Domestic Demand to be 7.3%. In June 2013 that same projection was 4.9% and this time around it shrunk to 4.2%.

Next up: exports growth:

Again, things are going South: in June 2013 the forecast for 2014 growth rate in exports was 3.5%. In June 2014 it is down to 2.5%. Back in June 2011, IMF predicted that over 2014-2016 Irish exports will rise 15.4%, this June the prediction is 10.5%.

What all of this means in actual cash terms? Here are projections for Nominal GDP: 

So in nominal terms, IMF was projecting 2014 GDP to be at EUR165.5bn back in June 2011, at EUR171bn in June 2012, at EUR173.4bn in June 2013 and the Fund's latest projection for 2014 nominal GDP is…  EUR167.7bn. Now, note: growth rates in 2015-2016 discussed at the top of this post come on these levels, so we have lower growth off the lower base. Unimpressive as they are, GDP growth rates are even made worse by the continuous decrease in the base off which they are computed.

And to top it all up, over 2014-2016, IMF expected Irish GDP to total EUR542.9 billion back in June 2013. 12 months later that forecast is down to EUR520.9 billion - down EUR22 billion over 3 years. Puts things into perspective, really, no?

However, IMF also provides us (since 2012) with handy forecasts for GNP growth. These are summarised here:

And you get the picture by now: things are getting worse and worse and worse in the minds of the Fund forecasters.

So while the media might celebrate the fact that IMF produced relatively benign outlook for 2014-2016 in its latest assessment of our economy, keep in mind: their projection used to be for the economy to reach EUR188.7 billion by 2016 when they did this exercise 12 months ago, today the expect that number to be EUR179.5 billion. That's 4.5 years of austerity at EUR2 billion that is being planned for 2015…

15/5/2014: Flapping at the zero line: euro area GDP growth Q1 2014

Flash estimates of euro area GDP growth for Q1 2014 were out today. Here are few charts (via Markit Economics) of the disaster:

Yep: Netherlands down 1.4%, Portugal down 0.7%, Italy down 0.1%, France flat. Overall euro area at +0.2% which you might as well call 'flat as a pancake'...

The hope or rather 'expectation' was for 0.4% growth. I covered that earlier: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/05/752014-eurocoin-leading-indicator-april.html

Surprise to the downside is huge. It seems that all the hopium injections into expectations - based primarily on firm financial markets and business and consumer sentiment readings, and not on firm actual data have put a bit of bender into the blender... PMIs booming, GDP flapping powerlessly on the zero line.

One would be embarrassed, if one wasn't working in Financial Services...

15/11/2011: Q3 2011 Growth in Euro area

Latest data on euro area economies:

• France posted a quarter-on-quarter +0.4% in GDP in Q3 2011 after -0.1% contraction in Q2. Household spending +0.3% in Q3 from -0.8% decline in Q2. Domestic demand +0.3% from -0.3% fall in Q2. Production in goods and services +0.4% in Q3 compared to -0.1% drop in Q1.
• Germany GDP +2.6% y/y in Q3, 0.5% qoq and Q2 is revised up to +0.3% from +0.1% in preliminary release.
• Spain posted 0.0% growth qoq and 0.8% yoy growth in Q3 2011 against 0.2% qoq and 0.8% yoy growth in Q2 2011.
• Italy is yet to report data
• Overall, Euro area 17 posted 0.2% growth qoq in Q3 2011, same as in Q2 2011, with yearly growth of 1.4% in Q3 2011 down from 1.6% in Q2 2011. The slowdown is now evident in the yearly growth terms with Q4 2010 coming at 1.9%, rising to 2.4% in Q1 2011 and falling to 1.6% in Q2 2011 followed by the latest preliminary growth estimate of 1.4% for Q3 2011
• EU 27 also posted a slowdown in Q3 2011: Q4 2010 annualized growth was 2.1%, rising to 2.4% in Q1 2011, and falling back to 1.7% in Q2 2011 and 1.4% in Q3 2011. Quarterly growth rates in EU27 were 0.2% in Q3 2011 against 0.2% in Q2 2011, down from 0.7% in Q1 2011.

The above compares against:

• Q3 2011 growth of 0.6% qoq against Q2 2011 growth of 0.3% in the US. Yoy growth in the US was 1.6% unchanged from Q2 2011.
• Q3 2011 growth of +1.5% qoq against contraction of -0.3% in Q2 2011 in Japan. Yoy growth in Japan in Q3 2011 was -0.2% against -1.0% growth in Q2 2011.

Updated:


NY Fed manufacturing index reached back into positive territory, albeit barely, in November following five consecutive months of negative readings. Index rose to 0.6 in November from negative 8.5 in October. However, underlying conditions remained generally poor: new orders index fell to negative 2.1 in November from 0.2 in October and inventories fell to negative 12.2 in November from negative 9.0 in October. The employment index fell to negative 3.7 in November from 3.4 in October while the average workweek rose for the first time in six months. The prices paid index fell to its lowest level in nearly two years and this pressured margins.


U.S. retail sales were up 0.5% in October, driven by higher purchases online and higher spending on electronics and appliance. Sales of autos rose just 0.4% after a big surge in September while gasoline sales fell. Ex-auto sector, retail sales increased 0.6%. Retail sales for September were up 1.1%, were unchanged. Yoy through October retail sales are up 7.2%.