6/9/2013: BlackRock Institute survey: North America & Western Europe: August 2013

BlackRock Investment Institute released its latest Economic Cycle Survey for North America and Western Europe region.

Per summary: "This month’s North America and Western Europe Economic Cycle Survey presented an improvement in the outlook for global growth over the next 12 months – the net proportion of respondents with a positive outlook increased to 70% from 60% last month. 

The consensus outlook for the Eurozone was particularly positive, where the 6 month forward outlook shifted from 57% to 75% expecting the currency-bloc to move to an expansionary phase. 

The picture within the bloc was not uniform however, with most respondents expecting Portugal, Greece, Belgium and the Netherlands to remain in a recessionary phase, while the consensus has shifted to expect expansion for France, Spain, Finland and Ireland over the next 2 quarters. An even mix of economists expect Italy to be expansionary or recessionary at the 6 month horizon (and similarly so for Norway, outside of the currency-block). 

With regards to the US, the proportion of respondents expecting recession over the next 6 months remain low, with the consensus view firmly that North America as a whole is in mid-cycle expansion and remaining so through H2 2013."

Note: these views reflect opinions of survey respondents, not that of the BlackRock Investment Institute. Also note: cover of countries is relatively uneven, with some countries being assessed by a relatively small number of experts.

Here are two summary charts:

25/7/2013: BlackRock Institute latest survey results for global economic outlook: June 2013

The latest summary of the global growth conditions from the BlackRock Investment Institute. Click on the chart to open larger version. I have highlighted Ireland on the chart.

Blue bars reflect consensus on current phase of economic development (for example, in Ireland's case, current phase is seen as being recessionary by roughly 25% of respondents to the survey). Red dot corresponds to 6mo forward expectation (in Ireland's case, 50% of respondents expect recession in Ireland to either continue or to present itself again in 6 months time).

Note: this is the view of surveyed economists and not the view of the BlackRock II. The chart is based on the "trailing 3 survey reports for the other regions we poll. In our first month of this initiative, we collected the views of over 430 economists from more than 200 institutions, spanning over 50 countries"

4/7/2013: Blackrock Institute Surveys: North America, Europe and EMEA: June 2013

Two charts showing most recent consensus expectations on North American, Western European and EMEA economies from the Blackrock Investment Institute panel of economists (note: these do not represent views of Blackrock).

Notice clustering of peripherals and France, as opposed to marginally better clustering of the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Eurozone.

Note Ukraine as the sick man of the region. Also note Slovenia and Croatia - two EU economies that are significantly under-performing the regional grouping.

4/7/2013: Blackrock Institute Surveys: North America, Europe and EMEA: June 2013

Two charts showing most recent consensus expectations on North American, Western European and EMEA economies from the Blackrock Institute panel of economists (note: these do not represent views of Blackrock).

Notice clustering of peripherals and France, as opposed to marginally better clustering of the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Eurozone.

Note Ukraine as the sick man of the region. Also note Slovenia and Croatia - two EU economies that are significantly under-performing the regional grouping.

16/6/2013: Euromoney Country Risk Scores Update

Some updates from Euromoney Country Risk (ECR) reports. First a summary of latest credit risk assessment scores moves:

And on foot of Russia's score move, a related story on Russian government delaying issuance of much expected sovereign bond. Via Euroweek:


"Russia is likely to wait until autumn before bringing its mandated sovereign bond, said analysts. Forcing through a $7bn bond in one deal might also be unwise, but demand is deep and the sovereign could spread its funding plan out across separate transactions, said bankers... Investors have already priced in a large sovereign issue and Russia would not struggle to drum up demand, he added. But the problem is price."Everything is 100bp wider than a month ago and so the sovereign will hope things calm down and allow them to issue closer to the historic tights they were looking at just a few weeks ago," said another syndicate banker."

6/5/2013: Self-contradictions & EU Commission

Trapped in their own failures, EU 'leaders' are no longer simply contradicting each other - they are now contradicting themselves. And, I must add, via ever more apparent and bizarre statements.
Behold the latest instalment of absurdity from one of the multiple EU 'Presidents': the man in charge of the EU economic policies and performance, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso. As reported in the EUObserver (http://euobserver.com/economic/120040), Mr Barroso stated that "What is happening in France and Portugal is not Merkel's or Germany's fault … The crisis and their problems are not a result of German policy or the fault of the EU. It is the result of excessive spending, lack of competitiveness and irresponsible trading in the financial markets."
Thus,

1. Loose monetary policy by the ECB that was custom-tailored to suit German needs during 2002-2007 period had nothing to do with the crisis in the peripheral states, despite the fact that it triggered vast inflows of capital from Germany (and other core states) into the euro area periphery, inflating assets bubbles left, right and centre, and leading to unsustainable debt accumulation in these economies.
2. ECB (heavily influenced by German ethos and political economy) and EU Commission and regulatory bodies' insistence on treating all sovereign bonds issued by the euro area states as risk-free assets on banks balance sheets (the main trigger for Cypriot crisis and the reason for massive transfers of banking sector costs onto taxpayers in Ireland and other member states) had nothing to do with Berlin or with Berlin's insistence on closing its eyes on what was happening in regulation / enforcement EU-wide.
3. Berlin's inability to reign in German (among other) banks' gross misplacing of risks in interbank lending to other euro area banks had nothing to do with the crisis.
4. Berlin's insistence, repeated parrot-like by Mr Barroso and his colleagues in the Commission, that the whole crisis can be addressed via fiscal adjustments (recall, that was the position the EU Commission occupied for the last 6 years) and current account rebalancing has nothing to do with mis-shaped economic policy responses across the EU since 2008 crisis onset.
5. Berlin's 'guidance' toward internecine and economically illiterate Fiscal Compact, eagerly endorsed by Mr Barroso and his colleagues in recent past, has nothing to do with the failure of Europe to respond to the crisis.
6. Berlin's opposition to the half-baked EU ideas about stimulating growth in euro periphery that shut the door on any real stimulus has nothing to do with the crisis.
7. Berlin's opposition to increasing domestic demand and abandoning contractionary pursuit of current account surpluses, also noted by Mr Barroso's Commission in the past, had nothing to do with the crisis duration or depth.

Mr Barroso also claimed that Chancellor Merkel is "one of the only [leaders], if not the only leader at the European level who best understands what is going on."

Really? Suppose so. In this case, Mr Barroso has either no clue what is going on, or simply doesn't care to be consistent with his own exhortations of the recent past, because he openly and directly contradicted Ms Merkel couple of weeks ago by claiming that 'austerity was overdone' and had "reached its limits."

Irony has reached so far in Mr. Barroso's waltzing across the ideological & economic policy landscape that according to the EU's 'President', Ms Merkel's brilliance also encompasses the fact she is presiding over German economy currently sliding toward a recession. IMF analysis shows real GDP growth in Germany will fall from 4.024% and 3.096% in 2010 and 2011 to 0.865% and 0.613% in 2012 and 2013. This might be better-than-average record for the euro area, but it is hardly an achievement worth praising.

Someone should point to Mr Barroso that eating one's cake (taking a populist position against austerity, and thus Ms Merkel) and having it (taking an appeasing position toward the major architect of all economic policy blunders so far deployed in Europe since the onset of the crisis) is just something that doesn't happen outside the make-belief world of Brussels.

5/5/2013: Things are going according to plan... in Italy & Germany

That euro area 'policy' for dealing with the crisis is working marvelously, yeah?

Source: Euromoney Country Risk
Note: lower ECR score = higher sovereign credit risk

Yes, Italy's bonds are trading at much lower yields, and the country is issuing new debt at lower costs... but how much of that has to do with something / anything that Italian Government has done, as opposed to the overall shifts in markets sentiment / liquidity flows, who knows? One thing is for sure, absent yields changes, Italian fundamentals are getting worse, not better. Ditto, between, for all other 'peripherals'.

28/4/2013: That German Miracle...

Germany... the miracle economy of Europe:

Let's do some growth facts. recall that G7 includes such powerhouses of negative growth as Japan and Italy, and the flagship of anemia France.

1) Germany vs G7 in real GDP growth:

From data illustrated above:

• In the G7 group, Germany ranked 6th in growth terms over the 1980s, rising to 5th in the 1990s and 2000s, and, based on the IMF forecasts, can be expected to rank 4th in the period 2010-2018. In simple terms - Germany ranked below average in every decade since 1980 through 2009 and exact average in 2010-2018 period.
• On a cumulated basis, starting from 100=1980, by the end of this year, judging by latests IMF forecast for 2013, Germany would end up with second slowest growth in G7, second only to Italy. 
• On a cumulated basis, starting from 100=1990, by the end of this year, judging by latests IMF forecast for 2013, Germany would end up with fourth fastest growth in G7. Ditto for the basis starting from 100=2000.

2) Germany vs G7 in annual growth rates in GDP based on Purchasing-power-parity adjustment (PPP) per capita to account for exchange rates and prices differentials:

From data illustrated above:

• In the G7 group, Germany ranked 5th - or below average - in PPP-adjusted per capita growth terms over the 1980s and the 1990s, rising to 4th - group average - in the 2000s, and, based on the IMF forecasts, can be expected to rank 3rd - slightly above average - in the period 2010-2018. In simple terms - Germany ranked below or at the average in every decade since 1980 through 2009 and one place ahead of the average in 2010-2018 period.
• Note: Germany is the only G7 country with shrinking overall population, that peaked in 2003 and has been declining since, thus helping its GDP (PPP) per capita performance.

Here's the chart summarising Germany's rankings in G7 in terms of two growth criteria discussed:

Germany might have been performing well in 2006 and 2011 (when it ranked 1st in real GDP growth terms) and really well in 2007-2008 and 2010 when it ranked 2nd, but other than that, it has been a lousy example for any sort of a miracle.

26/4/2013: ECB's policy mismatch in 6 graphs

For those interested in the monetary drivers of the current euro area crisis, here's an interesting new paper from CESifo (WP 4178, March 31, 2013): "The Monetary Policy of the ECB: A Robin Hood Approach?" by Marcus Drometer, Thomas I. Siemsen and Sebastian Watzka.

In the paper, authors "derive four sets of counterfactual national interest rate paths for the 17 Euro Area countries for the time period 1999 to 2012. They approximate desirable national interest rates countries would have liked to implement if they could still conduct independent monetary policy. We find that prior to the financial crisis the counterfactual interest rates for Germany trace the realized EONIA rate very closely, while monetary policy has been too loose especially for the southern European countries. This situation was inverted with the onset of the financial crisis. To shed light on the underlying decision rule of the ECB, we rank different rules according to their ability to aggregate the national counterfactual paths to the EONIA rate. In addition to previous literature we find that those mechanisms which care for countries who fare economically worse than the Euro Area average perform best."

Paper is available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2244821

Here are few charts, illustrating the results. In these TR references Taylor Rule, quarterly estimated backward-looking Bundesbank rule denoted BuBa, monthly estimated Bundesbank rules with interest rates smoothing denoted BuBaS and BuBaGMM respectively for backward- and forward-looking, and realised EONIA rate.

Legend:

CHARTS

Per authors: "Two results are worth noting.

First, the counterfactual interest rate path derived from the original Taylor rule and our baseline counterfactual path (quarterly estimated backward-looking Bundesbank rule) trace each other very closely. In fact, they are hardly distinguishable. The monthly estimated Bundesbank rules with interest rate smoothing (backward- and forward-looking) deviate sometimes considerably from the quarterly paths. …all four paths yield qualitatively similar results...

Second, …all four counterfactual paths for Germany lie strikingly close to the actual realization of the EONIA rate. Especially
for the southern European countries the ECB’s monetary policy has been too loose according to all four counterfactuals."

And more: "For all four sets of counterfactual national interest rate paths the Robin Hood rules outperform the standard decision rules. Especially our "economic-needs"-rule performs exceptionally good across all four specifications. Moreover, the forward looking model performs worse than the three backward looking specifications."

In other words, ECB policy rules were completely mis-matching the reality in all countries, save Germany, with (per charts above) mismatch most dramatic in… right… Ireland.

23/4/2013: Updating the cost of banking crisis data

Nice update from the ECB on the cumulated cost of the banking crisis in Europe, now available through 2012. The net effect, summing up all assumed sovereign liabilities relating to the crisis, including contingent liabilities, and subtracting asset values associated with these liabilities are shown (by country) in the chart below:

Note the special place of Ireland in the above.

For the euro area as a whole, net liabilities relating to the crisis back in 2007 stood at EUR 0.00 (EUR36.72 billion for EU27). By the end of 2012 these have risen to EUR 740.15 billion (EUR 734.23 billion for EU27).

Net revenue losses for Government arising from the banking sector rescues, per ECB are:

19/4/2013: Watch out for overheating Euro area growth...

Ifo Institute issued its updated forecasts for Germany and Euro area 2013-2014. Here are the summaries:

As Euro area aggregate forecast shows, the European Century is rolling on with expected 0.4% annual expansion in real GDP in 2013 and 0.9% roaring growth in 2014 expected. Meanwhile, the speedy engine for Euro area growth - Germany - is expected to post 0.8% boom-time growth in 2013 and globally impressive, future path-inspiring expansion of 1.9% in 2014.

Clearly, we must be watching out for a positive output gap emerging soon, as both economies will be overheating in the next 19 months from all this tremendous growth...

10/11/2012: Euro area households feeling the pain?

Couple interesting charts from the Goldman Sachs research note on French consumption woes - link):

Euro area household disposable income is now under water in the Euro area steadily since 2008, which marks 5 years of sustained contraction. More interestingly, the chart shows abysmal performance of the RDI in Germany since roughly 2004.

The next chart maps gross savings rates for households - which are falling in the Euro area, just as disposable income is falling. Given the double dip recession, this suggests that tax hikes and cuts to income are now severe enough to knock households out of precautionary savings motive. And the latter would imply that households consumption is unlikely to rise even when income growth returns.

22/8/2012: Globe & Mail: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly

My tongue-in-cheek piece for The Globe & Mail on Euro area crisis: here.

20/8/2012: ECB yield cap - more questions than answers?

So ECB is discussing putting an upper bound on euro area yields. One question: what 'bounds'?

Here's a chart (courtesy of http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/graph-of-interest-rates-1995-to-2011-for-german-france-italy-spain-portugal-ireland-and-greece/ ) showing interest rates 1995-2011 for a number of euro area states.

Should the 'ceiling' be set at Greek, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese (GISP) yields pre-1995 (around 10% or above) or German, Irish and French (GIF) yields pre-1995 (around 6.0%) or 1999-2008 average (of ca 4.2%) or what? What should be a benchmark? The delusion of the euro turning ECB-targeted gospel or the (already optimistic) pre-euro rates reality? And can euro area finances be sustained at even around 6% yields?

After all, these are hardly trivial questions. Yields must reflect fiscal and monetary realities. Setting an artificial ceiling on them by definition means evading that reality (otherwise constraint will not bind). Does Italian reality justify 6% yield target? Does French reality do same? Is the current level of Greek yields reflective of the reversion to the fundamentals-warranted long-term historical mean (perhaps with some moderate overshooting in the short run) or should Greece really be treated distinctly from Germany, France, and even Italy?

Updated: more questions:

Suppose ECB does effectively cap bond yields. Then what? Will this restore growth to the Euro area? No. Deleverage households or corporates? No. Reduce pressure on taxes? Potentially marginally. Increase Gov's capacity to borrow to 'stimulate' economy? No. Reduce pressure on Governments to reform & incentivise more public spending? Yes. Decrease the Sovereign liquidity trap? Maybe. Increase banking sector liquidity trap? Possibly.

So the price of getting better sleep for politicians will be what? Real economy still in deep deleveraging & Governments slipping back into comfort zone of tax-borrow-spend economics? A logical denouement to the failed economic analysis that see sovereign debt crisis as the main source of economic decline in the euro area.

16/1/2012: Summary of S&P move and more

In the wake of the S&P action it is a good idea to put side-by-side some ratings on euro area countries. here are S&P ratings before and after downgrade along with CMA ratings and CDS data for Q1 2009 beginning of the crisis) and Q4 2011.

Per S&P: "...the agreement [between euro zone member states in December 2011 attempting to address the crisis] is predicated on only a partial recognition  of the source of the crisis: that the current financial turmoil stems  primarily from fiscal profligacy at the periphery of the eurozone. In our view, however, the financial problems facing the eurozone are as much a consequence of rising external imbalances and divergences in competitiveness  between the eurozone's core and the so-called "periphery". As such, we believe  that a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers' rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national  tax revenues."

In other words, it's growth, stupid. And herein lies the main problem for Europe. While EU might - if forced hard enough - jump onto a more sustainable fiscal spending path (cut deficits and structural deficits) - the EU has absolutely no record of creating pro-growth conditions or environments. In fact, in a bizarre response to the S&P moves:

• France is discussing an increase in VAT as the means for stimulating productivity growth, while
• Austria is planning wealth taxes and increase in retirement age as its response to economic growth challenge.

Now, where do you start in dealing with this lunatic asylum? 

3/12/2011: Latest Euro Crisis Proposal: A Debt Fund to Solve Nothing

The latest technocratic deram of European sovereign finance engineers is out. Here's the extracts from Reuters report with my comments (full report link here):

"Wolfgang Schaeuble outlined his plans under which states would effectively siphon off a chunk of their debt to a special national fund and pay it off over about 20 years while committing to reforms to keep debt levels on target."

What's that, you say? To "boost confidence" of the proverbial markets, the Euro states "should put into a special fund that part of its debt which exceed 60 percent of its GDP, and should pay that off with tax revenues. Over a period of 20 years, the debt should be reduced to 60 percent".

So let me run through this in some order:

1. The debt will remain the debt - within the fund and outside.
2. The 'balanced budget' rules once adopted (and in Germanic fashion anything adopted = implemented) will assure no new debt accumulated.
3. Part of the debt above 60% of GDP will be extended in maturity (somehow, there will be 'no credit event' there?)
4. The part of the debt above 60% of GDP will be repayable out of tax revenues (the rest, presumably will be repayable out of  Schaeuble's pension fund?)
5. There will be no common liability - as "an earlier proposal this month from a panel of independent economic advisers to the German government which was rejected as unrealistic by Merkel, envisaged a European Redemption Pact. That proposal, for a fund of up to 2.3 trillion euros, was anathema to Merkel because it suggested pooling excess debt into a fund with common liability." Which means risks of each individual state debt will remain the same within and outside the fund. Just how this will impact sovereign yields begs some explaining.
6. Repayment of debt accumulated in the fund will have, presumably, some priority over other debts. Otherwise, what's the difference if this debt is in the fund or not. If so, what seniority implications will there be for two types of debts - within the fund and outside the fund? If none, there will be no material difference between the two and thus no change on current status quo. If Fund debt were to be more senior (having a first call on repayment by tax revenues) then the remaining debt quality will deteriorate. Implications - the Fund will make things worse, not better, for the sovereigns.

Overall, the whole idea of a Fund can only work if the following are simultaneously true:

1. There is a pooled liability for the Fund-held debts to assure improved ratings (already ruled out).
2. The combined (Fund-held and non-Fund) debts of all countries participating in the fund are jointly and separately sustainable (repayable) and the reason for the Fund creation is solely a short-term liquidity crunch. Note: only in this case future tax revenue will be sufficient to repay debts. But of course we already know that the Euro area problem is that the debts are NOT sustainable in Italy, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, and most likely also unsustainable in Belgium.
3. More indebted countries receive, during the period of repayment, sufficient fiscal transfers to prevent their economies from imploding and thus preventing their unsustainable debts triggering common liability clauses. This might be the case, but how will it go down with the electorates and Governments in surplus countries, over 30 years, one can only wonder.
4. The commitments to new budgetary rules of, say 2% maximum deficit, are fully implemented in real budgetary processes across all member states over the entire 30 years horizon. 

And that's a lot of "if"s, even more "no"s and not a single one "Yes!"...

16/08/2011: Euro area and German growth Q2 2011

Two quick updates on some economic data released today.

Germany posted virtually zero rate of growth with GDP in Q2 2011 adjusted for seasonal effects up just 0.1 percent on Q1 2011. Q1 2011 quarterly growth rate was revised to 1.3 percent. German GDP growth was 2.6% yoy in Q2 2011, down from 4.6% in Q1 2011.

France data released last week showed economy stagnated in the three months through June with zero growth rate qoq and 1.6% growth rate yoy in Q2 2011, down from 2.1% expansion in Q1 2011. Italy reported data on August 5th showing its GDP growing 0.3% qoq in Q2 2011, 0.8% yoy, down from 1.0% yoy growth in Q1 2011. Spain’s economy expanded by just 0.2 percent in Q2 2011 (qoq) and 0.7% yoy, against 0.8% expansion in Q1.

And so on... until eurostat posted euro area-wide growth rate of 0.2% qoq in Q2 2011, down from 0.8% qoq in Q1 2011. Year on year growth rate fell to 1.7% in Q2 2011 from 2.5% in Q1 2011. Exactly the same growth rates were recorded in EU27, showing that the ongoing slowdown is now spreading across non-euro area member states as well. The EU27 and the euro area growth rates are now below those in the US (+0.3% qoq).

Summary table courtesy of the eurostat:

The overall disappointing growth in the euro area was entirely predictable, given that the leading indicators were pointing to it for some time now (see here), the industrial output data (here), etc.

However, here's an interesting chart suggesting that months ahead are not going to be easy for German economy:
Pay especially close attention to the yellow line showing business expectations for economic activity in months ahead. The data above is through July 2011, the latest we have and it firmly shows that business expectations have now dropped to the lowest level since January 2010, marking as fifth month of consecutive declines. The index stood at 105.0 in July 2011, down from the Q1 2011 average of 110.1 and Q2 2011 average of 107.1.

Euroarea leading economic indicator is now slipping since the beginning of July and this confirms continued weakness in the growth series.

25/07/2011: Comprative analysis of Euro Area and Euro Big 4

There’s a lively debate going on in parts of Europe about the longer-term fall out from last week’s ‘Deal for Greece +”. Most notably – in Germany (see here). In light of this, it is worth looking into some facts about economic performance of the Euro area Big 4 economies: is Germany right about protecting its fiscal conservativism from collectivization of risks envisioned by the ‘Deal’?

Let us plough through some data and IMF forecasts for the following set of countries & country-groups: France, Germany, Italy and Spain (the Big 4) against the Euro area as a whole, plus Advanced Economies and Major Advanced Economies (G7). Please note that the IMF forecasts are not exactly in agreement with my view of where some of these economies are heading, but for the reasons of comparative simplicity and transparency, I will rely on IMF data here.

In the end, what I am after here is some (crude – so be warned) metric of risks – disaggregated across countries and groups.

Starting from the top: chart below shows annual growth rates in GDP expressed in constant prices.

Economies, 2000-2007 growth rates averaged 2.61%, while the crisis years growth fell on average 0.06% annually. The projected growth for post-crisis period 2011-2016 IMF forecasts growth of 2.46%. In all of these periods, Advanced Economies group leads the league table of our sample countries/regions.

Area managed to achieve average annual growth of 2.16% in pre-crisis period, but suffered 0.63% annual average contraction during the crisis. Post-crisis, Euro area economies are expected to grow 1.76% which is the third slowest rate of growth in our sample.

G7 economies grew 2.27% on average annually in pre-crisis period and faced a relatively mild average crisis-period contraction of output of 0.36%. These economies are expected to grow at 2.29% per annum on average in 2011-2016.

France recorded average annual growth of 2.12% in 2000-2007 and subsequently posted relatively mild contraction of 0.32% (annual average) in 2008-2010. The country is expected to grow its economy at an average annual rate of 1.94%.

German economy grew on average at an annual rate of 1.58% during the pre-crisis years – posting second slowest growth in the sample. During the crisis, the economy contracted 0.15% per annum on average (second best performance in the sample), while it is expected to grow at 1.84% average rate in 2011-2016 – not a blistering growth forecast, but above Euro area as a whole.

Italy posted slowest average annual growth in the sample during the pre-crisis period (1.46%), the deepest average annual contraction in the sample during the crisis (-1.75%) and is expected to continue slowest growth performance with 1.32% average annual growth rate in 2011-2016.

Spain recorded the fastest real growth in the sample for the pre-crisis period (3.62% average annual rate), followed by the second magnitude of contraction (-1.0% per annum on average) in the crisis period. Spanish economy is expected to grow at 1.62% on average in 2011-2016 – second slowest in the sample.

In terms of GDP per capita (chart below):

Germany was the first in our sample to reach pre-crisis peak level of GDP per capita between 2009 and 2010, followed by the Advanced Economies and the Euro area. G7 group of countries recovered from the crisis in terms of GDP per capita by the end of 2010, while France’s recovery will take it into 2011. Spain is expected to recover from the declines in GDP per capita around 2011-2012, while Italy will take the longest to reach pre-crisis peak – some time between 2012 and 2013.

In terms of investment as a share of GDP (chart below):

Advanced economies investment averaged 21.05% in the period prior to the crisis, falling to 19.08% during the crisis before recovering somewhat to 20.08% in the period 2011-2016. No data is available for the Euro area and G7 countries.

France invested 20.2% of its GDP on average during 2000-2007 period, recording a marginal decline to 20.11% in the crisis years and is expected to recover to 20.60% of GDP in 2011-2016.

Germany was the weakest country in the sample in terms of investment with investment ratio to GDP of 18.24% in the pre-crisis years, followed by 17.50% during the crisis and by expected 17.81% in the post-crisis period.

Italian economy investment as a share of GDP was 21.01% in pre-2008 period, followed by 20.11% during the crisis. IMF expects Italian investment to rise to 20.54% of GDP in the post-crisis period.

Spain’s investment to GDP ratio was 28.30% in 2000-2007 period, followed by 25.5% in 2008-2010 and 22.98% projected for 2011-2016.

So in terms of investment as a share of GDP, Germany is clearly a laggard here, which is of course explained by two core factors: (1) aging population and (2) already extensive stock of capital.

Unemployment rates are shown in the chart below:

During pre-crisis period, Spain psoted the highest rate of unemployment, averaging 10.54%, followed by Germany (8.93%) and France (same as Germany). Euro area as a whole averaged 8.45% unemployment rate during the pre-crisis period, followed by Italy at 8.11%. This poor performance by European part of out sample is contrasted by the pre-crisis unemployment of 6.11% for the group of Advanced Economies and 6.05% for G7 group.

During the crisis, Spanish unemployment rose to 16.47%, followed by France (9.02%) and Euro area (9.0%). G7 economies posted 7.35% average rate of unemployment while Advanced economies came in at 7.34%. Germany shows the best unemployment rate for the period at 7.22%.

Post-crisis, IMF forecasts for Spain to remain worst performing country in our sample with 16.91% average unemployment rate, followed by Euro area at 9.03% and France at 8.57%. In contrast, Italy’s unemployment is projected to settle at 7.87% average, with Advanced economies coming in at 6.77% and G7 economies at 6.54%.

So what about employment – in other words, jobs creation:

The chart clearly shows that Germany, G7 group and France are the weaker performers in the sample in terms of longer-term trends in jobs creation. Now, see the following chart on population changes. Of course the problem here is that while German population is shrinking (so jobs creation is not exactly high on their agenda, especially with low unemployment), for France (with expanding population) slow jobs creation is a major draw back (hence high unemployment as well).

By 2015, based on IMF projections, German population will shrink by 1.284 million relative to 2000, while Italian population will grow by 4.638 million, French by 5.352 million and Spanish population will expand by 6.304 million.

In terms of fiscal performance, consider the following two charts plotting general government revenue as % of GDP and the general government expenditure as % of GDP:

The following chart shows general government deficits:

Based on three charts above, consider the fiscal adjustments required to deliver on the deficit targets to 2016:

Of all countries in the sample, France represents the steepest required fiscal adjustment in terms of deficit reductions, totaling 4.475% of GDP between 2011 and 2016, followed by the G7 group of countries with 4.063% and Advanced economies at 3.567%. Euro area projected adjustments are 2.519%, while German projected adjustment is 2.326%. The weakest – fiscally – performing countries – Italy and Spain – have the lowest fiscal adjustments planned at 1.439% and 1.679% respectively.

Mapping these adjustments alongside the absolute measure of fiscal performance (Gross Debt) and taking into account the economies growth potential, chart below shows two groups of countries. The first group (no shading) is the group of economies facing the moderate adjustment on deficits side, against stronger targets on debt reductions. This group includes Germany, Italy and Euro area. The second group of countries represents a group facing steeper adjustments on fiscal deficits side and/or significant deterioration in debt positions. This group covers Spain, Advanced economies, G7 and France. It is worth noting that this group of countries faces stronger growth prospects, but Spain and France represent two weaker economies in this group.

Chart below provides an illustration of the debt challenges faced by the sample economies. General Government debt rose 48% in Spain form an average of 47.62% of GDP in 2000-2007 to 70.5% of GDP projected average for 2011-2016. In France, the same increase was 43.6% from 61.83% of GDP pre-crisis to 88.76% average in post-crisis period. At the same time in Germany, gross government debt to GDP ratio rose from 63.64% of GDP pre-crisis to 76.48% of GDP in post-crisis period – the second slowest rate of increase in the sample after Italy.

Overall, for the period of 2011-2016, average gross government debt levels are expected to range from 121.93% of GDP for the G7 economies, to 119.32% of GDP for Italy, 105.33% of GDP for Advanced economies, 88.76% of GDP in France, 87.55% of GDP for the Euro area, 76.48% of GDP in Germany and 70.49% of GDP in Spain.

Lastly, let’s take a look at the current account positions.

As chart above shows, cumulative 2011-2016 expected current account positions as the share of GDP are: Germany +25.9% of GDP, Euro area +0.67% of GDP, Advanced Economies -1.92% of GDP, G7 economies -7.13% of GDP, France -14.6% of GDP, Italy -17.4% and Spain -24.5% of GDP.


Now, let us pool the information contained in the above data to derive the overall riskiness of each economy/group in the sample. To do this, I assign to each country/group a score out of 1-14 based on their performance relative to the top performing economy. So top performer in each category of score below gets 14, the with the next performer getting 12 or less, with distribution of scores within each category/heading following the underlying data. The higher raw scores reflect stronger economic performance and / or lower risk. So the final risk scores are based on inverting the raw scores. Summing these up across categories/criteria produces the total risk score reported in the penultimate column of the table. These are ranked in the last column with 1=highest risk country.


The results are consistent with statistical distribution and are robust to several checks, namely:
1) Removal of the GDP per capita recovery statistics
2) Removal of the Employment index
3) Removal of the Government Expenditure metric

The core results are:

1. Germany clearly represents the most sustainable country in the sample of all Big 4. In fact, its fiscal and macroeconomic position would be significantly undermined if it were to move to Euro area harmonized position
2. Spain and Italy are the two weakest economies in the sample with very high risk rating
3. France is statistically closer to Spain and Italy than to Euro area harmonized economy and is clearly the least sustainable economy in the sample after Spain and Italy.