Economics 24/06/2010: IMF statement on Irish fiscal policies

IMF released today its Concluding Statement for the 2010 Article IV Consultation from May 31, 2010.

1. Through assertive steps to deal with the most potent sources of vulnerability,

Irish policymakers have gained significant credibility.

2. Along the complex and long-haul path to normalcy, retaining policy credibility will require active risk management. The appropriately ambitious fiscal consolidation plan demands years of tight budgetary control. Likewise, the weaning of the banking sector from public support and its eventual return to good health will proceed at only a measured pace. In the interim, unforeseen fiscal demands may occur. …With limited fiscal resources for dealing with contingencies, maintaining a steady policy course will require mechanisms for oversight and transparency, and high quality communication to minimize risks and sustain the political consensus and market confidence.

[The really significant bit here is the IMF voicing their position that “maintaining a steady policy course will require mechanisms for oversight and transparency, and high quality communication”. In a diplomatic world of IMF’s statements, neutered by the ‘consultative’ bargaining with the Government, this is likely to mean the following: “Ireland has no mechanism for transparency and oversight (enter Nama). Ireland has no quality communications mechanism, with the preference given to ‘hit-and-run’ announcements of successive cash injections into the banks preceded by no policy debates, and followed by meek Dail talking shops in which discordant voices of fiscally and financially unqualified opposition and backbenchers bicker over minutiae, missing the big picture.”]

3. Ireland is likely to emerge from its output contraction into a period of relatively modest growth potential and high unemployment. Current Irish and global conditions make forecasts subject to much uncertainty. Various indicators point to a return to economic growth during this year, but following its earlier steep fall, GDP in 2010 is projected to be about 1/2 percent lower than in 2009. As the post-crisis dislocations are undone, annual growth rates should rise gradually to about 3.5 percent by 2015. After peaking around 13.5 percent this year and, absent additional policy measures, a sizeable structural component will likely keep unemployment at around 9 percent in 2015.

[Now, these numbers fly in the face of our budgetary projections – see table from the Budget 2010 estimates submitted to the EU Commission. And they imply much more significant challenge on fiscal consolidation side than what the Government has been aiming for.]

4. The improved global outlook will help, but to a limited extent. With some reversal in the earlier loss of competitiveness and improvements in the global economy, exports will lead the recovery. But spillovers to the domestic economy will be limited because of exports’ heavy reliance on imports, their tendency to employ capital-intensive processes, and the sizeable repatriation of profits generated by multinational exporters.

[I’ve been saying this for some time now. Exports will not get us out of this corner. More importantly, since our exports rely on inputs imports so heavily, we are staring at the situation where positive effects from the weaker euro on exports will be offset by the negative effects of rising cost of imported inputs. Also notice – this statement clearly puts IMF at odds with the Government, in so far as the IMF is explicitly stating here that for fiscal balance, it is Irish GNP, not GDP that matters most. Again, good to see another one of my long term concerns validated.]

5. Moreover, home-grown imbalances from the boom years will act as a drag on growth. The unwinding of these imbalances—arising from rapid credit growth, inflated property prices, and high wage and price levels—will limit the upside potential.

Financial sector weakness, fall in real estate prices, and high unemployment could continue to reinforce each other.

[In other words, as I have recently pointed out in the press and on the blog – the twin credit and asset markets crisis is likely to last long time. Years in fact. And this really blows apart the entire Nama strategy of getting the transferred loans back to the par with 10% (or was it not 5% before that?) appreciation in property values.]

But deleveraging to reduce the loan-to-deposit ratio and banks’ risk aversion will constrain lending and the pace of economic recovery, at least in 2010–11. Higher than expected losses, uncertainties in global regulatory trends, and renewed financial market tensions—that may restrict access to funding—create downside risks. In this environment, the targets for SME lending need to be combined with strong prudential safeguards as the non-performing loans of this sector have grown rapidly.

[So unlike the Irish Government, IMF sees banks deleveraging impacting adversely the real economy, higher margins pushing homeowners deeper into insolvency, higher banks charges and banking costs destroying operating capital capacity in the economy, etc. All the things we’ve been warning the Government about – Karl Whelan, Peter Mathews, Brian Lucey, myself – but to which our policymakers paid no attention whatsoever.]

7. Three restructuring priorities deserve attention:

NAMA should schedule an orderly disposal of the property assets acquired aimed to reduce the large overhang of property in state hands, restart market transactions and, thus, help normalize the property market. Oversight of NAMA operations, which is provided for in the legislation, is desirable.

[Thank you, IMF, for supporting exactly the criticism that myself and others have been levying against Nama. Nama needs transparency, oversight, clear business plan. Unfortunately, the legislation does not provide for proper oversight. Nama is an insider-run institution with no meaningful oversight capacity given to anyone, save for the Minister for Finance. Of course, the IMF is saying this indirectly. If the legislation did provide oversight systems sufficient enough, why is the IMF concerned about the need for oversight of Nama operations?]

Mindful of the moral hazard risks, narrowly-targeted support measures for vulnerable homeowners would limit the economic and social fallout of the crisis. …This process will be aided by an overdue shift to a more efficient and balanced personal insolvency regime.

[Again, everything here is a repeat of what we, the critics of the Government approach to the crisis, have been saying for months now. Including the need for reforming our atavistic bankruptcy laws (the calls that have been falling on Government’s deaf ears for some months now) and the need for a support package for homeowners in negative equity and distress (the calls that the Government is responding to by preparing to introduce new taxes on the same homeowners already stretched financially).]

10. Looking ahead, substantial challenges remain. Following the already sizeable consolidation in 2009 and 2010, further consolidation measures, although not as large as that already achieved, of at least 4.5 percent of GDP are required to reach the 2014 target. If GDP growth outcomes are weaker than those currently foreseen by the authorities—a clear possibility within the current range of scenarios—the additional effort needed may even be greater. Staying on target is critical to retain the hard-earned credibility. But the risk of “consolidation fatigue” and, hence, a fraying of the necessary social cohesion cannot be ruled out. For this reason, greater specificity on further proposed measures is necessary. Sustainable expenditure savings will be central, including through efficiencies in public services. Broadening the tax base for revenue enhancement will also be necessary.

[This is clearly the heaviest-edited section of the statement from the point of view of ‘consultative’ additions added by the Government. The language clearly states that the IMF does not believe Government current plans for reducing the deficit to 3% target by 2014. Just month and a half ago, IMF showed its estimates of Government deficit and they are clearly above 5% mark in 2015. Yet, a month ago the Government already had in place plans to further reduce the deficit by 4.5% before 2014. So either the IMF is saying that the Government will require a fiscal adjustment of 4.5% on top of previously announced 4.5% - to the total of 8.8% of GDP or roughly speaking €14.5 billion in total between now and 2014, or their numbers do not add up – per link above.

The really important stuff in this statement is just what risks concern the IMF. The risk of ‘consolidation fatigue’ – referring most likely to the Croke Park deal that effectively shut down any new savings in the public sector wage bill through 2014 would be one. The risk of the Government falling off the target – the risk reinforced by the continued delusionary rhetoric emanating from the ‘turnaround is upon us’ crowd. The risk of weaker growth than forecasted in the Budgetary estimates (table above).

Note that the IMF insists on central role in the adjustment to be played by ‘sustainable expenditure savings’. This is certainly divergent from the approach adopted so far, with tax measures and capital spending cuts (one-offs) being responsible for the lion’s share of fiscal adjustments.]

[On the net, the IMF is clearly seriously concerned about the ability of the Government to achieve meaningful consolidation of the budgets. On the day when Irish Government 10-year bond yields hit 5.38%, this concern means that means that IMF polite wording is just catching up with the bond markets’ clear and loud vote of low confidence in Ireland’s ability to match its tough rhetoric with equally resolute actions.]

Economics 23/02/2010: IMF on some of the Irish crisis policies

So we keep hearing how the entire world is applauding the Irish Government for doing "the right thing" (as Minister Eamon Ryan asserted today on Prime Time). Hmmm... I guess IMF isn't amongst the 'entire world' set.

IMF paper released today, titled "Exiting from Crisis Intervention Policies" states:

"For most advanced economies, including the very largest ones, fiscal stimulus vis-à-vis 2008 levels will be broadly maintained in 2010.

Among G-20 advanced economies, only Canada and France are expected to start a significant adjustment—on the order of ½ and 1 percentage point of GDP in 2010, respectively, in terms of their structural balance.

Larger reversal of stimulus is expected in Spain, and especially in Iceland and Ireland, but from very high structural deficit levels in 2009."

This doesn't sound like an endorsement, just a clinical admission of the fact, but... notice the words 'reversal of stimulus'. This really implies that the IMF is treating our cuts imposed in the Budgets 2009, 2009-bis and 2010 as being largely cyclical (consistent with a reduction in a temporary stimulus).

Of course, the IMF - as well as any reasonably literate macroeconomist - would like to see Irish government (and other governments as well) cutting structural deficits, not cyclical. And the IMF makes this point by stating:

"Few G-20 advanced economies have so far developed full-fledged medium-term fiscal adjustment strategies, although some have announced medium-term targets or have extended the horizon of their fiscal projections.

A notable development is the adoption by Germany’s parliament, in June 2009, of a new constitutional fiscal rule for both federal and state governments that envisages a gradual move to (close to) structural balance from 2011. The rule requires the federal government’s structural deficit not to exceed 0.35 percent of GDP from 2016. States are required to run structurally balanced budgets from 2020."

Might it be the case the IMF views our cuts as being at risk of turning out to be short-lived? It might.

Another interesting feature of the report is the following statement (which comes right after the Fund saying that it expects the governments to start lifting banks guarantees since funding conditions have been easing):
"Deposit insurance schemes have not undergone any significant modifications since their expansion at the beginning of the crisis. The average duration of schemes is about three years. Since June 2009, New Zealand and the United States (for transaction accounts) adopted changes and extensions to their programs, including a rise in participation fees to better reflect market prices and risks."

Now, give it a thought: the Government has extended banks guarantee, but cut the deposits guarantee - exactly the opposite of what other governments are doing. Another uniquely Irish way of 'doing the right things' for the banks and taxpayers?

Doubting? Take IMF's data for the extent of support we have given the banks to date:
Do remember - the above figures for Ireland do not include the full exposure due to Nama and the latest stakes-taking exercises the Government is engaging in with BofI and will be engaging in with AIB in three months time. Notice just how massive is our exposure relative to GDP when compared to two other crisis-stricken countries - Denmark and the Netherlands. Also notice just how much more aggressive these countries are in writing down their banking systems' bad debts? In fact, not a single country comes close to us in terms of engaging in bad assets purchases from the banks. Why? They do not believe in the 'long term economic value' that Nama is based on?

Another interesting table from the paper:
This, of course, shows that majority of countries out there are completing their programmes for stabilisation of the banking sectors in 2010-2011 period. Ireland is not at the races here. Unlike majority of our counterparts, we are bent on dragging out Nama through some 15 years worth of the zombie banking, zombie development and zombie economy - Japan-style. Except, unlike Japan, we have young population.

Economics 29/06/2009:

IMF Report last week highlighted some pretty nasty sides to our policies of the past, present and the future. For those of you who missed my Sunday Times article this week, here is the unedited version:


“They who delight to be flattered, pay for their folly by a late repentance,” said Phaedrus of Macedonia some 2000 years ago. No matter how much our Ministers herald this week’s IMF report as ‘being supportive’ of the Government policies, these words can be a leitmotif for the international organization’s view of our economy.

The IMF clearly states that the bulk of our economic problems was predictable and stems from our own policies choices.

Structural deficit, notes the report reached 12.5% of GDP back in 2008. Now, even following the savagery of April supplementary budget, the deficit remains at 11% of GDP for 2009.

Profligate in spending, Irish authorities project deficits of 10.75% of GDP in 2009 and 2010 falling to 2.5% of GDP by 2013. IMF projects – as a benign scenario - deficits of 11.75% in 2009 and 12.75% in 2010, and 4% in 2013. Bang-on in line with my forecasts published in January 2009. And this is before we factor in our ongoing short-term borrowing binge and the costs of NAMA.

IMF staff’s baseline scenario implies “stronger expenditure consolidation than currently projected by the authorities”. Read: Minister Lenihan is off the mark in his fiscal consolidation exercise. Over 2009-2014 primary expenditures will have to be brought down by a whooping 9.5% of GDP – a cut of some €16.2bn against additional revenue raising of €4.3bn. A note: An Bord Snip is toiling overtime to reportedly cut just €4bn.

The balance between new taxes and spending cuts that the IMF suggests is so out of line with the Government approach two Budgets and two policy documents issued to date that it is impossible to interpret the Report as anything more than a motivational platitude that a senior scholar would accord to a not-too-bright student attempting a difficult proof. That Minister Lenihan failed to notice this irony is truly remarkable.

The IMF has a right to be critical of our policies. The Fund has been at the forefront of warning the Government about the problems we facing today. Annually, in Article IV Consultation Papers of 2003-2007 Fund analysts said that Ireland must focus on reforming grossly inefficient public services, stabilizing tax revenues, and deflating the property and public spending bubbles. Time and again the Government presented the IMF polite warnings as the marks of its approval of our policies. Cheers were sounded at numerous press conferences and nothing was done to address specific risk factors.

In its 2004 paper the Fund noted, that “Increases in public sector employment ...gradually inched up from a low of 3.7 percent in January 2001 to 4.8 percent by July 2003. Domestic demand was supported by the ECB’s easing of monetary policy and an expansionary fiscal policy.” Later, the Fund told the Government that “progress in improving public expenditure efficiency, controlling public sector wages, and increasing domestic competition has been limited.”

Throwing good money after bad to ‘improve’ public services as the Government preferred to do was never sustainable for the IMF: “the size of government [in Ireland] is not small in comparison with other OECD countries when compared to GNP, the more relevant measure of domestic economic activity.”

Bertie Ahearne’s response to this was to declare himself the last standing socialist in Europe and accelerate spending growth, triggering a wave of public sector waste. By 2007, Ireland became the country with one of the most generous welfare systems in the OECD.

“The ongoing rise in debt levels over the past decade has placed Ireland above the average of household debt-to-income ratio for Euro area countries, only surpassed by the Netherlands and Luxembourg,” said IMF in 2006.

Neither CBFSAI nor the Department of Finance stepped in to reign in this activity, despite IMF warnings. No tightening in reserve ratios or regulatory restrictions on excessive and risky loans took place. Capital to risk-weighted assets ratio has fallen from 14% in 2003 to 12% in 2005 for domestic banks. Contingent and off-balance sheet accounts have risen from 538% of total assets to 879%. Annual credit growth to private sector ballooned doubled to 29%. Today, the Government continues to promote our low public debt with no references to the private sector indebtedness.

In 2007 the IMF warned about the risks to our fiscal sanity: between 2003 and 2006, Irish real GDP grew by 22%, while real primary public spending rose 27%. Unfunded forward expenditure commitments have swallowed all existent and expected future primary surpluses.

Not surprisingly, this week, the IMF found that cyclical public deficit (the deficit that can be attributed to the world-wide recession) accounts for less than 30% of our total shortfall – in line with my own analysis published in August 2008. We are, as a nation, borrowing tens of billions of euros in order to pay grotesquely over-paid public sector employees their wages.

Perhaps the most perverted reading of the report by the Government concerned the IMF assessment of NAMA. Far from being an unguarded endorsement of the Government strategy, the report is tactfully telling our leaders to start thinking about the basics.

Per IMF, the main risks to NAMA are with pricing of the loans, post-NAMA recapitalization, narrowness of its remit and potential lack of flexibility. Protection of taxpayers’ funds is a serious concern. All these issues were raised by a number of critics of the Government approach to NAMA over the recent months. None have been addressed by the Government.

Crucially, the IMF sees a room for considering nationalization of the banks with shareholders taking full hit on their asset values. The IMF suggests that such nationalization can be triggered by either insolvency of the bank or by cash flow constraints. Given that the IMF estimates that some €34bn of the loans can end up in the rubbish bin, the cash-flow constraints that can trigger nationalization may apply to all major banks in Ireland. This is hardly comforting to the Government that categorically ruled out nationalizing well before it got to do the sums on NAMA itself.

Interestingly, a much over-looked sentence inserted in just two places in the report states: “A number of Directors considered that, for bank restructuring, other [than NAMA] options including a greater equity interest by the government should not be ruled out.” Given the current market valuations, any ‘equity interest by the government’ in our ailing banks would spell an outright nationalization to have any meaningful impact on the financial institutions. This hardly constitutes the IMF endorsement of the Government strategy.

On potential for NAMA success, the IMF says that “if well managed, the distressed assets acquired by NAMA could, over time, produce a recovery value to compensate for the initial fiscal outlays.” Note that the Fund says nothing about recouping the cost of final outlays: bond financing, managing NAMA, inflation or recapitalization post-NAMA. These lines of expenditure are likely to yield tens of billions in taxpayers’ losses.

In short, IMF report, even after rounds of ‘consultations’ inputs and delays by our officials, presents a picture of Ireland as a country that is yet to address the grave and domestically rooted policy disasters it faces – 22 months after the onset of the crisis. Hardly an endorsement we can be proud about.

Box-Out:
Another week, another bond offer from Ireland Inc. Last week, NTMA has sold a syndicated bond offer worth €6bn, with a whooping 5.9% annual coupon. The good news: it was a large issue and the maturity date for the new paper was 2019 – well away from 2012 and 2014 dates in previous two syndicated issues of this year. The bad news was the cost of the latest borrowing to the taxpayers. If the first €4bn bond raised this year was pricing each €1 in borrowed funds at €1.25, once expected inflation is factored in, the latest offer will cost us over €2.31 per each €1 borrowed. Not exactly a deal of a century. Another interesting feature of the syndicated bond offers to date is that the demand from banks, including Irish banks, remains very strong, covering more than 50% in all three placements despite continued problems in the banking sector. Funds allocations into Irish bonds rose steadily from 10% in the earlier offer to 26% in the latest placement. This can suggest two possible things. Either the fund managers re-discovering genuine interest in Irish paper or there is some sort of parking facility arrangement between the dealers and the issuer to store-up bonds for future use in NAMA-related transactions. Of course, one can only speculate…


And here are few quotes from earlier IMF reports on Ireland that did not make it into the article:

In its 2004 Article 4 Consultation Paper the Fund noted, in relation to the 2000-2003 period that: “The substantial contribution of multinationals to Irish output and associated profit flows creates significant differences between measures of output, and the recent cycles in GDP and GNP have not been synchronized. ...Increases in public sector employment ...gradually inched up from a low of 3.7 percent in January 2001 to 4.8 percent by July 2003. Domestic demand was supported by the ECB’s easing of monetary policy and an expansionary fiscal policy.”

Thus, the IMF was diplomatically telling the Government that by 2003 Ireland was running overheated housing markets, slowing productive sectors and unsustainable expansion in the public sector employment and spending. Per IMF “...steps toward improving efficiency in public transportation have been met with resistance by public sector unions,” clearly identifying the main obstacle to the path of public sector reforms in Ireland.

The Fund had also serious criticism of the rising levels of public spending in Ireland. Preserving the emphasis placed by the IMF itself, Article 4 document told the Government that “the size of government is not small in comparison with other OECD countries when compared to GNP, the more relevant measure of domestic economic activity in Ireland. Lower tax rates in Ireland as compared to the EU reflect favorable demographics, prudent fiscal policies that have delivered lower debt and debt-servicing costs, smaller defense requirements and lower unemployment-related social spending.”

2006 Article IV paper identified “several macro-risks and challenges facing the authorities. As the housing market has boomed, household debt to GDP ratios have continued to rise, raising some concerns about credit risks. Further, a significant slowdown in economic growth, while seen as highly unlikely in the near term, would have adverse consequences for banks’ non-performing loans.”

Government response to this was extending a range of property tax incentives schemes and encouraging banks lending. No tightening in reserve ratios or regulatory restrictions on excessive and risky loans took place. Indeed by 2005, regular capital to risk-weighted assets ratio has fallen from 15% in 2003 to 13.6% in 2005 for all banks, and from 13.9% to 12% for domestic banks. Contingent and off-balance sheet accounts as a percentage of total assets have risen from 538% to 879%. This deterioration in the quality of our financial systems took place against the backdrop of rapidly rising lending with annual credit growth to private sector balooning from 15% pa in 2003 to 28.8% in 2005.

In 2006 and later in 2007 the IMF staff “suggested broadening the tax base by phasing out the remaining property based incentive schemes, reducing mortgage interest tax relief, or introducing a property tax.” Despite agreeing with the staff, Irish Government has gone into 2007 election year with double digit growth in current expenditure and massive handouts to the pressure groups. The tax base was not only left unreformed, but new tax measures were introduced that pushed the state deeper into dependency of property tax revenues.

In September 2007 the IMF took a look at the quality of Irish Government targets delivery. Table A.1 of the report contains an often neglected line specifying the rising disconnect between the policymakers’ rethoric and the actual outrun. Between 2003 and 2006, Irish primariy surpluses rose from 1.1% to 3.4%. Over the same period of time, real GDP grew by 21.8%, while real primary public spending rose 27%.

Economics 19/06/2009: IMF on NAMA and Construction Data

Per Reuters report (here), IMF is about to publish long over-due Consultation Paper on Ireland.

IMF, allegedly, will recommend Ireland "retain the option of including additional types of loans, such as residential mortgages, in its "bad bank" scheme for housing bad debts".

This if proven correct will open NAMA to an additional downside of some €30-40bn in stressed residential property loans, which cannot be foreclosed or enforced for political reason. A costliest form of rescuing the ordinary homeowners, as compared with directly repairing their balancesheets via cash/assets injection. It will completely politicize NAMA. Hence, I will be revising my NAMA cost estimates upward in days to come.

The Indo reports that the IMF had calculated that Ireland's "structural deficit", which excludes the impact of economic fluctuations on revenues and spending, could be as much as 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or 18 billion euros ($25 billion). Brilliant. If proven right, IMF will be bang-on with my estimates from December 2008 and full 1.8 percentage points ahead of DofF numbers.

"It (the IMF) will endorse the widespread view that most of the correction must now come on the spending side, rather than through more tax rises," the Irish Independent wrote. Now, recall that Brian Lenihan and his adviser, Alan Ahearne, told us that no serious analyst was sugegsting, at the time of the Mini-Budget of April 2009 that the Government should focus more heavily on spending cuts, and thus, per Lenihan, huge tax increases in April budget were justified. Of course, many analysts, ncluding myself, replied that this was a lie back at the time. Now, IMF is falling behind our view.

Now, two things worth mentioning before the report is out.

First, a birdie told me that the IMF was 'convinced' by the Government to delay publication of its report until after the local elections.

Second, another birdie told me that the report was less watered down than usual, because the usual 'consultative' process where by the Governments get to vet some of the IMF's recommendations and analysis in rounds of bargaining broke early in April/May.

I am looking forward to this report...

CSO data on Production in Construction and Building sector:
When a picture is worth a 1,000 words...
No signs of 'bottoming out' or 'Green Shoots' above Q1-Q2 2009 are dire and getting worse for the private building sectors. But what about the so-much touted 'Fiscal Stimulus' on our Brian-Brian-Mary 'Public Investment' side?
None! all is dead on Civil Engineering growth side, courtesy of a lie that is our public investment stimulus.
And things are getting much worse with time across the entire Residential and Non-Residential Building sectors.
But do spot an odd one out...