9/2/16: Currency Devaluation and Small Countries: Some Warning Shots for Ireland

In recent years, and especially since the start of the ECB QE programmes, euro depreciation vis-a-vis other key currencies, namely the USD, has been a major boost to Ireland, supporting (allegedly) exports growth and improving valuations of our exports. However, exports-led recovery has been rather problematic from the point of view of what has been happening on the ground, in the real economy. In part, this effect is down to the source of exports growth - the MNCs. But in part, it seems, the effect is also down to the very nature of our economy ex-MNCs.

Recent research from the IMF (see: Acevedo Mejia, Sebastian and Cebotari, Aliona and Greenidge, Kevin and Keim, Geoffrey N., External Devaluations: Are Small States Different? (November 2015). IMF Working Paper No. 15/240: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2727185) investigated “whether the macroeconomic effects of external devaluations have systematically different effects in small states, which are typically more open and less diversified than larger peers.”

Notice that this is about ‘external’ devaluations (via the exchange rate channel) as opposed to ‘internal’ devaluations (via real wages and costs channel). Also note, the data set for the study does not cover euro area or Ireland.

The study found “that the effects of devaluation on growth and external balances are not significantly different between small and large states, with both groups equally likely to experience expansionary [in case of devaluation] or contractionary [in case of appreciation] outcomes.” So far, so good.

But there is a kicker: “However, the transmission channels are different: devaluations in small states are more likely to affect demand through expenditure compression, rather than expenditure-switching channels. In particular, consumption tends to fall more sharply in small states due to adverse income effects, thereby reducing import demand.”

Which, per IMF team means that the governments of small open economies experiencing devaluation of their exchange rate (Ireland today) should do several things to minimise the adverse costs spillover from devaluation to households/consumers. These are:

1. “Tight incomes policies after the devaluation ― such as tight monetary and government wage policies―are crucial for containing inflation and preventing the cost-push inflation from taking hold more permanently. …While tight wage policies are certainly important in the public sector as the largest employer in many small states, economy-wide consensus on the need for wage restraint is also desirable.” Let’s see: tight wages policies, including in public sector. Not in GE16 you won’t! So one responsive policy is out.
2. “To avoid expenditure compression exacerbating poverty in the most vulnerable households, small countries should be particularly alert to these adverse effects and be ready to address them through appropriately targeted and efficient social safety nets.” Which means that you don’t quite slash and burn welfare system in times of devaluations. What’s the call on that for Ireland over the last few years? Not that great, in fairness.
3. “With the pick-up in investment providing the strongest boost to growth in expansionary devaluations, structural reforms to remove bottlenecks and stimulate post-devaluation investment are important.” Investment? Why, sure we’d like to have some, but instead we are having continued boom in assets flipping by vultures and tax-shenanigans by MNCs paraded in our national accounts as ‘investment’. 
4. “A favorable external environment is important in supporting growth following devaluations.” Good news, everyone - we’ve found one (so far) thing that Ireland does enjoy, courtesy of our links to the U.S. economy and courtesy of us having a huge base of MNCs ‘exporting’ to the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. Never mind this is all about tax optimisation. Exports are booming. 
5. “The devaluation and supporting policies should be credible enough to stem market perceptions of any further devaluation or policy adjustments.” Why is it important to create strong market perception that further devaluations won’t take place? Because “…expectations of further devaluations or an increase in the sovereign risk premium would push domestic interest rates higher, imposing large costs in terms of investment, output contraction and financial instability.” Of course, we - as in Ireland - have zero control over both quantum of devaluation and its credibility, because devaluation is being driven by the ECB. But do note that, barring ‘sufficient’ devaluation, there will be costs in the form of higher cost of capital and government and real economic debt.It is worth noting that these costs will be spread not only onto Ireland, but across the entire euro area. Should we get ready for that eventuality? Or should we just continue to ignore the expected path of future interest rates, as we have been doing so far? 

I would ask your friendly GE16 candidates for their thoughts on the above… for the laughs…

26/12/15: Depositors Insurance or Depositors Rip-off?

What's wrong with this picture?

In simple terms, nothing. The Central Bank has embarked on building up reserves to fund any future pay-outs on deposits guarantee.

In real terms, a lot.

Central Bank deposits guarantee will be funded from bank levies. However, in current market environment of low competition between the banks in the Irish market, these payments will be passed onto depositors and customers. Hence, depositors and customers will be funding the insurance fund.

Which sounds just fine, except when one considers a pesky little problem: under the laws, and contrary to all the claims as per reforms of the EU banking systems, depositors remain treated pari passu (on equal footing) with bondholders (see note here on EU's problems with doing away with pari passu clause even in a very limited setting: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/11/271115-more-tiers-lower-risks-but.html). Now, let's consider the following case: bank A goes into liquidation. Depositors are paid 100 cents on the euro using the new scheme and bondholders are paid 100 cents on the euro using the old pari passu clause.

Consider two balancesheets: one for depositor holding EUR100 in a deposit account in an average Irish bank over 5 years, and one for the bondholder lending the same average bank EUR100 for 5 years.

Note: updated version

Yes, the numbers are approximate, but you get the point: under insurance scheme the Central Bank is embarking on, the depositor and the bondholder assume same risks (via pari passu clause), but:

• Depositor is liable for tax, fees and insurance contributions, whilst facing low interest rates on their deposits; while
• Bondholder is liable for none of the above costs, whilst collecting higher returns on their bonds.

So, same risk, different (vastly different) returns. Still think that insurance fund we are about to pay for a fair deal?..

3/12/15: Irish Services & Manufacturing PMIs: November 2015

Markit released Irish PMIs for November. Here are the highlights:

Services Sector PMI for Ireland stood at 63.6 in November - a significant uplift on October 60.1 reading and the highest reading since September 2006. 3mo average through August 2015 stands at 62.9 while 3mo average through November 2015 is at 62.0. Irish Services sector activity has now been running PMIs above 60.0 (signalling an exceptionally high levels of growth) every month since February 2014. Which, basically, makes these numbers either unbelievable or reflective of heavy biases toward MNCs-led activities in the survey. Not that Markit seems to be concerned and certainly not its paying partners in releasing the survey - Investec.

Manufacturing Sector PMI for Ireland moderated marginally to 53.3 in November from 53.6 in October, pushing 3 mo average through November to 53.6 which is somewhat lower than 55.0 recorded over 3 months through August 2015 and 56.2 3mo average through November 2014.

As the chart below shows, Services and Manufacturing PMIs have both continued to signal strong growth in the economy, albeit the trends in two series have now diverged, starting around February 2015 when Manufacturing PMI trend turned toward toward signalling shallower rates of growth, while Services PMI trend turned more volatile and onto a relatively moderate upward path.

26/11/15: Ireland on Inequality Heat Map

Much has been said about inequality in Ireland. On TV off TV and elsewhere. Much of it is, sadly put, locked out factoids.

You see, inequality is a tough thing to measure. So we have loads of various metrics to go by and none are ‘perfect’.

Here is a slightly more comprehensive view via @Jim_Edwards

What the above shows is that across comparable economies, Ireland is mid-range in terms of inequality. Right next to Canada and Austria - two societies that few would consider to be viciously unfair to their residents. Not that there is no room for improvement, mind.

That said, the chart does miss some relevant data for Ireland - the wealth distribution. Which we are, arguably, not a shining example of.

I am not going to repeat my arguments about the relationship between tax system and wealth inequality (you can read them here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/08/2182014-thomas-piketty-powerful.html), but it is worth noting that we rank well in terms of real wages growth and gender pay gap, as well as health status. We rank average in terms of all other metrics, save for involuntary part-time employment, which - by the way - is improving. I am not too keen on including arbitrary metric of ‘Digital Access’ in the scoring, however.

As an aside, the above table also fails to measure underemployment (you can read on this here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/11/241115-over-skilled-under-employed.html).

5/11/15: Euromoney on Irish Sovereign Risk Ratings

Euromoney Country Risk scores for Ireland have been improving significantly in recent months, while some ratings agencies' view of sovereign risks here remain lagging. Euromoney takes a look at the matter here: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3503504/Category/14091/ChannelPage/8959/Country-risk-Why-Moodys-is-wrong-on-Ireland.html?LS=Twitter

4/11/15: Irish Services & Manufacturing PMIs: October

Irish manufacturing and services PMIs have been released by Markit, covering October.

On Manufacturing PMI side, there has been some improvement in growth conditions in the manufacturing sector, with faster growth in new business, offset by softer production growth. IrishManufacturing PMI posted a reading of 53.6 in October, down marginally on 53.8 in September. Per Markit: “Business conditions have now strengthened in each of the past 29 months. The rate of expansion in manufacturing production continued to ease in October, the third successive month in which a slowdown has been recorded. The latest rise was the weakest since February 2014, but higher sales, in a number of cases from export markets, supported continued output growth.” In other words, MNCs activity is once again the suspect key driver for continued growth in the sector, not that Markit would say so outright.

On a 3mo average basis, 3mo average for the period through October stood at 56.1 - a hefty rise on the 3mo average through July 2015 that registered 53.7 and almost in line with 56.5 3mo average through October 2014. Over the last 6 months through October, the index average was down 1.5 points on the 6mo average through April 2015.

Meanwhile, on Services PMI side, October marked another month of rapid growth, although the rate of growth eased somewhat from dizzying highs of September. October Services PMI stood at a hefty 60.1, down on jaw-breaking 62.4 reading in September 2015. On a 3mo average basis, 3mo average through October 2015 was 62.7, up on 3mo average through July 2015 (61.5) and above the 3mo average through October 2014 (61.2).

Per Markit: “Although [October reading] signalled the weakest expansion in activity since February 2014, the rate of growth remained elevated as higher new business continued to lead to rising output.
Business sentiment remained strongly positive, with panellists predicting that new orders would continue to increase over the coming year, leading to further growth of activity. Improvements in wider economic conditions were also mentioned by those panellists forecasting higher output. That said, sentiment dipped to the weakest since August 2014. The rate of growth in new business eased further in October and was the weakest since March.”

As chart above shows, both services and manufacturing sectors continue to perform well ahead of historical comparatives, but on-trend in terms of growth balancing between two sectors. “Excess’ growth in Manufacturing, evident in October 2013 and 2014 data has eased, while accompanying moderation in growth in Services was somewhat weaker. Again, all indications are - exporting sectors are driving growth, dominated by MNCs, though domestic internal demand is also supporting expansion.

25/10/15: Grifols and the Ghosts of OECD

An interesting set of contrasts: one company, one move, two reports.

Last week, Irish and Spanish press reported on the Spanish Multinational pharma Grifols moving most of its operations from Spain to Ireland. Here are two examples of reports:
- One from Spain (http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2015/10/24/actualidad/1445711002_780890.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CM) focusing on tax optimisation reasons behind the Grifols' move; and
- One from Ireland (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/spanish-healthcare-firm-grifols-to-create-140-jobs-1.2401541) without a single mentioning of tax issues. You can also see this one from the Irish Examiner (http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/grifols-creates-140-jobs-in-dublin-360972.html) which also fails to mention tax issues.

Spanish report quotes Grifols CFO on the issue of tax optimisation. Irish reports say absolutely nada about the topic.

Spanish report references the statement that Grifols will channel all of its non-Spanish and non-US revenues via Ireland (a practice used for tax optimisation by many MNCs based here). But both Irish reports linked above fail to mention this quite material fact.

Remember OECD BEPS ‘reforms’? When someone doesn’t want to know the obvious, one doesn’t have to worry about the obvious…

18/10/15: Is Ireland a Euro Periphery Outlier? Some Historical Data

How unique is Ireland within the club of euro peripheral countries? Well, historically, rather unique. Alas, sometimes for the reasons not entirely in our favour.

The following are excerpts from the recent ECB paper titled “Fiscal policy adjustments in the
euro area stressed countries: new evidence from non-linear models with state-varying thresholds”.

Quote: “Fiscal policy authorities of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain are shown to have, on average, historically followed a "spend-and-tax" model of fiscal adjustment, where government spending is decided by the political process, and the burden of correcting fiscal disequilibria is entirely left to the tax instrument.”

Of course, ‘historically’ here means over the period 1960-2013 for all countries, with exception of Spain (1970-2013).

But before then, what were the pre-conditions (thresholds) for taking action? “During the 1960-2013 period for Greece, Ireland and Portugal and during the 1970-2013 period for Spain, we find that the threshold estimate for the budget deficit-to-GDP ratio, which led to different fiscal correction regimes, was on average 4.90% for Greece, 5.10% for Ireland, 3.22% for Portugal and 3.12% for Spain.”

In other words, Ireland had the greatest tolerance - over the entire period - for deficits, opting to wait until average deficit as % of GDP would hit above 5.1%, well above Greece (4.9%) and the rest of the peripheral states.

So now, let’s tackle the more recent period, from the start of the Euro: “When considering the period after 1999, this overall picture worsens for Greece and Portugal and improves for Ireland. Moreover, the results for Ireland and Spain are driven by the financial crisis period. In particular for Ireland, the decoupling dynamics of the government spending reflects the support to the financial sector. In fact, when considering the pre-crisis EMU period between 1999 and 2007, the threshold for fiscal adjustment in Ireland and Spain are estimated to be positive; namely, the regime change took place when the budget balance was in surplus. Conversely, the fiscal deficit-to-GDP thresholds estimated at 5.32% for Greece and 4.08% for Portugal remained rather high.”

The above basically boils down to the following: since 1999, growing economies of Ireland and Spain allowed two countries to substantially reverse pro-cyclicality of deficits and significantly reduce thresholds for budgetary actions. This did not happen in Greece and Portugal. While Ireland gets a pat on the back for pre 2007 period, it is hardly unique in this achievement.

But despite the gains of the 1999-2007, things did not change all that much within the structure of deficits and adjustments. So per ECB paper “Looking at the effects of the economic cycle, we find that fiscal deficit-to-GDP ratio was not reduced in Greece, Ireland and Portugal with the improvement in economic activity. Consequently, during the contractionary times, fiscal corrections became more costly, as tax adjustments became a priority in an attempt to restore fiscal discipline.”

In other words, we were not unique in the way we handled the underlying structure of public spending imbalances, despite having substantially reduced the fiscal action thresholds.

But may be during the peak of the crisis we widened up? Indeed, ECB offers some positive evidence in this direction, but it also argues that the same took place in Spain and Portugal. “The results also suggest that during a financial crisis the fiscal deficit-to-GDP threshold was relaxed in Ireland and Spain, while it was reduced in Portugal. By relaxing the fiscal deficit-to-GDP threshold (in an attempt to stave off deep recessionary pressures) Ireland and Spain relied on business cycle improvements to raise tax revenues. Given the tendency by Portuguese authorities to improve the fiscal imbalances during a financial crisis, these figures make sustainability concerns for Ireland, Portugal and Spain less of an issue compared to Greece, in an historical perspective.”

Which, once more, does not really identify Ireland as a ‘unique’ case amidst the imprudent (but learning) peripherals.

“The results …suggest that during a financial crisis the fiscal deficit-to-GDP threshold was relaxed from 5.10% to 6.99% in Ireland and from 3.12% to 4.00% in Spain, while it was reduced from 3.22% to 1.92% in Portugal.” In other words, Irish Government thresholds actually worsened in the financial crisis, albeit most of that worsening is attributable to the Government decision to rescue Irish banks.

Overall, as table below illustrates, Ireland has managed to perform best during 1999-2007 period in fiscal adjustment thresholds terms, while Spain was the overall best performer in 1999-2013 period and over the entire sample.

My handy addition to the chart are red boxes (highlighting worst performers) and green boxes (best performers) when it comes to budgetary adjustment thresholds.

This completes the arguments about Ireland’s alleged uniqueness as an outlier to the group of peripheral states: with exception of the period during which our property and financial sectors bubbles were inflating to unprecedented proportions, Ireland was pretty much a ‘normal’ peripheral state when it comes to fiscal management. Celtic Tiger et al…

So let's hope the latest Budget 2016 does not return us back to the historical record track...

7/10/15: IMF's Latest Fiscal Data and That "Iceland v Ireland" Question

You know, there’s always fun to be had with the IMF’s Fiscal Monitor updates. If only because they throw some light onto yet to be published WEO updates. But this time around, I was given a mission. Someone few weeks ago on twitter suggested that I should revisit some comparatives between Iceland and Ireland. And so here we are, fresh Fiscal Monitor at hand, let’s crunch the numbers.

Take General Government Overall Balance as % of GDP. In 2014, Ireland (best pupil in the Euro class) had a deficit of 4%. This year, IMF forecasts a deficit of 2% (significantly outperforming our Troika allowance). Which is great news. Iceland (the ‘bad pupil in class’ judging by its desire to burn bondholders in the past) had deficit of 0.2% of GDP in 2014 and is forecast to post a surplus of 1.3% in 2015. Add two numbers together and you get 2 years cumulative deficit of ca 6% for Ireland and cumulative surplus of ca 1.1% for Iceland. Iceland will be posting its first full budgetary surplus in  2015 according to the IMF latest figures, Ireland will get there in… well, not any time before 2021 as IMF projects our best performance to be 0% deficit in 2018-2020. Who’s that pupil at the back row?..

Now, take General Government Primary Balance (so stripping out the pesky payments of interest on debt). Ireland had a deficit of 0.6% of GDP in 2014, moving onto a forecast surplus of 0.8%. So net over two years, roughly 0.2% primary surplus. Take Iceland now: 2014  primary surplus of 3.5% and 2015 projected primary surplus of 4%. Net over two years, roughly 7.5% surplus. Which is, sort of, kind of 37.5 times better than Ireland?.. But wait, Iceland reached its first primary surplus in 2013. Ireland will reach its first primary surplus in 2015. Best, you know, in the class… may be not quite in the school, but…

Onto Cyclically-adjusted Balance (government balance accounting for business cycles). Ireland to start with again: -2.5% of potential GDP deficit in 2014 and -1.4% of potential GDP deficit in 2015. Not bad. Poor Iceland: cyclically adjusted deficit of 0.1% in 2014 and projected surplus of 1% in 2015. Cumulative two years for Ireland: deficit of ca 3.9% of GDP, for Iceland: surplus of 0.9% of potential GDP.

Soldier on. Next up, Cyclically-adjusted Primary Balance. Ireland: 0.9% surplus in 2014 and 1.3% surplus in 2015. Iceland: 3.8% surplus in 2014 with projected surplus of 4.1% in 2015. Two years cumulative: Ireland’s surplus of ca 2.2% of potential GDP, Iceland’s surplus of 7.9% of potential GDP.

Both countries took on hefty debt beating in the crisis. Back in 2006, Gross Government Debt in Ireland was 23.6% of GDP and in Iceland it was 29.3% of GDP. Iceland was underperforming Ireland. In 2014 gross government debt in Ireland was 107.6% of GDP and in Iceland it was 82.5% of GDP. In 2015, as IMF projects, the figures will be 75.3% of GDP for Iceland and 100.6% for Ireland. Oh dear… but perhaps things are going to catch up for us in the medium term future? Ok, IMF projects Gross Government Debt out to 2020. This is, of course, no guarantee, but the best we can go by. In that somewhat not too distant future, Iceland’s Gross Government Debt is projected to be around 54.9% of GDP. Ireland’s - at 82.9% of GDP. Here’s a bit of farce: at the peak of debt crisis for both Ireland and Iceland - in 2012, our debt to GDP ratio was 27.5 percentage points higher than that of Iceland. Per IMF projections out to 2020, the difference will be… 28 percentage points.

Of course, nowadays it is fashionable to remind ourselves that despite having lots of debts we have some assets (AIB shares and stuff). IMF partially accounts for these by estimating Net Government Debt. So let’s take a look at that metric. Per IMF data, peak of net debt levels in Iceland and Ireland took place around 2012 (for Iceland) and 2013 (for Ireland). Back then Icelandic Net Government Debt was 25 percentage points lower than our Net Government Debt. This year, IMF projects, it will be 31.6 percentage points lower (50.8% of GDP for Iceland and 82.4% of GDP for Ireland). But may be we are on track to watch up with Iceland by 2020? Not really, per IMF forecasts, our Net Government Debt will be 29.6 percentage points higher then than Icelandic Net Debt.

So I’ll sum up for you the IMF latest data in 2 charts. Self-explanatory. In both charts, positive values showing Iceland outperforming Ireland in fiscal metrics. Enjoy:

While Ireland did deliver impressive adjustments on fiscal side post-crisis peak, it is simply incorrect to identify our adjustments as being consistent with achieving performance better than that found in Iceland over the same period.

7/10/15: Irish economic Activity & PMIs: 3Q 2015

Irish quarterly PMIs for 3Q 2015 posted a marginal improvement in growth conditions compared to 2Q 2015, further strengthening on the already fast pace of economic activity expansion. This overall momentum was driven solely by gains in growth momentum in Services sectors.

Manufacturing PMI averaged 55.2 in 3Q 2015, down marginally on 55.8 in 2Q 2015 and marking the slowest pace of activity expansion since 1Q 2014. 3Q marks second consecutive growth of weakening PMIs. Still, current running rate signals strong growth in the sector.

Services PMI posted a reading of 62.8 in 3Q 2015, up on already high reading of 61.8 in 2Q 2015. This is the highest reading since 2Q 2006 and marks second consecutive quarter of increases in the index. Overall activity signal from the 3Q PMI averages is for an outright boom in the sector.

Construction PMIs (with data only for July-August) fell in 3Q 2015 to 59.1 from 2Q 2015 reading of 62.1. Nonetheless, growth, as singled by PMI, remained robust in 3Q 2015.

Overall, PMIs continue to signal robust rates of economic activity growth in the Irish economy over the course of 3Q 2015. 

Usual caveats, however, apply to interpreting the links between PMIs and actual production and value added in the sectors. Historically Irish Manufacturing and Services PMIs exhibit statistically insignificant correlation with real activity in both sectors, as well as GDP and GNP growth. At the very best, Services PMI data is capable of explaining at most around 11 percent of total variation in GDP, while at the worst, Manufacturing PMI explains at most 5.6 percent of total variation in GNP.

19/9/15: IBM's Global Location Trends Report

Recently released "Global Location Trends: 2015 Annual Report" by IBM should be a pleasant read for Irish policymakers. The report "outlines the latest trends in corporate location selection — where companies are locating and expanding their businesses and creating jobs around the world."

And Ireland features positively and prominently, albeit with a caveat (below).

Take, for example, jobs creation by FDI-backed firms: per report, "Ireland and Singapore remain the strongest per-capita performers among the more mature (and, therefore, higher-cost) economies"

Notice that Ireland's rank has slipped slightly in 2014 compared to 2013.

Another category where we perform really strongly is average job value:

Per report: "For the fourth year in a row, Ireland is the top ranking country in the world on this measure. It continues to attract investment projects in industries characterized by high knowledge intensity and economic value added, such as life sciences and information and communication technology (ICT). The global top 10 ranking consists primarily of mature economies with a mix of investments similar to Ireland’s".

These are pretty impressive numbers, except for one major caveat: none of the report data was adjusted for corporate inversions. So when a U.S. company moves offshore to, say, Ireland (as many did and continue to do), via a tax-optimising inversion, the results appear to be an addition to Ireland's stock of FDI and Ireland's jobs creation, whilst in reality, both are superficial at best, and beggar-thy-neighbour at worst.

Perhaps surprisingly, despite being the main focal point of FDI inflows in the Republic, Dublin did not fare too well in the urban rankings, coming in at joint 12th position in 2014 ranking, down 5 places from the 7th rank in 2013.

Overall, the positive tone of the report is more than warranted in Ireland's case.

Nonetheless, the problem of aggressive tax optimisation and sharp practices by a number of MNCs invested in Ireland should be reflected and discussed in the global rankings.

This is especially important, given the report claims to reflect quality of FDI and jobs created. Ireland attracts massive inflows of tax optimising FDI in the areas of ICT services, pharma, biotech and medical devices, with aggressive on-shoring of Intellectual Property, and dire lack of actual research jobs being created. Instead of actual research, jobs in sales and back office activities, as well as residual (lower value) research are being registered as being registered as 'Professional' or 'Scientific' and the value added by these jobs creation is often, de facto, fully reflective of tax optimisation schemes.

The report authors might want to consult some facts listed here.

6/8/15: Irish Services PMI: July Mirage of Growth

Today, Markit released Services PMI for Ireland. Note: I have covered details of the Manufacturing PMI release link here.

On Services side, headline index reading in July was 63.4, which is marginally ahead of 63.3 registered in June. July reading was the highest in 109 months, after June posting the highest reading in 108 months.

Per Markit, "Panellists mainly linked the latest increase in activity to improving economic conditions." As I have shown in the past, the index is only now starting to re-couple with actual services activity indicators, suggesting that much of the PMI reading is biased by the specific, concentrated MNCs-led activity. Still, the PMI has now reached dizzying heights.

On another positive side, Services PMI boom is coinciding with Manufacturing PMI boom (also most likely driven by MNCs tax optimisation strategies):

But, as the next post details, real actual, CSO-measured activity in the Services sector was nowhere near all-time highs in growth in 1H 2015. In simple terms, PMI is telling us porkies, or PMI survey participants are telling Markit porkies, or both...

What is even more disturbing is that Manufacturing PMI figures are also in the territory of imagineering, where fair princesses and unicorns run through the fields of golden pansies with butterflies at their... ah, whatever... just take a look at the above chart and read this: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.it/2015/08/5815-irish-industrial-production-up.html.

15/7/15: Is it Trust or Fiscal Performance? Greece v Excessive Deficit Procedures

As noted in the previous post, that Trustless Greece apparently is a better example of European policies of internal devaluation at work than the best-in-class Ireland. At least by metric of competitiveness.

But what about Fiscal Trust? After all, there is a unifying metric for that one - the European Commission own Excessive Deficit Procedure. And here is a handy table from EU Commission own presentation on the topic:

Yes, yes... a little help. Since 1997 (that is across the Celtic Tiger era boom too), Ireland was on the penalty bench with EU in relation to breaking fiscal rules for 11 years. Greece - also 11 years. One has zero Trust in its EU account. The other has Fort Knox worth of that 'hard' EU currency...

Either the Rule is dodgy or something's fishy in the arithmetic...

15/7/15: Is it Trust or Competitiveness? Greece v Unit Labour Costs

Remember hard currency of Europe - no not the euro - Trust? And remember how Greeks lack that currency because of failed reforms and incomplete adjustments?

Here's a nice chart from the EU Commission itself showing changes in economic competitiveness (the EU fetishised) metric of Unit Labour Costs.

In this, untrustworthy Greece is more competitive in 2013-2015 than the best-in-class Ireland. 

So if the internal devaluations work their magic, as the EU seems to believe, then by this metric, Greece should have been a roaring success story... with a surplus of Trust to spare some for Ireland.

Then, again, the EU won't notice other factors at play in determining GDP growth. The idiosyncratic ones, like, say, corporate tax inversions and 'knowledge development boxes' or (whispering) taxation double-sandwiches for lunch... Because everything is about Trust in Europe...

25/6/15: Tipping my hat to Karl Whelan on Official Ireland's Moralising...

UCD Professor Karl Whelan just finished a concise and thorough demolition job on the Irish Government's moralistic and uncouth bragging about the 'successful adjustments' that, in their view, stand as a contrast to the Greek case. Here's his twitter line:

Nothing to add.

See Karl's timeline here: https://twitter.com/WhelanKarl

22/6/15: IMF Review of Ireland: Part 1: Growth & Fiscal Space

IMF published conclusions of its Third Post-Program Monitoring Discussions with Ireland.

The report starts with strong positives:

"Ireland’s strong economic recovery is continuing in 2015, following robust growth of 4.8 percent in 2014. A range of high frequency indicators point to an extension of the solid recovery momentum into 2015, with growth increasingly driven by domestic demand as well as exports. Job creation continued with employment growth of 2.2 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2015, bringing the unemployment rate down to 9.8 percent in May."

Actually, based on EH data from CSO, employment growth was even stronger: 2.67% y/y in 1Q 2015 (see here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/06/20615-irish-employment-by-sector-latest.html). The survey data is slightly different from the QNHS data.

"Tax revenues rose 11 percent year-on-year during the first five months of 2015, while spending remained within budget profiles, so the fiscal deficit for 2015 is expected to be 2.3 percent of GDP, outperforming the budget targets."

"Banks’ health has improved, but operating profitability remains weak and, despite the recent progress in the resolution of mortgages in arrears, 17.1 percent of mortgages have been in arrears for over 90 days, and of these, almost 60 percent have been in arrears for over 2 years."

All so far known, all so far predictable.

Here is what IMF thinks in terms of forward outlook.

On Fiscal side: "The deficit is likely to come in well below budget again in 2015. This welcome progress should be locked by avoiding any repeat of past spending overruns. The deficit reduction projected for 2016 is too modest considering Ireland’s high public debt and strong growth, making it critical that revenue outperformance— which appears likely— be saved as the authorities intend."

Wait, Spring Statement by the Government clearly does not suggest 'saving' of revenue outperformance as intended policy objective. If anything, spending these 'savings' is on the cards. So a bit more from the IMF:

"Medium-term spending pressures related to demographics and public investment indicate a need to build revenues and it is critical that any unwinding of savings in public sector wages be gradual. Tax reforms should be focused on areas most supportive of job creation and productivity while protecting progress achieved in base broadening."

Again, this does not bode well with the Spring Statement intentions to unwind, over two years, reductions in public sector earnings costs, and reducing tax burden at the lower end of the tax base. Whether these measures are right or wrong, IMF seems to ignore them in their analysis, as if they are not being planned.

And slightly adding depth: "Staff estimates that improvement in the primary balance in structural terms is modest in 2016, at about ¼ percent of GDP, as the reduction in the overall deficit partly reflects an expected decline in the interest bill and a narrowing of the output gap." In other words, efforts / pain are over. We are cruising into improved performance on inertia. IMF does not exactly like that: "A stronger adjustment, of at least a ½ percent of GDP, would also be appropriate in 2016 in view of Ireland’s high public debt and strong growth, implying an overall deficit target of about 1.5 percent of GDP. However, it appears most likely that revenues will exceed official projections, which are for tax revenue growth before measures that is significantly below nominal GDP growth, and also given that revenue outperformance has underpinned Ireland’s track record of over delivering on fiscal targets for a number of years." Wait, what? Not spending cuts drove Irish effort? Revenue outperformance? Aka - taxes and indirect taxes and hidden charges.

So the good boy in the back of the classroom needs to get slightly better: "The commitment of the Irish authorities to comply with their obligations under the Stability and Growth Pact, including the Expenditure Benchmark, means that revenue outperformance in 2016 and later years will not be used to fund additional expenditure; the need for a change from the past procyclical pattern of spending the revenues available was a key lesson drawn from the crisis that is firmly embedded in their new fiscal policy framework."

Yeah, that in the year pre-election? Are they mad, or something?

Just in case anyone has any illusions on what the Fund thinks about the forthcoming injections of pain relief planned by the Government, here it is, slightly hidden in the lengthy discourse about longer-term risks. "Looking to the medium term, sizable adjustment challenges indicate a need to build revenues while the limited fiscal space should be used to support durable growth. The authorities’ expenditure projections account for demographic pressures as growing cohorts of both young and old increase demands for education and health services. …Staff recommended that the authorities consider steps to raise revenues to help address these pressures…"

More revenue to be raised. And yet the Government aims to cut taxes. Oh dear...


Back to the positives: IMF upgraded its growth projections for short-term forecasts:

"Compared with the 2015 Article IV consultation concluded in late March, growth projected for 2015 is revised up to almost 4 percent from 3½ percent, with a more modest increase in 2016." 2016 growth is now projected to be at 3.3% from 3.0% projected at the end of March 2015. 2017 growth forecast was lifted from 2.7% in March to 2.8% now. However, 2018 forest was balanced down to 2.5% now from 2.6% in March report.

Back in March, private consumption was expected to grow 1.5% in 2015, 1.6% in 2016, 2.0% in 2017. This is now revised up to 1.6% in 2015, 1.9% in 2016, with 2017 remaining at 2.0%.

However, IMF revised down its projections for gross fixed investment growth. In March report, the Fund forecast investment to grow 9.5% in 2015, 7.5% in 2016 and 6.0% in 2017. This time around, IMF expects investment growth of 9.2% in 2015, 7.3% in 2016 and 5.5% in 2017.

Interestingly, IMF also introduced some modest upgrades to Irish net exports, though it noted that given exceptionally high rates of growth in goods exports in recent months, even the upgraded forecast might be too pessimistic.

However, with all said and done, the IMF still produces a slightly cautious medium-term outlook: "Staff’s medium-term outlook is little changed from that in the 2015 Article IV consultation, with medium-term growth on the order of 2½ percent being similar to the 3 percent projected by the Irish authorities in their recent Stability Programme Update (SPU)." Which means that, in basic terms, Irish official forecasts are probably within error margin of the IMF forecasts, but are a bit more optimistic, nonetheless.

Quite interestingly, IMF finds no substantive risks to the downside for Ireland, going effectively through motions referencing Greece and domestic debt overhang. Even interest rates sensitivity of the massive debt pile we carry deserves not to be cited as a major concern.

16/615: Expresso on Ireland's Repayment of IMF Loans

My comment on Ireland's early repayment of IMF loans for Portugal's Expresso, 13/06/2015 ECONOMIA page 11

7/6/15: Greece: How Much Pain Compared to Ireland & Italy

Today, I took part in a panel discussion about Greek situation on NewstalkFM radio (here is the podcast link http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Talking_Point_with_Sarah_Carey/Talking_Point_Panel_Discussion/92249/Greece.#.VXPx-AJaDJQ.twitter) during which I mentioned that Greece has taken unique amount of pain in the euro area in terms of economic costs of the crisis, but also fiscal adjustments undertaken. I also suggested that we, in Ireland, should be a little more humble as to citing our achievements in terms of our own adjustment to the crisis. This, of course, would simply be a matter of good tone. But it is also a matter of some hard numbers.

Here are the details of comparatives between Ireland, Italy and Greece in macroeconomic and fiscal performance over the course of the crises.

Macroeconomic performance:

Fiscal performance:

All data above is based on IMF WEO database parameters and forecasts from April 2015 update.

The above is not to play down our own performance, but to highlight a simple fact that to accuse Greece of not doing the hard lifting on the crisis response is simply false. You can make an argument that the above adjustments are not enough. But you cannot make an argument that the Greeks did not take immense amounts of pain.

Here are the comparatives in various GDP metrics terms:

5/6/15: Right? Wrong? Green? Blue?..

With Greek chaos apparently presenting some analysts with a chance at comparative between Greece (belligerence) and Ireland (compliance) paths to 'salvation' in this crisis, one can point to two key observations these comparatives commonly miss:

1. Ireland's case was different from the Greek case: we complied with the EU/ECB dictate concerning private debts of a failed bank to private lenders. Not sovereign debts of the state to official lenders. To refresh some memories, Greece did default on (restructure) its sovereign debts to private lenders as a part of PSI. It is now on the verge of defaulting on sovereign debt to state/official lenders. 
2. Ireland's case for pushing harder for resolution of debt overhang does not involving a direct sovereign default (a unilateral refusal to pay on state liabilities), but rather a case for orderly cooperative writedown of the legacy bonds created by restructuring (at the time - unilateral - may I remind the readers) of promissory notes. This is crucially different from the Greek case which implies default on general government bonds across the entire swath of these obligations, not a well-defined targeted sub-set. Furthermore, Irish liabilities at play are held within Irish institution (the Central Bank), while Greek liabilities at play are held outside Greek institutions (the ECB, ESM and IMF). Finally, there was no question raised in the case of Ireland defaulting on IMF debt. In Greece, that portion of debt is now at play via the Greek Government proposal for debt restructuring published earlier this week.

Last, but not least: if anyone think it is 'crazy' or 'dangerous' to talk about the potential 'hard-ball' tactics or 'pressure' negotiations, here is a refresher from that tool of the markets: the WallStreet Journal that outlines for Ireland the case that Irish Government has failed to outline: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324590904578289921520466036. 

17/5/2015: BlackRock Institute Survey: N. America & W. Europe, April

BlackRock Investment Institute released the latest Economic Cycle Survey results for North America and Western Europe:

"This month’s North America and Western Europe Economic Cycle Survey presented a positive outlook on global growth, with a net of 48% of 56 economists expecting the world economy will get stronger over the next year, compared to 52% from previous report. The consensus of economists project mid-cycle expansion over the next 6 months for the global economy. At the 12 month horizon, the positive theme continued with the consensus expecting all economies spanned by the survey to strengthen or stay the same except Canada and Denmark."

Country results 6 months forward compared to current conditions assessment:

Note: (0,0) Corner point denotes Austria, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands

Country results 12 months forward:

"Eurozone is described to be in an expansionary phase of the cycle and expected to remain so over the next 2 quarters. Within the bloc, most respondents described Finland, Greece and Italy to be in a recessionary state, with the even split between contraction or recession for Portugal. Over the next 6 months, the consensus shifts toward expansion for Italy. Over the Atlantic, the consensus view is firmly that North America as a whole is in mid-cycle expansion and is to remain so over the next 6 months except Canada where the consensus is split between mid-cycle or late-cycle states."

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.