15/10/15: Budget 2016: Tech & Entrepreneurship Perspective

My take on the Budget 2016 from the perspective of tech sector: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/video/dr-constantin-gurdgiev-on-budget-2016-stimulating-consumption-by-taking-credit-card-on-future

And more of the discussion of the Budget from technology sector and entrepreneurship perspective here: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/video/dr-constantin-gurdgiev-on-budget-2016-stimulating-consumption-by-taking-credit-card-on-future

Thanks to @iia for hosting the event and to the Silicon Republic for putting the discussions into broader public domain.

I covered the Budget in broader setting of economy-wide entrepreneurship and start ups formation here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/10/141015-there-isnt-ireland-without-mnc.html.

14/10/15: There isn't Ireland without MNC Inc.: Budget 2016

Budget 2016 went in like a circus convoy entering a sleepy town: all pomp and all the excitement with little substance of change in tow.

Budget 2016 is a political budget and not an economic one. The point of all the smaller taxation measures in it, relating to people working for living, is simple: get those voters, vulnerable to swing Left to stay Centre. Sinn Fein got punched, few independents too; Labor got cookies to hand out. But even on this count, Budget 2016 was a fizzle of a firecracker with mostly smoke to show in the end:

1. Much lauded idea of exempting from USC all earners
2. Virtually all net gains for low income earners from this Budget do not accrue from Michael Noonan spending tax revenue or Government cash, but from minimum wage increase. Just how exactly does minimum wage hike (a mandated cost imposed onto employers - rightly or wrongly is not the point here) qualify as a fiscal policy measure (aka, Government fiscal management of the economy) beats me. Proper economics have no room on fiscal policy side for the scenarios where Government spends not its own money on stimulating its own votes. Note: Employer PRSI change is virtually immaterial, costed by the Department of Finance at only EUR7 million over full year. Where this might help somewhat is in alleviating pressure on employers to cut working hours.

Besides the above aberrations, the Budget was a net positive for current consumption spending, and was a net zilch for investment. Now, here the Government logic is completely off the charts. We are borrowing money to fund the Budget 2016 measures. And we are channeling this borrowed cash into activities that are not expected to generate a return, since these are non-investment activities. Multipliers for current consumption are miserable - most of the stuff we will be buying with the few quid we got in Budget 2016 is stuff made elsewhere and all we can collect in this economy from it is a small gross payout on labour in the retail and logistics sector. Whatever the social imperatives can be for such a 'stimulus' (and they are quite sound in some cases), it is poor economics and poor strategy.

When it comes to economics: Budget 2016 continues with a well-established theme of doing everything possible to demolish productive entrepreneurship spirit in the country. This time around, it is doing it with a flavour of simultaneously pretending that we are pro-entrepreneurs. 

Take the following post-Budget 2016 numbers:

1. Income tax: What maters here from entrepreneurship and modern economy activity is the upper marginal tax rate, not the base rate. Why? Because people do not choose to become entrepreneurs to earn EUR34,000 a year. It is that, brutally, simple. So in Ireland post-Budget 2016 we have a 40% upper rate kicking in at EUR33,800. Across the pond, in the UK, this happens at EUR59,900. Get it? Forget entrepreneurs, we are talking about school teachers being high earners according to our tax codes.
2. Dividends taxation: You get dividends on your investments (rare, but happens in normal economies). Your upper tax on these is 55% here in Ireland, whilst in the UK it is 38%. Darn, those rich retail investors who carefully select better quality long-term non-speculative shares (majority of which pay dividends). Whack them hard, shall we?
3. Capital gains Tax: We are a basket case. We have general rate of CGT of 33% which is higher than UK's 28%. We have now a new measure that allows for some reduced CGT on the first EUR1 million at 20%. Minister Noonan thinks that is a great way to reward successful entrepreneurs. In the UK, they think a reward should involve 10% CGT for such investors. For investment returns of up to EUR13 million 'entrepreneurship Island' reserves an effective (reduced by Budget 2016) rate of 32%. In the UK it is 10%. There is no CGT exemptions for qualifying investors and no CGT rollover for reinvestment in Ireland, whilst both measures are available in the UK. Case closed.
4. Capital gains structural incentives: For years Irish policymakers and Enterprise Ireland have been struggling with the fact that majority of Irish entrepreneurs opt for early exits from companies - in other words, instead of building large Multinational Enterprises, our entrepreneurs too often opt for a sale of company early on. It has been an explicit objective for Irish development agencies to stimulate growth of companies beyond certain thresholds in size in the past. And Budget 2016 just created an added (albeit small) incentive to exit earlier, rather than later (the cap on preferential rate being set at EUR1 million). Classic example of incentives contradicting objectives.
5. VAT: in Ireland, post-Budget 2016, this stays 23% and the crazy situation of charging VAT on services provided to non-VATable entities remains in place. In the UK, VAT is 20%. Thresholds: in Ireland VAT accrues for traders with revenue of >EUR37,500, but in the UK the threshold is Stg82,000. Get that, all of you self-employed and sole traders.

Of course, there is one, just one, area where Irish Government continues to impress the world: Multinationals-linked Tax Optimisation schemes. Ireland now has a Knowledge Development Box bestowing 6.25% corporate tax rate on... err... we don't quite know what. Promise is - it will apply to 'certain' patents and software copyrights. Which is just a tiny sub-set of actual business innovation and knowledge acquisition. And it is the subset that MNCs dominate. The Department of Finance estimate this measure to cost the Exchequer EUR50 million. Which really tells you just how much real activity this Knowledge Development Box is going to generate (answer is: very little) as opposed to how much of the old tax optimisation loopholes it is expected to absorb (answer is: plenty).

NY Times headline from yesterday says it all, really:

Our Knowledge Development Box is 'boxier' than that of the UK - our 6.25% tax beats their's 10% one. Case closed: MNCs win, and there is no economy beyond that which matters.

Anyone noticing that the world around us and the world inside Ireland is shifting toward supporting human capital-centric growth (yes, not labour or PAYE or specific sector, but Human Capital-centric)? Well, over 40 submissions from various bodies and individual analysts to Budget 2016 did. They also spelled out that this shift entails two key things:

• The need to recognise the risks assumed by workers and entrepreneurs working in this New Economy; and
• The need to recognise the fact that human capital-endowed workers are higher earners (not the rich, but well above the average).

People like myself have been drumming this beat for ages now. Still, Budget 2016 does nothing to resolve discriminatory taxation of human capital under the USC system, discriminatory taxation of human capital in self-employment under the USC system and broader income tax system, and it has done nothing in terms of even considering asymmetric risk loadings that entrepreneurs and self-employed carry compared to PAYEs. The Budget does help by introducing Earned Income Tax Credit to offset, partially (by 1/3rd) the glaring discrimination against self-employed inherent in the PAYE tex credit system. But this is hardly a measure to fully address the problem of the taxation system vastly out of tune with realities of modern economy.

Time to ask that pesky question, thus: Does this Government understand modern economy or do we still have leadership that thinks in terms of early 20th century proletarian world?

The sop of the 'entrepreneurship' measures unveiled in Budget 2016 is illustrative to the above question:

• Corporation tax exemption for start ups for the period of 3 years has been extended. The measure 'costs' the Exchequer EUR2 million per annum (per Budget 2016 estimates) same as the estimate for the measure in Budget 2015. Apparently, even by Department own figures, there is zero growth in uptake of this measure year on year. 
• The Knowledge Development Box - which is for all intents and purposes is about useful for entrepreneurs and start ups as the Beats by Dre headphones are to the donkey.
• The EIIS scheme to incentivise investment into start ups has been 'fixed' (by increasing company limit from EUR5 million to EUR15 million). Except, the fix addresses non-existent problem and the real problems remain not tackled. You see, you gotta be a fabled unicorn (in Irish market terms) to raise EUR15 million as a start up. Majority of entrepreneurs need far less capital than EUR5 million. So the old ceiling was not a barrier in EIIS scheme. However, EIIS is excruciatingly  bureaucratic and difficult to navigate, which it remains such after Budget 2016. And EIIS is not suitable for raising small funding that majority of start ups really need up front - EUR100,000-200,000. Which, once again, Budget 2016 left unaddressed.

And that's it. Entrepreneurs and the self-employed, high Human Capital-endowed workers, start ups, their directors and advisers, as well as their key employees - all can now send their 'Thank You' cards to the Minister for all the love and support extended to them yesterday. Or they can continue to send their business to the UK and Northern Ireland, where quietly, without labelling themselves to be the 'Best ... Country to Do Business In' the fiscal powers are trying to run a more benign environment for investors, entrepreneurs and start ups.

4/6/15: Irish Fiscal Spring: Village, April-May

My recent article for the Village Magazine [April-May edition] on Irish economy is now available on-line: http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2015/05/spring-unsprung/ 

14/10/2014: Expect the Expected: pre-Budget 2015

Pre-Budget Budget... what to expect based on leaks so far:

Big Items:

1) Corporate Tax Regime changes: we can expect some phasing out to be announced for the notorious Double-Irish Tax Scheme.

This is one of the most criticized parts of the Irish tax code. Double Irish a complex corporate structure whereby a multinational can channel revenues to an Irish subsidiary, which then pays royalties on Intellectual Property to another company resident in Ireland, but tax resident in a tax haven, e.g. Bermuda.

To close the loophole, we can expect the Government will announce that all companies registered in Ireland will be automatically deemed tax resident in Ireland. Such a change will make Irish tax law fully aligned with the US and UK systems.

Since MNCs employ around 160,000 in this country, or roughly 8.6 percent of our workforce, the impact can potentially be significant. Which means Minister Noonan will have to be careful in closing the loophole. It is expected he will off-set the impact by expanding the R&D and Intellectual Property taxation benefits.

It is worth remembering that in October 2012, Michael Noonan solemnly declared that changing the Double Irish 'situation' was not within his remit. Direct quote: "Mu understanding of the "double Irish" is that while it exists, it cannot be remediated by changes in Irish tax law".

2) Households: Budgets 2009-2014 have lifted tax (direct and indirect) take by EUR11.7 billion. Meanwhile, on spending side, all years of austerity have basically meant that our Government spending (excluding banks measures) stayed relatively flat on pre-crisis levels.

There has been re-allocation of some spending from services to paying interest on our massive debt, which or course means there were cuts to some specific services. But we had no significant improvements in public sector efficiencies and we had no significant changes in how the State does business:

• Semi-state companies continue to inflate their books by charging higher and higher prices, blessed by captive regulators;
• State employment, pay and promotion policies remain detached from productivity;
• State pensions remain unfunded, private pensions becoming de-funded;
• State health system continues to crumble, while private subsidy to this system is being eroded;
• Management in public services remains excessively bloated and inefficient, compared to front-office staff which is getting worked harder.

All of which means that 'austerity' years have shifted the burden of state even more directly onto ordinary income earners.

Now, with the economy expected to grow by 4.7 percent in 2014 and deficit expected to fall thanks to the national accounts reclassifications and booming MNCs tax arbitrage, Minister Noonan has some room for minor giveaways.

We can expect that he will cut income tax burden, possibly by lowering the top 52 percent tax rate or raising the income threshold for that rate. Another possible target is much despised USC which currently hits workers on earnings from €10,036.

Keep in mind, whilst the Government will claim credit for any tax reductions and austerity easing, these were made possible, primarily, by the EU-mandated changes in our National Accounts. On the other hand, keep also in mind that the Troika-demanded water charging is introduced as double-taxation measure on foot of Government-own design.

To appease trade unions and other 'Social Partners' pivotal to the Labor Party electoral base, he could also announce the hiring of more teachers and increase some benefits. One point he will probably address is the kick backs to taxpayers and vocal interest groups in terms of reduced cost of water provision. Rumour has it, he will:

• Create additional EUR100 credit for the elderly for water services; and
• Announce tax relief on water charges.

Net outcomes: We are some 18 months away from elections and the Government desperately needs to test waters to see what response from electorate they can get if they start 'McCreeviasing' their Budgets. Over months to come, the Government will be closely watching changes in opinion polls as a function of Budget 2015 'easing' of the austerity. Which is all about one thing: instead of 'stimulating the economy', the Government is attempting to gauge the extent of the Budget easing stimulus on electorate.

Still, keep in mind: Budget 2015 is likely to cut spending and raise revenues by some EUR800-900 million. So small giveaways will mask still substantial austerity. Which means that Budget 2015 is going to be about reallocating once again the burden on budgetary adjustments. Pensioners (already massive winners during deflationary period in the economy and low on debt burden courtesy of the previous property boom) are going to gain. Special interest groups are going to gain. General economy, ordinary working households are going to lose.

'McCreevization' by one half, then...

Little pesky details: Budget 2015 is, in part, going to be based on some non-trivial economic assumptions. In best practice terms, these should be conservative, rather than optimistic. But in Irish reality, the champagne of big 7.7% headline GDP print in Q2 2014 is starting to hit some heads in the Department of Finance. Government's forecast for 2015 Budget is for 3.6% GDP and 3.3% GNP growth. Seems conservative compared to H1 2014 figures, but is it conservative enough? Underlying these, there is a forecast for exports growth of 5% y/y in 2015. Again, might be a tad optimistic. And we also have forecast for accelerated jobs creation over 2015 +2.2% growth) compared to 2014 (+1.8% growth), despite the fact that the Government is forecasting slower economic growth in 2015 (3.6% GDP and 3.3% GNP) than in 2014 (4.7% GDP and 3.1% GNP).  Interestingly, in SPU 2014 (April 2014), the Government estimated employment growth to be 2.2% in 2014 and 2.0% in 2015. This is now revised down to 1.8% for 2014 and up to 2.2% in 2015. Labour force growth was penciled in at 0.5% in 2014 and 0.8% in 2015, but by Budget 2015 it was revised down to -0.1% in 2014 and up to 0.9% for 2015.

Past optimism is being reloaded forward? Or did someone miss their cup of milk before going to bed?

29/02/2012: New Old Mini Budget?

Having predicted in my comments on Budget 2012 that we are likely to see an Emergency Budget 2012 closer to half-year results, I thought I was making just a risk assessment, backed by the confusion prompted by the DofF release of two rather significantly distinct forecasts for growth between two days of the Budget 2012 announcement. And now this.

Of course, the development of Budget 2012 took place under the assumed growth rate x2 of what is now being forecast by the IMF, the OECD & the EU Comm and roughly x3 times what is being predicted by other markets participants. My own forecast range is for -0.2 to 0.5 percent growth which at the upper range puts it at roughly 1/3 of the Budget assumptions. These developments since Budget 2012 release bound to rationally drive the Troika to push for revaluation, but one must wonder why on Earth would these not be made public to the people of Ireland? Why do we have to learn this from a leaked document from Germany?

13/12/2011: Sunday Times 11/12/2011

The unedited version of my Sunday Times article from December 11, 2011.

Billed as the Budget that will fundamentally change our fiscal policy over the long-term, the documents released this week have managed to make history. Indeed, Budget 2012 was a record-breaking one in three ways.

Firstly, Government’s retreat over the issue of disability payment cuts for the younger beneficiaries has to mark the fastest policy reversal ever achieved by the State. Secondly, by labelling new revenue measures in health services as expenditure cuts, Minister Howlin has managed to perform a minor miracle of transfiguration – transforming sweat and labours of ordinary insurance card holders who will now pay higher services charges into a Public Sector reform.

Thirdly, the Government set another speed record that will be hard to match. Within just 9 months after coming to power, the Coalition has magically morphed into a Fiana Failesque clone, replete with Bertie-style creative thinking which equates economic growth with property incentives.

The 2012-2015 profiling of spending and tax measures, released by the Department of Finance clearly shows that this Government has adopted Brian Cowen’s approach to crisis management. Tax measures are frontloaded into 2012 and 2013 at €2.85 billion out of the total €4.65 billion. The bulk, or €5.55 billion, of the spending cuts out of the total of €7.75 billion were delayed until 2013-2015. Within spending reductions planned, capital cuts are frontloaded into 2012-2013, while current spending reductions are pushed back. In other words, the Government is delaying the painful reforms in a hope that something turns up to rescue the Exchequer revenues.

This much is clearly reflected in the Department of Finance’s overly optimistic outlook for growth. The Budget estimates appear to reflect the Department November 2011 forecast for 1.6% 2012 growth in GDP. Subsequent revision downward to 1.3% projected GDP growth in 2012, revealed on Tuesday, seems to be a window dressing to suggest caution as they clearly were introduced sometime around December 5th and 6th – with no time alter core budgetary estimates. Afterall, the Department Monthly Economic Bulletin, released this Monday continues to project 2012 growth at 1.6%. Even at that, the Department projections exceed most recent forecasts by the ESRI (0.9% GDP growth) and OECD (1.0% growth).

Past 2012, medium-term projections envision 2014-2015 growth coming in at a lively 3.0% per annum, boosted by booming exports and investment assumptions. Balance of payments, the metric that reflects economy’s overall ability to generate external growth, will skyrocket more than seven-fold from 0.5% this year, to 3.7% in 2015.

The country drowning in the sea of middle class debt, collapsed domestic investment, crashed consumption, rampant emigration, skills drain due to excessive taxation and exploding growth in the black markets, in the view of the Department of Finance economics experts will shrug off the depression and get back to the business of filling Government’s coffers with cash.

Incoherent numbers set the stage for incoherent policies.

The Government that is concerned with deposits stability in the Irish banking sector and talks about the need for investment is frontloading capital cuts and has introduced three measures on DIRT, CGT and CAT that will do exactly the opposite of what it tries to achieve. The Government that incessantly drones about jobs creation has managed to publish a budget that will further depress investment, reduce disposable incomes and increase costs of doing business in this country. To make things worse, the Budget also made hiring workers more risky by increasing the future cost of redundancies. With measures like these, the only jobs creation that will be taking place in Ireland for the foreseeable future is going to be taking place in the Fas-run schemes.

The Government that talks about exports-led recovery has managed to introduce not a single measure to help exporters. An exports credit guarantee scheme and ringfencing of new tax incentives for marketing Irish goods and services abroad would have helped. As would a scheme to encourage technical skills importation in the sectors where such skills cannot be found locally. None came.

Plagued by declining tax revenues the Budget unveiled three measures – VAT, fuel and tobacco taxes increases – that will see Black Market economy booming once again at the expense of legitimate businesses.

On the expenditure side, the very same Government promising deep reforms loaded the Budget with small-scale measures that neither address the issues relating to the value-for-money in public services delivery, nor achieve substantive real savings, nor improve productivity in the sector.

Take one of the largest ‘reforms’ – the reduction in the numbers employed in the public sector. At 6,000 planned reductions in 2012, the target is un-ambitious. More importantly, it marks the very same ‘extend-and-pretend’ approach to change that is traceable across the entire Budget. Instead of taking the medicine upfront and setting a target at 12,000-15,000 reductions, the Government opted to increase uncertainty about future positions and promotions for those who stay in their jobs. The fact that even the shallow target is to be achieved solely through early retirement adds insult to the injury. Early retirement schemes solemnly lack any connection between employees’ suitability for their jobs, their performance on the job, and other meritocratic metrics. As the result, early retirement schemes will not enhance overall levels of productivity in the workforce.

Minister Howlin, and with him the rest of the cabinet, simply appear to be unaware of what reforms are supposed to achieve. What is really needed is a comprehensive independent review of all positions across all departments and subsequent involuntary removal of those who are unsuited for their jobs.

There is also no joined-up thinking on welfare system reforms. For example, introducing a refundable tax credit per child at a mid-range rate of, say, 20%, would make the credit automatically means-tested. This would also make the scheme virtually self-administered for the majority of the recipients and allow to focus more resources on the cases where special help is needed most.

There is a virtually hit-and-run feel to the Government’s grasp of what constitutes long-term change. At this stage in the crisis, it is clear that sooner or later, the sacrosanct basic rates of social welfare as well as the unlimited nature of benefits will have to come to the chopping block. There is no economic growth path that can get us out of this painful corner.

Yet, instead of tackling the problem head on, the Government attempted once again to move along the margins, selecting individual sub-groups of aid recipients in a hope of ‘striking gold’ – finding the least vociferous ones for the hit. This is done in a naïve belief that the loudness of the group complaints is somehow proportional to the need for assistance. The end result is that those most in need, but are present in smaller numbers, got the stick, while the able-bodied adults with lesser merit claim to help are getting their carrot.

There are no reforms of the public sector pay and pensions in the Budget. The gargantuan bill for new and existing state retirees will fall this year by just €500,000 and is expected to decline by less than 2.3% in years ahead.

With social welfare fraud rampant Minister Joan Burton cheerfully reported back in August this year that her Department delivered €345 million worth of savings tightening enforcement of the welfare payments in just 7 months of 2011. Why is then Budget 2012 aiming to generate just €41 million in new fraud reduction-related savings for the entire 2012?

Despite the rhetoric, Budget 2012 was another windows-dressing for avoiding painful reforms. The new curtains of ‘austerity’ will now adorn the rotten façade of state finances until the whole structure crumbles over the next 2 years under the weight of our debts and structural recession.

Box-out:

Back in July 2010, the Minister for the Environment published a relatively un-ambitious Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group. The report reviewed the cost base, expenditure of and the numbers employed in local authorities in Ireland. It identified some marginal savings to the tune of €511 million comprised of €346m in efficiencies and €165m in improved cost recovery and revenue raising to be gained from introducing very moderate set of reforms, such as joint administrative areas for some sets of counties; reductions in senior management and other staffing levels; greater efficiency in procurement; more use of shared services, such as joint inspectorates and regional design offices; and better financial management. None of these suggestions have made it into specifically costed savings under the Budget 2012. Which begs a simple question – why?

06/12/2011: Budget 2012 - quick guide

In days to come I will be writing about the Budget 2012 in the press, so this is a quick summary of my current view. The Budget is a combination of:

• Safety (35%) - the Croke Park remains intact and largest vested interest in the state remains unchecked
• Platitude (5%) - a belated, but welcome increase in mortgage interest relief for 2004-2008 buyers
• Homage to Bertie (10%) - all measures aimed at stimulating growth in the economy are property reliefs and tax incentives and
• Absurdity (50%) - explained below

Absurdity of this Budget arises from glaring logical inconsistencies of its measures and stated policy objectives:

1. The Irish Government is concerned with the stability of the banks deposits. It raises DIRT and CGT
2. The Irish Government is concerned with jobs destruction. It raises VAT, fuel taxes, capital taxes and does nothing to correct for egregious, entrepreneurship reducing USC surcharge on self-employed. It also makes it more risky for firms to hire workers
3. The Government is concerned with tax revenues lags. It introduces tax hikes that will drive more economic activity into the Black Markets - VAT, petrol tax, cigarettes tax etc
4. The Government is concerned with declining private consumption. It introduces VAT hike, cigarettes hike, and measures reducing disposable income
5. The Government is concerned with skills bottlenecks. it introduces higher cost of education
6. The Government is concerned with high demand for public health services. It raises cost of buying private insurance, thus cutting back incentives to hold that which at least partially offsets rising costs of higher demand for public services
7. The Government is concerned with underfunding of private sector pensions. It removes 50% credit for employer PRSI for contributions to occupational pension schemes

Economics 17/11/10: The road we traveled

Amidst this crisis, it is worth taking a look back at the road that we have traveled on our way to the current predicament. It is fashionable today to make claims that the past - the recent past in fact - has been a place of greater fiscal responsibility, the age of 'sustainable' public finances. But is the claim true? Have lost our way all of a sudden around 2005-2007, or have we always been traveling along the same route.

Here are few charts looking back to 1983...
In absolute levels terms, spending and tax receipts have clearly grown dramatically over the years. These are nominal figures, of course. But notice that total expenditure line almost invariably exceeds total receipts levels. The chart also shows pretty dramatic changes that took place since 2007.


Now, let's take a look at the decomposition of the Exchequer balance sheet:
Clearly, gross current spending has been a core of the overall Exchequer financing. The most dramatic departure from 'investment' focus toward current spending focus took place around the turn of the century. Looking at the comparatives across the shares of GNP taken up by capital and current spending shows this even more dramatically. If during 1985-2000 period current expenditure declined as a share of GNP, capital spending first fell (through 1988) then stagnated (through 1997), and then rose through 2002. Capital spending stagnated in the boom years of 2003-2007 and then rose again (due to contraction in GNP) through 2009. However, from 2006 through today, current spending went through the roof.

Another interesting feature of the chart above is that during the current crisis there was not a single year when the current expenditure declined - either in terms of absolute level of spending or in terms of spending relative to GNP.

Total government spending both in levels and as a share of GNP is expected to fall this year for the first time since the beginning of the crisis. This, of course, is driven solely by the decline in capital spending, as charts above indicate.

Now, let us plot primary Exchequer balances - the difference between the total receipts and expenditure.
In broad terms, over the long run, Irish Exchequer has been historically on a non-sustainable path. In only 3 years since 1983 did our total receipts cover total expenditure: 1999, 2000 and 2006.

It is worth noting that we are, despite what Minister Lenihan says, firmly back into the 1980s territory:

• Our current expenditure will stand around 48.7% of GNP this year - a level consistent with 1986-1987 average
• Our capital expenditure as the share of GNP is now 5.7% - the level also attained in 1986
• Our total government expenditure stands at 54.4% this year - the level close to the one last seen in 1986 (54.7%)
• In 2008 our balance was -9.8% which was between 1986 and 1987 levels of balance
• In 2009-2010 we have posted worse deficits than in any other year recorded in the abvoe charts.

So what about good cop - bad cop game of blame going across the Dail isles?
It turns out that on average annual basis, Brian Cowen leads the recent history team of profligate Taoisigh with a whopping (albeit obviously crisis-related) average annual shortfall of €26.5bn so far. Together - Bertie & Cowen come distant second with €5.5bn in annual shortfalls. But overall, there is not a single Toiseach in the modern history of Ireland who managed to balance the books at the primary level. Hardly a sign of any fiscal 'golden age' in the past.

Economics 9/10/10: Facing the Budget

This is an unedited version of my column in Business & Finance magazine for October 2010.

James Carville famously remarked that: "I used to think if there was reincarnation, I want to come back as a president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."

Three years into financial, fiscal and growth crises, Ireland’s continued lack of progress in resolving our long term fiscal deficits has finally caught up with our policymakers. Since mid August, the bond markets have been breathing the fear of fundamentals.

Make no mistake, all the talk about ‘ridiculously high’ bond yields on Irish sovereign debt, foreign analysts errors and conspiracy theories according to which a number of home grown academics have colluded with international media to play down Irish success story are nothing more than saber rattling. Damaging to our internal process of shaping the correct policies and disastrous to our external reputation, these claims have no foundation in the reality.

The facts that inform, at least in part, market assessment of our sovereign bond risks, are simple. After three years of struggling with deficits, Ireland is once again facing an Exchequer shortfall in excess of 11% of our GDP this year. Even ex-banks recapitalization measures, we are the worst performing country in the Eurozone in terms of fiscal balances two years in a row. With banks support measures counted in, we will post the worst peace-time fiscal deficit in the history of Europe.

More than that, looking forward, we are facing a daunting task of brining our deficits down to 5.3-5.9 percent of GDP by 2015. Repeated promises by our Finance officials and politicians to cut deficit to 2.9% by 2014 are now firmly relegated to the realm of fiction.

Combining Department of Finance, IMF and my own forecasts (which fall closer to those of IMF), the expected deficit path for Irish Exchequer through 2011-2015 is shown in the table below.


In difference with our official forecasts, IMF predicts Ireland’s 2014 deficit to reach 5.3% of our GDP based on May 2010 estimates for economic growth and absent accounting for the latest banks recapitalization costs. Adjusting this path to reflect stickier unemployment and lower growth (both across GDP and GNP) as consistent with IMF revisions of global economic growth forecasts since May 2010 yields the expected exchequer deficit of 5.99% of GDP for 2014.

Equally important is a steeper debt curve that is factored in the above projections courtesy of higher cost of financing, cumulated banks and NAMA losses and lower growth. By my estimates, total state liabilities, inclusive of Nama and banks recapitalization measures, will reach 127% by 2013. The risk to these numbers is to the upside.

These estimates have some serious implications to the pricing of Irish debt in the markets.

In August IMF published research (WP/10/184) titled "Fiscal Deficits, Public Debt, and Sovereign Bond Yields" which provides analysis "of the impact of fiscal deficits and public debt on long-term interest rates during 1980–2008, taking into account a wide range of country-specific factors” for 31 economies.

The paper finds that “higher deficits and public debt lead to a significant increase in long-term interest rates, with the precise magnitude dependent on initial fiscal, institutional and other structural conditions, as well as spillovers from global financial markets. Taking into account these factors suggests that large fiscal deficits and public debts are likely to put substantial upward pressures on sovereign bond yields in many advanced economies over the medium term. …An increase in the fiscal deficit of 1 percent of GDP was seen to raise real yields by about 30–34 basis points."

By the above numbers, Irish bonds currently should be yielding over 7.5% in real terms, not 6.5% we've seen so far. This puts into perspective the statements about 'ridiculously high' yields being observed today.

If we add to this relationship the effect of change in our public debt position plus a risk premium over Germany (+180bps), the expected historically-justified real yield on our 10 year bonds will rise to around 9.3%.

Looking at a historic range of values, our ex-banks deficits warrant the yields in the range of 8-20%. Alternatively, for our bond yields to be justified at 6.5% we need to cut our deficit back to around 5.2% mark and hold our debt to GDP ratio steady.

The IMF findings are hardly alone. Another August 2010 study, this time from German CESIfo, titled "Long-run Determinants of Sovereign Yields" produces similar results, while using distinct econometric methodology and data from that deployed in the IMF paper. "For the period 1973-2008 [the study] consider the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, UK, Canada, Japan, and U.S."

Current Account deficits, Debt to GDP ratios, and fiscal deficits all have predictable effect on the long-term interest rates and thus bond yields. Crucially, the Current Account channel of risk transmission to bond yields is based on the view that “the deterioration of current account balances may signal a widening gap between savings and investment, pushing long-term interest rates upwards."

Ireland shows relatively weak sensitivity in interest rates to debt, moderate to current account balances but severely strong (3^rd strongest, in fact) to deficits. By combined measures of three responses, we are now firmly in the PIIGS club, with our bond yields based on fundamentals justified at the levels well above Portugal.

And the matter doesn’t rest at the macroeconomic fundamentals. The latest bout of bond yields pressure, culminating in a number of large scale interventions in the market by the ECB is based on significant concerns about the quality of the collateral backing our covered bonds – theoretically the safest of all bond instruments. The bonds downgrade by the Moody’s – an action which in itself represents an extremely rare event in the advanced economies – also puts direct pressure on the likes of the Irish Central Bank and our banks’ repos with the ECB. Illustrative here is the case of the Anglo repos and other derivatives – some €14 billion of which have already gone into Nama and €11.5bn of which rests with the Central Bank under an Anglo MLRA repo agreement secured against the non-Nama loans.

Which, of course, brings us to the logical question of what has to be done to correct our current position.

The forthcoming Budget 2011 is the last line of defence the Government can attempt to hold. Failing to deliver significant (well in excess of €3 billion for 2011) reduction in the deficit, while providing a crystal-clear picture of all deficit measures and targets through 2013-2014 will likely see our long term bond yields rising to the levels above 7%, where Ireland’s application to the European Stabilization Fund (aka IMF/ECB rescue) will be inevitable.

Overall, the Government must cut current ex-banks deficit by around 5.5% of GDP before 2015. Using my projection for GDP growth, this amounts to over €10 billion in cuts.

Yes – cuts. My projections for deficits above are based on rather optimistic assumptions concerning Exchequer revenues (rising €8.2 billion between 2010 and 2015 or 23.8% on 2010 figure). Majority of these increases will happen due to tax burden increases, as capital spending and other automatic stabilizers will be weaker in years ahead due to contraction of capital investment. This implies that the Exchequer will have no room for further significant tax increases in years ahead. In addition, my projections factor in the need for a token reduction in cumulated debt, which spikes dramatically around 2014.

Of course, the above estimates do not account for the adverse effects of higher taxes and lower Government spending on our growth and unemployment. Virtually all of the tax increases to-date (both direct and indirect) fell on the shoulders of households. At this point in time, I see no room for further increases in the tax burden. Data from private savings and deposits shows clearly that Irish households are suffering a precipitous decrease in terms of their net financial buffers, resulting in an adverse knock-on effect on future spending and investment.

While no serious analysis of the labour force and growth sensitivity to tax rates and public spending in Ireland is available, both theory and practice elsewhere suggest that these will be non-trivial. Here, not only the level of cuts, but also their sources matter. So far, three quarters of the adjustment in public spending to-date has been carried on the shoulders of capital spending. Yet, capital expenditure is perhaps the only part of Government spending that is not subject to large economic losses to imports. Furthermore, unlike current spending, capital spending has a growth dimensions that is spread over time.

All in, Minister Lenihan needs to refocus our spending cuts away from capital programmes – where the cuts have already been dramatic, leaving very little new room for manoeuvre – and firmly on the side of current expenditure. Per chart below, the latest Exchequer figures strongly show that this has not been the case so far in the crisis. Furthermore, cuts to current expenditure are severely hampered by the Croke Park deal. In effect, by leaving out of the balancing equation current spending on wages and earnings in the public sector, the Croke Park deal is one single largest obstacle on Ireland’s path to solvency.

[see updated chart here]

Looking across the current spending landscape, it is completely inevitable that cuts will have to focus on reducing the numbers employed and the levels of pay in the public sector. Under current conditions in the labour markets, the Exchequer simply cannot avoid dramatically slashing back its wages bills. Thus, the 2011-2014 framework should aim to reduce public sector employment by at least 70-90,000, yielding savings of some €4.5-5.5 billion once statutory redundancy costs are netted out. Another must will involve reforming welfare system, once again reducing the overall costs. Savings here can amount to 12% of the current expenditure target of €10.6bn – much smaller reduction than that in the wages bill, but a very significant number when it comes to vitally important benefits for the most vulnerable members of our society.

Next in line are health and education. The Government can enact an ambitious reform of our health services, shedding completely the responsibility for managing services provision and aiming to act solely as a payer for these services for those who cannot afford private insurance. Such a reform can see savings of ca €2-2.5 billion netted out of the system on both current and capital sides. Education reforms – especially introduction of third level fees – can provide another €1 billion.

The Government should not only slash current spending, but also develop and implement strategic long-term reforms of management in the public sector. Currently Ireland lags behind the average levels of international best practice in deploying advanced management (including ICT) systems in public sector. Reforming the managerial processes in public sector, per international evidence, can yield longer-term savings of ca 5% of the total net current spending of the state, or €2 billion.

Overall, comes December, Minister Lenihan needs to present a convincing and extremely ambitious programme for reforming public spending in Ireland. At this point in time, international bond markets, as well as domestic economy will need to see a serious change in the path to fiscal solvency chosen to-date before our bond yields, as well as our businesses and households propensity to invest in Ireland improve.

Economics 25/05/2010: Here's one for the Budget 2011

Just a chart - from IMF Fiscal Stability report:
Now, as noted - this excludes housing, medical cards, child supports etc. Given that in Austria, Belgium and Denmark rental values are lower, while healthcare is universal for all, where does it put the combined value of long term unemployment benefits in Ireland compared to these two countries? And given our wage deflation since 2008, relative to Austria, Belgium and Denmark?..

Of course, we simply have to omit the petro-dollars fueled economy like Norway from consideration. Notice - this chart reflects comparatives for 2008 data for long term unemployed. Cutting unemployment benefits is a hard target. We will have to face that choice, however. Given this, my view would be to impose more significant cuts on longer term recipients, and lower cuts on short term recipients. This should create stronger incentives to seek employment and skills for those who have the lowest propensity to do so - the long-term unemployed.

Economics 11/05/2010: Exchequer figures - no real relief in sight

You have to feel for some of our desperate cheerleading squad of ‘analysts’ who toil for some of our banks and stock brokers. These folks are clutching at the straws trying to find something to cheer about. Case in point – latest data from the Irish Exchequer, which was heralded as showing ‘stabilisation’ and even ‘improvement’ in ‘funding conditions’ and ‘headline deficit’.

Putting aside the fact that most of these analysts have no real idea what these terms really mean (and in some cases, neither do I, for they mean preciously nothing in the real world of economics), the fault in their logic is an apparent one:

They say: ‘Irish exchequer receipts are finally coming closer to the Budget 2010 projections. Therefore, things are improving or stabilising.’

I say: ‘Statements like this are pure bollocks, folks. Just because DofF has finally caught up (somewhat) in its forecasts with reality, does not mean reality is getting any rosier.’

Here is the evidence that I am correct. Forget the Exchequer forecasts, and look at the actual data.
Chart above shows that:

• Irish Exchequer tax revenue in April came in below the downward linear trend established since January 2008, which means that we are still returning tax receipts at below 2008-present average rates. Long term, things are still sliding down.
• Irish Exchequer total receipts fared better than tax revenue, but that’s because the Exchequer has managed to squeeze more out of the likes of the semistates. Don’t be fooled – the semistates do not create their own money. This is just a hidden tax on us all.
• Total expenditure, despite all the fanfare from the ‘analysts’ is heading up, and is now above the trend line again. Which (the trend line) is upward sloping. This means that long term trend is still rising for our public spending, and that we are on a seasonal upper push in public spending.
• Thus, our Exchequer deficit has gone up in April, and it did so at a rate virtually identical to April 2009. Long term deficit is still upward moving and we are now above the long term trend once again.

Translated into cardiology, the patient now has an accelerating erratic pulse reaching beyond the norm, and continuously falling blood pressure. Just as Good Doctors Brian & Brian are talking about discharging...

To see if things are indeed improving (or stabilizing) as our ‘analysts’ suggest, let’s put back to back receipts and expenditures for the last three years in one chart:
Clearly, our total Exchequer receipts (and recall, these are boosted by abnormally higher non-tax revenue) are now below those for April 2008 and April 2009. Indeed, only once so far in 2010 have receipts rose to above corresponding monthly levels for 2008 and 2009 – back in March, when the Exchequer booked some of the backed receipts on VAT, VRT and Excise.
Chart above shows that the Exchequer did indeed achieve some reduction in spending in April 2010. But,

1. Good ¾ of these savings came from reduced capital investment cuts
2. Cumulative savings for the first 4 months of 2010 are so far €1.346 billion, implying an annualized rate of savings of €4.035 billion. Over the same time, cumulative losses in revenue were €990 million, implying an annualized loss in revenue of €2.969 billion.
3. So we are looking at (omitting timing consideration) net savings on 2009 of €1.1 billion. This would be a reduction of just 4.3% out of an annual deficit for 2009, or related to GDP – a reduction of roughly 0.6% of GDP. In other words, all the ‘right decisions’ taken by this Government are currently looking like being able to reduce or 14.3% 2009 deficit to a massively ‘improved’ 13.7% deficit? And that’s assuming that the Anglo support this year will only impact the deficit by the same €1.5 billion as last year…
   

This miserably low level of achievement in our battle to restore Ireland to solvency is, of course, fully visible in the above chart, once one considers the Exchequer surplus performance.

Economics 22/06/2009: Cutting public waste

Weekend papers had some rumors concerning the An Bord Snip Nua's forthcoming report with figures in the range of €4bn being quoted as the overall level of 'savage cuts' to be recommended. I have no specific information as to the exact figure that the body will recommend at this time, but I have expressed serious concerns previously that the An Board's cuts will be short of what is needed to restore balance to public spending.

Current official DfoF estimates put the need for 2010-2011 'cuts' in expenditure at €3bn in current expenditure and €1.75bn in capital expenditure. This, alongside with €2.5bn and €2.1bn in new tax revenue, is expected (by DofF) to deliver the Supplementary (April) Budget 2009 deficit targets. Clearly, these targets alone fully subsume the An Bord Snip's rumored levels of cuts. But wait, DofF's Fremowrk Programme published in April 2009 shows (Table 7) additional cost 'adjustments' of €4bn in 2012 and €3bn in 2013. Thus, the total for 2010-2013 in cost adjustments envisioned by DofF is €11.75bn.

In other words, should An Bord Snip deliver on €4bn in cuts, it will be €7.75bn behind the DofF targets for current spending cuts. If the DofF were to be serious in delivering on its own deficit targets, this means that additional tax measures between 2009 and 2013 will have to add up to the above number, or roughly, €1,800 per person in Ireland. Mad?

Now, let us do the magic for our An Bord Snip folks and look at the levels (not sources of cuts needed). Per Revised Estimates for Public Services 2009, we have:
Following these cuts for 2010, I will freeze spending at 2010 level for 2011 and 2012, generating the following 2010-2013 balance sheet:
Yes, cuts proposed above are savage indeed, but the benefit is that we will be running 7% deficit in 2010, 4% deficit in 2011 and 3% deficit in 2012, while generating €4.1bn, €3.6bn and €3.4bn in stimulus money at the same time. Translated into per-capita terms, we will have €2,636 per every man, woman and child in this country for tax cut between 2010 and 2012.

I guess, An Bord Snip can't be expected to worry about such minor numbers...


And while on the topic of Sunday papers: the report in the Sindo stated that the cornerstone of Brian Lenihan / Alan Ahearne's economic growth forecasts for 2011-2012 is their expectation that 150,000 people will leave Ireland in search of work elsewhere. If the Government and its adviser do indeed have such a 'policy' response in mind, I can chracterise it as:

1. Morally depraved and a sign of their abandoning any democratic and ethical responsibility. If Ireland is a mature democracy, Brian Cowen, as a Prime Minister of this country should immediately ask for both Lenihan's and Ahearne's explanation of the Sindo claim and, if it is confirmed, both should be forced to resign their posts.
2. Economically illiterate. Selection bias will ensure that the 150,000 who will leave will be above average in skills and superior in aptitude. With their departure, Ireland will lose a large number of young, more productive workers who also hold the greatest promise for this economy in the future. Equally damaging will be the fact that once the better skilled and younger workers leave this country, their success abroad will ensure that they will not be easily enticed to return to the Cowen-Lenihan-Coughlan & Ahearne Paradise in the future.

One part of the report in the Sindo - the part that cites senior DofF officials stating that Lenihan's strategy for dealing with this crisis is to tax his way out of fiscal insolvency - is true. I can confirm that my own 'birdie' from the Upper Merrion Street has chirped last Friday that senior Department officials 'are very concerned' that Brian Lenihan and Co are 'only interested in grabbing more tax revenue... with no regard for the effects their new taxes will have in the future' post-crisis. In particular, several tax areas currently under pressure have been mentioned as being the targets of such 'revenue grab': income tax, carbon tax, property tax, and employee PAYE.

Economics 10/05/2009: Next Budget and other business

Given the latest Exchequer results - i.e lack of any improvement in performance - and a combination of (anecdotally evident) acceleration of lay-offs in the financial, legal and accountancy services, recently on NewsTalk 106FM I predicted that we are going to see a July mini-Budget.

My logic was based on the following confluences of 'stars':

1. Local elections will be over;
2. H1 Exchequer returns will be in;
3. Tax and Spend an boards will have some papers on the table by then, so a host of new taxes will be ready to roll out, while a host of new measures to evade cutting public spending (i.e various buy-outs and hand-outs and 'fairness' proposals) will also be at hand.

Some internal sources (hat tip to B) are now indicating that this indeed is being considered - or 'lightly penciled in' as I was told. In other words, we are in the stage of contingency planning for another raid by Genghis Brian Khan. The problem is that all the indication I am getting is that our an board chainsaw/snip is coming back with a whimper: to the question "Can we save some dosh?" the snappers will answer Bob-the-Builder-like "Yes we can", but to the question "How much?" they will have a goldfish-like response "O*o*p*o*gh*ph" and a bubble of air emanating out of the fat lips. The reason for this is that An Board Snip-identified 'savings' are now rumored to amount to nothing more than cutting temp contracts, which have to be honoured until maturity. In other words, not much of saving is possible in 2009...

Of course, to save big one needs: political will to break the unions and a reform plan to break the hysteresis in spending. But who has that? Brian? The other Brian? of Mary? In the mean time, there will be plenty of small scratches - €1-5mln here and there, but with a hole of some €30bn to be plugged this year alone, you have to do something BIG.

Now comes another new rumor - that a birdie chirped at my windowsill: the Revenue are now starting to worry that smelling the (rotten) rat from the Upper Merrion Street, our wealthy (what's left of them) are moving assets off-shore faster than Brian can shout 'Tax!" There is a rumor now, allegedly at the Dublin Castle gates, that CGT might come in at or near zero in the nominal terms in H2 2009 and this might even imply - considering bookings on CGT losses for 2008 - a negative CGT return! Now, that would be a nice lesson for the Government and for the likes of Fintain O'Toole and Vincent Browne - tax liquid wealth and see it evaporate.

Here's how it might turn out to be: charts below show my projections for CGT and CAT heads under 3 scenarios.

Scenario 1 assumes that the rest of 2009 will see replay of the same changes as happened between 2007 and 2008. This is a clearly optimistic scenario for H1 2009 projections (remember, H1 2008 fall-off relative to H1 2007 was much smaller than what we are already seeing in Jan-April 2009 relative to Jan-April 2008), but it is probably pessimistic for the last 2 months of 2009. So it might be a wash then across the year.

Scenario 2 assumes that the 2007/2008 dynamics apply to the trend that was established in 2009 to date. This is more pessimistic for CAT, and the intermediate scenario on CGT.

Scenario 3 assumes the same as Scenario 1 except I also consider the possibility of zero monthly returns on CGT in October-December 2009. How can I justify this assumption? Well, in 2008 for the same period, the Revenue collected €626.4mln in CGT. Suppose that this year, by October 2008 some €3.13/2=€1.55bn of Irish capital were to be 'B&B'ed abroad, with owners declaring a loss on these, writing off some €311mln. This will drive the CGT revenue to zero, even if the last year's performance were to be repeated.

Now the two charts for the picture is worth a 1,000 words...
Of course, the problem could have been avoided should we chose to tax illiquid/immobile asset base - i.e land... in the long run, or should we have cut the idiocy of raising taxes in a recession... in the short run.

Economics 06/05/2009: NAMA & Bananas for Brian

January-April tax receipts are down 24% y-o-y or €3.2 bn. Same as in February, but erasing a slight gain (-23% y-o-y deterioration) in March. Some say this is good. I am not sure what they have in mind:

1. the fact the we are back on a steeper February downward curve rather than on an imperceptibly flatter March one; or
2. the fact that we are not down 50%?
   

Worst performing tax heads are in bold in the table above. But seasonality matters, so we compare monthly changes in the shortfalls this year so far against the average monthly shortfall for 2008 for the same period of January-April.
Red marks subheads that deteriorate in performance from month to month, relative to previous year. In other words, red numbers represent the cases where y-o-y shortfalls increase from one month to the next. Several conclusions worth making:

• Compared to average shortfall in 2008, April 2009 is much worse across all, but two categories: CGT and Stamps. This, of course, is just due to the fact that once you have fallen through the basement ceiling, there isn’t much room left to fall further;
• Overall, shortfall in April 2009 is worse than the monthly average for 2008 period;
• In April, shortfall has improved relative to March in Customs, Excise, Stamps, Corporation Tax, VAT and Total Taxes; it has worsened in Income Tax (despite the levies), CAT and CGT;
• VAT leads as a main cause of the overall shortfalls – down €1.043bn – ca 33% of the total shortfall – this, in part, is because of the reckless VAT hikes, not despite them;
• Another 26% of the shortfall came from Stamps and CGT both property related taxes, were down €838 million, making up a further 26% of the shortfall.
  

Now to the deficit matters: in April Budget, tax shortfall for 2009 is estimated at €34.4bn – 15.6% decline on 2008. We are now at a 24% decline in annualized terms, suggesting DofF is waiting for some miracle to significantly raise revenue. What this might be?

Speculation 1: another mini-Budget post local elections with a massive tax hike - doubling income levies and doing some nuclear work on PRSI; or
Speculation 2: Pfizer, Dell, Glaxo, Apple, Microsoft, Google and the rest of the world producing a rescue package for Ireland that is massive and has no lags to build; or
Speculation 3: in response to President Obama threat to tax US MNCs based here, we impose a tax on Irish-Americans.

Looks to me like Speculation 1 is the winner.

Now to the expenditure side:

• Current spending was up 4.5% in the first four months, down from the 8.2% rate of increase in March. Factoring deflation, this is still a hefty increase;
• Capital spend was down 14.5% on April 2008, so no stimulus, Brian, despite all the promises;
• Service of national debt is up from €1.262bn in Jan-April 2008 to €1.501bn this year so far. Total debt management costs along with sinking fund: up from €1.736bn to €2.108bn a rise of 21.4% y-o-y;
• Agriculture & Food – up cool €145mln y-o-y - pork dioxins scare, I presume;
• Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Areas – up minor €5.6mln y-o-y;
• Education & Science down €173mln, so Government priorities on who gets dosh first are pretty clear – building the knowledge economy out on the farms;
• Environment, Heritage & Local Government is being beefed (or biffoed?) for local elections with a juicy €30.1mln increase on 2008;
• Other increases are linked to social welfare and other spending that is most likely unemployment-related;
• Overall, voted Government spending is up €275mln or 1.8% in nominal terms, roughly 5% in real terms – some fiscal crisis they are having…
  

If the last bullet point isn’t enough, public sector salaries, pensions and allowances are up from €16.477bn in the first months of 2008 to €16.69bn in 2009. Now that is an interesting number. Up 1.3% y-o-y in nominal terms, 4.5% in real terms. And one has to recall that 2008 includes the six months of Government’s denial that we are facing a crisis and six months of promises to cut public spending!

But wait, there is more fun in the numbers. We dumped €19.04mln into Carbon Act 2007 Fund in the last 4 months – a 100% increase on 2008. We also managed to stuff more cash - €396mln to be precise – into the NPRF, aka public sector pension piggy bank.

Yes folks, we are still broke, but don’t tell it to the public sector employees. For them, the party is just keeps rolling on. So taxes for us, baNAMAs for Brian and some champagne for public sector workers. Sharing the pain...


NAMA has an 'interim' head... and he, as expected,

• is independent,
  
• is experienced in the private sector and management of stressed assets on a large scale,
  
• is an outsider with no links to the civil service or to the good old boys networks in the public sector
  
• has no past policy fiasco on his report card.
  

Brendan McDonagh is currently director of finance, technology and risk at the NTMA (not many degrees of separation from the public sector here).

He works for NTMA which never did stressed assets management although it does a good job at raising debt - so NTMA is a borrower, and Brendan will be running a Lender. Wolves guarding sheep... or is it the other way around?..

There is no real separation from the DofF / the Government, since NTMA is the financing branch of the DofF / the Government.

This 'outsider' to the old boys network is originally from ESB - that pillar of private sector excellence in Ireland.

I am sure he is an excellent accountant and a good treasurer and a great technology officer (though judging by the NTMA website, there is work left to be done on that front)... But here are some crucial questions to be asked:

• is he any good at investment and risk strategy? (I presume he has a worldwide following amongst asset managers for his strategy insights into asset markets, risks pricing etc. He handled treasury, audit and accountancy for ESB and largely the same for NTMA, but there was some risk management part to his role);
  
• is he any good at portfolio management? (I presume he has managed some real asset portfolios long and short, yield and CG, fixed income and equities, private equity and partnerships, for it will take a lot more than a chartered management accountancy qualification to understand and manage €80-90bn worth of portfolio assets. Does he have vast experience in dealing with diversified (internationally and instrumentally) financial products under macro and micro-economic stress?);
  
• is he any good at saying No to political classes pushing for political payoffs from NAMA - a certain to take place in months to come? (I presume he earned such fierce independent reputation at NTMA which is happy to borrow short (3mo-9mo) to finance our deficit even as the OECD and IMF warn the world not to test their luck and borrow long);
• is he any good at preparing assets for sale and liquidation via private markets (for this is what NAMA will have to do in years time)?

... ah... well, we wouldn't know, because we don't get CVs of the career public servants released to us, but on the last point we actually have some past performance record: http://www.finance-magazine.com/display_article.php?i=3879&pi=162 (here). Mr McDonagh it turns out was instrumental in one 'successful' long-term financial engineering project - privatization of Eircom. That was a resounding success that all of us wish onto NAMA too, don't we?

In reality, Mr McDonagh may or may not be a right candidate for a job. We do not know. And past performance with Eircom privatization is not necessarily an indicator of future performance either. This would be unfair to him had he be given a chance of defending his application for the position in front of us...But Brendan never did defend his candidacy in front of anyone so lowly as us, people whose money he will be taking. Incidentally - was his position advertised in line with the EU law for public appointments?

As I said, it is my money and yours that Brendan will be spending and managing. And we need to know, for when we do not know, we are asked to trust the appointing authority. Do we trust Brian Lenihan? With some €80-90bn worth of our last pennies? It is that simple.