11/9/15: 2Q 2015 National Accounts: Recovery on pre-crisis peak

In the first post of the series covering 2Q national Accounts data, I dealt with sectoral composition of growth. The second post considered the headline GDP and GNP growth data. The third post in the series looked at Domestic Demand that normally more closely reflects true underlying economic performance, and the fourth post covered external trade.

In this post, let us briefly consider per capita GDP, GNP and Domestic Demand.

Chart below shows cumulative four quarters per capita GDP, GNP and Domestic Demand based on the latest data for population estimates and the National Accounts through 2Q 2015.

As shown above, Final Domestic Demand on per capita basis was at EUR33,782, up 5.95% y/y in 2Q   2015, closing some of the crisis period gap. Still, compared to peak, per capita Final Domestic Demand is still 13.3% below pre-crisis peak levels in real (inflation-adjusted terms). In part, this is driven by the Personal Consumption Expenditure which, on a per-capita basis was EUR19,163, up 2.1% y/y in 2Q 2015, but down 8% on pre-crisis peak.

GDP per capita rose 5.3% y/y in 2Q 2015 to EUR42,106, down only 0.82% on pre-crisis peak. GNP per capita rose to EUR36,189 up 5.9% y/y and 1.49% ahead of pre-crisis peak.

CONCLUSIONS: With GNP per capita attaining pre-crisis levels back in 1Q 2015, the recovery from the crisis has been effectively completed in real terms in terms of GNP after 28 quarters. In GDP terms, we are now close to regaining the pre-crisis peak levels, with 30 quarters to-date at below the peak. However, recovery is still some distance away in terms of Final Domestic Demand per capita and in terms of Personal Consumption Expenditure. 

7/3/15:Euro Area GDP per capita: the legacy of the crisis

I have posted previously on the decline in GDP per capita during the current crises across the euro area states, the US and UK. Here is another look:

Let's take GDP per capita at the peak before the crisis.

For some countries this would be year 2007, for others 2008. Keep in mind, many comparatives in the media and by analysts treat the peak as 2008. This is simply not true. Only 89countries of the sample of 20 countries comprising EA18, plus US and UK have peaked their GDP per capita in real terms in 2008, the rest peaked in 2007. Hence, for the former countries, the GDP per capita decline started in 2009 and the for the latter in 2008. Now, take GDP per capita declines cumulated over the years when the GDP per capita was running, in real terms, below the peak. Again, the sample of the countries is not homogeneous here: for some countries, GDP per capita regained pre-crisis peak by 2011 (Germany, Malta and Slovak Republic), by 2013 (Austria and U.S.) and by 2014 (Latvia). For all the rest of the countries, the GDP per capita peak was not regained through 2014.

Now, let's plot the overall cumulated losses over the years of the crisis (over the years from the crisis start through either the year prior to regaining pre-crisis GDP per capita levels for the countries where this was attained, or through 2014 for the countries that did not yet recover pre-crisis levels.

Chart below plots these in euro terms (remember, this is loss through end of crisis or 2014 per capita) (note figures for UK and US are in their respective currencies, not Euro):

Thus, per above, in Greece, cumulative GDP per capita losses during the crisis (through 2014) amount to around EUR42,200, while in Malta cumulative losses from the start of the crisis through the end of the crisis in 2011 amounted to around EUR500 per capita.

Since the crisis was over, before 2014, across 6 countries (in other words the regained their pre-crisis peak GDP per capita levels in inflation-adjusted terms), it is worth to note that through 2014, in these countries, losses have been reduced.  In Austria, through 2014, cumulative losses on pre-crisis GDP per capita levels stood at EUR 2,107 per capita, in Germany there was a cumulative gain of EUR4,078 per capita, in Latvia a cumulative loss of EUR5,696 per capita, in Malta a cumulative gain of EUR1,029 per capita, in Slovak Republic a cumulative gain of EUR1,352 per capita and in the U.S. a cumulative loss of USD258 per capita

Taking the above figures covering either gains  or losses from the start of the crisis in each country through 2014 as a percentage of the pre-crisis peak GDP per capita, the losses/gain due to the crisis through 2014 amount to:

And that chart really tells it all. 

23/12/2013: Long term growth in Advanced Economies and Ireland

Long range growth figures are a fascinating source of insight into what is happening in the economies over decades. Here's the data on GDP growth in advanced economies (29 countries) for 1980-2013. All figures are computed by me from the IMF data.

Let's start with a long view.

Chart below shows growth in real GDP per capita cumulated over 1980-2013 period:

The chart above clearly shows that after 33 years spanning periods of growth and two crises, Ireland is well-ahead of all euro area and Western economies in terms of cumulated growth in real GDP (the series are based on GDP expressed in constant prices in national currencies).

What the chart above does not show is that:

• In the period of 1980-1989 Irish growth run at an annualised rate of 1.8% per annum, earning us 17th rank out of all 29 economies
• In the period of 1990-1999 Irish growth run at an annualised rate of 5.6% per annum, earning us 1st rank out of all 29 economies
• In the period of 2000-2009 Irish growth run at an annualised rate of 0.74% per annum, earning us 17th rank out of all 29 economies
• In the period of 2010-2013 Irish growth run at an annualised rate of 0.65% per annum, earning us 17th rank out of all 29 economies

What does the above suggest? One: it suggests that our 'catching up' period of the 1990s was very robust: we outperformed the group average growth rate by a factor of x2.66 times.
Two: it also suggests that the 'catching up' period was not followed by sustainable growth momentum, as our growth rates declined in 2000-2013 period to those below the rates recorded in the 1980-1989 period and once again fell below those for the majority of advanced economies average.
Three: With our catch-up growth still putting us well ahead of the average in cumulated growth terms, including the growth rates for comparable catch-up economies, it is unlikely that we are due another 'catching up' period of growth any time soon. In other words, we need to get organic, sustainable growth sources to continue expanding in the future.

Chart below shows our performance across the above metric by decade:

Our performance, once adjusted for FX rates and price differentials tells a slightly different story: once we control for currencies movements, it turns out that we were less exceptional than based on comparatives for GDP expressed in national currencies:

• In the period of 1980-1989 Irish growth run at an annualised rate of 5.6% per annum, earning us 17th rank out of all 29 economies. The average growth for all of the 29 economies was 6.4% and median was 5.8%, so we were below average, but not that much different from the median.
• In the period of 1990-1999 Irish growth in GDP per capita pop-adjusted run accelerated to an annualised rate of 7.6% per annum, earning us 1st rank out of all 29 economies. The average for the 29 economies fell to 4.0% and the median to 3.8%. This was the period of our catch-up. So instead of x2.66 rate of growth relative to the average, we got x1.90 times the average.
• In the period of 2000-2009 Irish growth in GDP per capita PPP-adjusted run at an annualised rate of 2.6%% per annum, earning us 21st rank out of all 29 economies, which averaged growth rate of 3.05% and median of 2.9% per annum. The period marked the end of our catching up and the on-set of our bubble-driven growth that still was less than average or median.
• In the period of 2010-2013 Irish growth run at an annualised rate of 2.7% per annum, earning us 17th rank out of all 29 economies, against their average of 2.2%, but a median of 3.0%. This confirmed the growth trends in 2000-2009.
• Beyond our own case, note the steady decline in the advanced economies average growth rates by decade.

Do note two interesting facts emerging from the above, based on both GDP in national currencies and GDP PPP-adjusted:

• By both metrics of GDP per capita growth, Ireland in 2000-2009 had growth lower than Ireland in the abysmal 1980s (that is the effect of the massive crisis covering years of 2008-2010).
• By both metrics of GDP per capita growth, 2010-2013 period (after we officially 'emerged' from the Great Recession) have been worse than the dreaded 1980s.

One last chart, showing evolution of GDP per capita over time:

22/12/2013: Most Important Charts of the Year: via BusinessInsider

A new set of The Most Important Charts from BusinessInsider.com is out, this time covering the full year:
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-2013-12

My contribution is here: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-2013-12#constantin-gurdgiev-trinity-college-dublin-85

The full chart:

Note: 2013 marks the fifth consecutive year of the European growth crisis. Amidst the recent firming up in global conditions, it is important to remember that per capita GDP (in US Dollar terms) in both the euro area and the UK remains below the pre-crisis peaks. In absolute terms, euro area cumulated 2008-2013 losses in GDP per capita range from EUR 1,311 for Malta to EUR 56,496 for Ireland, with the euro area average losses of EUR 20,318. No advanced economy within the EU27 has managed to recover cumulative losses  in GDP per capita to-date. On average, euro area GDP per capita in 2013 is forecast to be 9.7% lower than pre-crisis. Across other advanced economies, the GDP per capita is expected to be 8.4% higher in 2013. While this makes the euro area a strong candidate for growth in 2014-2015, absent apparent catalysts for longer term gains in value added, and TFP and labour productivity expansion, a European recovery can be a short-lived bounce-back, rather than a dawn of a New Age.

Sources: Author own calculations based on IMF data.

There is an earlier version of the same chart I prepared, covering also the duration of the crisis and its extent using as a metric GDP per capita in constant prices in national currency (not USD):

Economics 22/8/10: Fundamentals of investing in IRL Inc - IV

This is the last post in the series of four that presents fundamentals comparatives between Ireland, Switzerland and Luxembourg. The first post (here) covered analysis of current account dynamics, the second post (here) dealt with General Government balance, third post (here) highlighted differences in GDP and income. This post deal with residual fundamentals such as inflation, unemployment and population.

In terms of inflation we are not doing too well. Since 2000 Ireland remains expensive. More expensive than Switzerland, despite our massive bout of deflation. This, of course, does not account for the fact that Swiss residents get much better quality public sector services than we do, for less money spent. But that's a matter of a different comparison that I touched upon earlier (here, here and here).

So Chart 12 shows our inflation performance.

Chart 12:

You wouldn't be picking Ireland for your investment if you were concerned with real returns or with effects of inflation on economy's ability to carry debt.

If population growth is really a longer term dividend, we should expect Ireland Inc to overtake Switzerland by now in terms of prosperity (Chart 13). After all, our 1980s and 1970s'-born cohorts are currently at the peak of their productivity. But recall per capita GDP... so far, there isn't really any evidence that growth in population leads to higher growth in GDP once scale effects are taken out of equation.

Chart 13:

Would you have invested in Ireland's debt if you were thinking about Ireland's ability to repay on the basis of lower costs of unemployment and greater proportion of labour force at work? Take a look at Chart 14.

Chart 14:

Well, not really. Swiss and Lux make for a much more compelling case here and not just in the current crisis environment.

So here's our real problem that is not a function of cyclical dynamics, but a structural one. Our employed are carrying much greater burden of providing for the rest of our population than Switzerland (Chart 15).

Chart 15:

Factor in that Irish public sector is larger, in relative-to-population terms than Swiss... and you have an even greater discrepancy in terms of the true earning capacity of the Irish economy.

Which brings us to the issue of productivity and back to the topic of exporters carrying the burden of the entire economy out of the recession. Apart from the construction boom, economy-wide income per person working is lower in Ireland than in either Switzerland or Lux since the 1980s. Even at the peak of the largest real estate bubble known to any other European country in modern history, our 2008 GDP per person employed was still not that much greater than that of Switzerland (Chart 16).

Chart 16:

May be, just may be it was because our wealthy developers all wanted a fine Swiss watch, while no Swiss investors wanted our bungalows in Drogheda or apartments in Tallaght? which is the same as to say - the Swiss are productive to the point of the rest of the world wanting their goods and services. We are productive only to the extent of the rest of the world wanting goods and services produced by MNCs and few indigenous exporters based here. But their productivity is high in gross terms and low in net terms (recall current account analysis in the first post). Unless we can dramatically increase the number of exporters while simultaneously upping the net value added in their operations to Swiss levels, there's no chance external trade can carry this economy out of the recession.

Economics 22/8/10: Fundamentals of investing in IRL Inc - III

This is the third post in the series of four that presents fundamentals comparatives between Ireland, Switzerland and Luxembourg. The first post (here) covered analysis of current account dynamics, the second post (here) dealt with General Government balance. This post will highlight differences in GDP.

Once again, think of an investor making a choice between sovereign debt of three countries. Fundamentals about current account (external surpluses generated by economy - subject of the first post), government balances (second post), economic income and growth (present post), as well as unemployment, population and income per working person (following concluding post) all help underpin the economy ability to repay its sovereign debts.

So far, we have shown that:

1. By external balances metric, Ireland is a much poorer performer than either Switzerland or Lux;
2. By sovereign balances metric, Ireland is a much poorer performer than either Switzerland or Lux

Now, consider GDP metrics. We all heard that we are one of the richest economies in the entire world. Is this really so?

Let me put a caveat here - analysis of GDP figures for Lux is a bit tricky, since Luxembourg official stats exclude all those people who work in Luxembourg but reside outside its borders. So the best benchmark here is Switzerland. Sotake a look at the 'Celtic Tiger' vis-a-vis Switzerland. 2002-2007 growth rates are virtually identical in both. But since 2007 - we have been a basket case, while Swiss have been ticking along nicely, like a fabled clock.

Chart 8:

And this is highlighted in each country share of the world GDP as well: we have 61% of Swiss population and 886% of Lux's population (Chart 9). Yet we have - in absolute terms - 54% of Swiss global share of GDP and 438% of Lux's. PPP-adjusted, our GDP is just 28.8% of Swiss and 400% of Lux's. In current prices-measured GDP, Ireland's GDP is 42.2% of Swiss and 400% of Lux's. So that population growth dividend isn't really working for us so far.

Chart 9:

Per capita GDP in current prices (Chart 10):

Chart 10:

• 2008 peaks in all three countries: Luxembourg=USD118,570.05, Ireland= USD60,510.00, Switzerland= USD68,433.12
• Peaks recovered by: Luxembourg= USD119,048.05 by the end of 2015, Ireland= USD60,729.66 by the end of 2019, Switzerland= USD69,838.79 by the end of 2010.
  

So it will take Ireland 9 more years to regain its income per capita 2007 levels, which were below those of Switzerland to begin with. Note: 2016-2020 forecast was performed assuming no recession between 2010 and 2019.

Of course, we were a stellar performer in terms of GDP growth prior to 2006. That's one fundamental where we did shine. But stripping out construction sector contribution in 2001-2007, we are not that spectacular (Chart 11)...

Chart 11:
The fourth and last post will conclude by making comparisons across other variables, such as inflation, population growth and labour markets.