20/12/2011: IMF IV Review of Ireland Programme: part 2

This continues my review of the IMF's 4th review of Ireland. The previous post (here) covered the findings concerning mortgages arrears and property markets.


"Budget execution remains on track despite weakness in revenues linked to domestic demand. ...Excluding net banking sector support costs, the January–October Exchequer primary deficit was €12.1 billion, 0.8 percentage points of GDP narrower than the authorities’ profile after allowing for the impact of the Jobs Initiative introduced in May 2011." [In other words, folks, allowing for pensions levy hit]

"The smaller deficit primarily reflects tight expenditure control; net current spending undershot budgetary allocation by 1.6 percent (0.4 percent of GDP), while capital spending was below profile by 17.2 percent (0.8 percent of GDP)." [This further shows that the smallest positive impact on deficit was derived from the largest area of expenditure - current spending, with capital spending cuts acting as the main driver, once again, of budgetary adjustment. This, of course, has been highlighted by me on numerous occasions.]

"Overall revenues remained on track, with shortfalls in taxes such as VAT due to weak domestic demand offset by higher than budgeted non-tax revenues, such as bank guarantee fees." [That's right, folks, one-off hits on income and wealth are 'compensating' for tax revenues fall-off in income tax, VAT and corporation tax. Again, keep in mind that IMF analysis is based on data that excludes the largest revenue generating month of November.]

But here's an interesting note: "The cumulative Exchequer primary balance through end-September 2011 was -€18.3 billion, above the adjusted target of -€20.2 billion. Central government net debt was €111.7 billion, below the adjusted indicative target of €115.9 billion" [One might ask the following question, is that target of €115.9bn - set in December 2010 - reflects the €3.6bn error found in Q3 2011? If not, then, of course, our 'outperformance of the target shrinks to a virtually irrelevant €500mln which, itself, can be fully covered by capital expenditure shortfall on the target mentioned above. In other words, when all is factored in, are we really outperforming the target set, or are we simply overestimating the target and ignoring expected spending?]

The IMF catches up to that:
"Program ceilings for fiscal indicators at end-2011 are expected to be observed. Although spending will pick up toward year-end, and a funding need of 0.2 percent of GDP is expected in relation to the failure of a private insurance company, the end-December performance criterion is projected to be achieved."
[In other words, the State will have to cover €300mln of Quinn Insurance losses in 2011 and then another €400mln of same in 2012. Alas, due to the accounting trick, since these losses will be recovered by the State through an insurance levy - to be paid by the completely innocent dopes (aka, us, consumers of insurance products in Ireland), the whole thing is not counted as Government debt, even though the State will be borrowing these funds.]

"Similarly, the general government deficit is projected at 10.3 percent of GDP, within the European Council’s ceiling of 10.6 percent of GDP. The 2011 consolidation package of €5.3 billion (3.4 percent of GDP) is expected to reduce the primary deficit to 6.7 percent of GDP, representing a €3.1 billion (2 percent of GDP) year-on-year reduction." [Now, note the maths - 6.7% primary deficit remains to be closed before we can begin net debt repayments. Last year, we've closed - and that is based on pre-November 2011 pretty disastrous numbers - 2%, so 2/9th down, 7/9th still to go, roughly-speaking]

Crucially: "The realized increase in the primary balance will thus likely amount to only about three-fifths of the consolidation effort, which reflects the adverse impact of the contraction in domestic demand and the rise in unemployment, highlighting the challenge of implementing large fiscal consolidations when growth is weak." [Here's what this means - due to the adverse effects of lower growth and higher unemployment, some 40% of this year's adjustment has gone on fighting the rising tide of economic crisis, not on structural rebalancing of fiscal deficit. In other words, if this situation of fiscal targets set against unrealistic expectations for growth were to continue in 2012 and through 2015, we will get a deficit to GDP ratio of closer to 5.5-6% not 2.9% as envisaged. Now, think about this in the following terms - Budget 2012 assumes growth of 1.3% next year - although I have some questions as to whether that is indeed the number, given that a day before the Budget 2012 was published, the Department of Finance quoted the figure of 1.6% - and the expectations of ESRI, OECD, the EU Commission and the IMF are now for 0.9-1%... hmmm... realistic expectations, targets and outcomes risks are now pretty clear...]

As is, the IMF report shows progress achieved. But it also raises a number of questions:

• Is this progress - 2% adjustment of which 2/5ths are simply gone to cover lost ground - sufficient?
• Is this progress sustainable (see next post)?
• Is this progress being achieved through structural reforms (current spending cuts and sustainable revenue raising) or through capital expenditure cuts and one-off tax measures?

The following post will cover the IMF analysis of the future outlook for the Irish economy.

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?

05/07/2011: Irish Exchequer Expenditure: H1 2011

Previous posts on the H1 2011 Exchequer results covered Exchequer balance, Tax Burden composition, and Exchequer Receipts. This post will cover Exchequer Expenditure side of the balance sheet.

Please note: cross annual comparisons are distorted by the changes in departments compositions and remits. Nothing we can do about this.

Top level numbers for H1 2011.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (accounting for 1.8% of the total Net Voted Expenditure - NVE) spending stood at €388 million in H1 2011, down 28.9% on the same period for 2008 and down €79 million or 16% yoy, though all of the savings came from the capital side, with current spending up €87 million yoy (+44%).

Art, Heritage & Gaeltacht (0.5% of total NVE) managed to spend €108 million in H1 2011, down 67.3% on 2008. Spending here is down 68% yoy (saving €158 million) with most of savings coming from the current side, although in proportional terms capital savings are on par with current savings.

Communications, Energy & Natural Resources (0.4% of NVE) spending in H1 2011 was €98 million, up €13 million (+15%) on 2010. Increases in spending took place on current side (+€11 million or 28%) and capital side (+€2 million or 4%). Relative to H1 2008 spending is down 14.9% which is 7th lowest rate of savings amongst the departments.

Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (0.5 of NVE) - no, don't ask me why is Gaeltacht having itself spread over 2 departments - spent €105 million, down €79 million (-43%) yoy. This time around, most of the savings in volume came from the current spending side, but in relative terms, capital spending is down 77% while current spending is down 36% yoy. Department spending has fallen 53.9% on comparable period in 2008.

Defence (1.9% of NVE) spent €419 million, which is down 13% on comparable period in 2008, making the department 6th lowest saver in the entire voted expenditure set. Department spending was up €4 million yoy with all of the increase accounted for by current spending.

Education and Skills spent €4,066 million in H1 2011 which is €171 million above H1 2010. Capital side increased by €59 million (+58% yoy) and current side was up €113 million (+3%) yoy. The department is the third largest of all Government Departments, accounting for 18.6% of NVE. Overall austerity has resulted in a 4.8% decrease in Department spending through H1 2011 compared to H1 2008, making the level of savings achieved the fourth lowest of all departments.


Jobs, Enterprise, Trade & Innovation (1.5% NVE) spent €336 million in H1 2011, down 48% on H1 2008. Compared to H1 2010, department spending fell €219 million (39% drop yoy) with current spending falling €245 million (-62%), while capital spending rose €26 million (+16%). Much of the capital side increases across the departments is attributable to the timing of spending with previous Government actively delaying paying on capital projects until later in the year. At least, with the current Government, contractors might be getting paid more on-time for their work.

Environment, Community & Local Government (2.6% of NVE) spent €561 million in H1 2011, down 52.8% on H1 2008. Spending was down €200 million yoy (-26%) with capital savings of €119 million (-32%) and current savings of €81 million (-21%).

Finance (2.3% NVE) managed to spend €510 million in H1 2011, down 20.3% on 2008 and achieving savings of a miserly €4 million yoy, with €20 million saved on current spending side and a deficit on 2010 of €16 million on capital side.

Foreign Affairs and Trade (1.6% of NVE) spending of €342 million is down €61 million (-15%) yoy, with €59 million of the savings coming from the current side. Relative to H1 2008, current year performance is delivering savings of 29.7%.

Health (the largest of all departments, with 30.9% of NVE, although Social Protection is coming close second and is bound to overtake Health by year end) spent €6,757 million in H1 2011, up a massive €666 million yoy of which €662 million came from the current spending side. With all of this, Health spending is now down 0.8% on H1 2008. The figures are obviously distorted by the introduction of USC, but as of H1 2011, the department has achieved 3rd lowest rate of savings of all departments.

Another billionaire department: Justice & Equality (4.9% of NVE) had total spending of €1,081 million in H1 2011, up €32 million on H1 2010 (+3%), with deficit coming at €56 million on current side, offset by savings of €24 million on capital side. Department spending is down 12.2% on H1 2008 - 5th lowest rate of savings across all Departments.

Social Protection (soon to be the largest spending department in Ireland but in H1 2011 accounting for 29.8% of NVE) spent €6,517 million - up 10% or €589 million yoy, with €587 million of this increase coming from the current side. Compared to H1 2008, H1 2011 spending rose 49.5% making it the worst performing department when it comes to savings.

Taoiseach (0.5% NVE) came with a bill of €108 million in H1 2011, which was 23.1% above comparable period in 2008. More than that, the department managed to increase its spending on 2010 as well, with cost rising by €20 million (+29%) yoy all of which came from current spending increases.

Transport, Tourism & Sport spending of €593 million in H1 2011 was 187 million down on H1 2010 (-24%) with savings of €240 million achieved on capital side and current side yielding an overrun of €53 million on 2010. The department accounts for 2.9% of NVE and spending here is down 53.8% on H1 2008.

So the top of the line numbers are: in H1 2011 Total Net Cumulative Voted Spending stood at €21,898 million or which €20,547 million were accounted for by current spending and €1,351 million by capital spending. Overall expenditure is now €399 million above H1 2010 (no sign of austerity here, if anything, spending just rolls on at the aggregate) - an overspend of 1.9%. On Current expenditure side things are even more 'boomish' with overspend relative to 2010 at €892 million (+4.5%). Capital took another hit of real austerity with spending here coming €493 million below H1 2010 (-26.8%).
The above clearly shows that while austerity has caused some real pain in specific departments, it has not been successful in reducing total spending. This is even more worrisome, when one recognizes that by now, capital account has been drained with no sizable potential future savings to be achieved on this side. On the current expenditure side, austerity so far has meant taking spending on one side of the Exchequer shopping list and spending it on the other. One way or the other, this is not austerity, folks. It's reallocation of expenditure priorities.

Now, recall, in H1 2011 we spent total of €21,898 million. That is just €804.5 million in savings relative to H1 2008 (or 3.54% improvement) - after 3 austerity budgets!

So what do these figures look like in dynamic setting - month-to-month?
And where do we take money from and reallocate to?
No need for another comment here.

Economics 6/11/10: Private sector response to DofF estimates

Yesterday’s morning note from Eurointelligence.com – a politically neutral economics site read: “A really bad day for European peripheral bond markets, as market participants realise that the Irish recovery plan is a pile of baloney, based on wishful thinking and unrealistic forecasts (which are shocking also believed by private sector forecasters in Ireland). The assumption is essentially that the crisis has no real GDP effect. This is the Irish government’s official forecast for the growth, inflation and unemployment for the next four years, contained in the Irish budget plan."

Summary here:

Their analysis is illustrated by a chart from Calculated Risk showing scary dynamics:


But the ‘happy-to-parrot DofF’ quasi-official analysts of IRL Inc took a different view of the numbers. So was Eurointelligence right in being sarcastic about ‘private sector forecasters’ misfiring in their enthusiasm for DofF numbers?

Per one ‘research note’ Irish deficit problems are attributable, at least this year, to things like ‘decrease in GDP’ (apparently, something no one could have foreseen). And palatable comparisons are being made between the UK adjustments planned ahead (less than 6% of GDP over next 5 years) and Irish adjustments envisioned by DofF (9.5% of GDP through 2014), without actually bothering to check what’s happening between Euro and Sterling lately, or possibly worse – without understanding the relationship between currency value and deficits.

One of our most cheerleading ‘analysts’ remarked that markets “may take some consolation from the depth of next year's adjustment, which is at the high end of expectations” obviously confusing their own sales pitch to the clients with the market view. Markets promptly corrected this by bidding up our bond yields.

Defending DofF ‘forecasts’ was done on a reference to a single figure that almost matches this broker’s view and a claim that we can’t really tell much about their realism because there isn’t enough detail provided by DofF. It sounds like an argument that famines are caused by the lack of food. The entire point of the DofF 'forecasts' was to provide certainty. The fact that the Department failed to do so escaped the broker.

Funny thing – the same broker lauded the details provided on interest payments from the recapitalization promissory notes. “The general government balance will reflect no promissory interest charge until 2013, when the charge will be €1.75bn for two years, reducing thereafter. Alleviating uncertainty around these charges is a positive but also reinforces the reality of a challenging fiscal situation.” Alleviating uncertainty? Did anyone notice the fact that DofF is projecting forward 4.7% interest rate – the average for 2009 – despite the fact that the entire universe expects ECB rates to rise by 2013? You’d expect the brokers to understand that no yield curve in this world remains flat for 5 years. Then again, may be this is not something our official ‘economists’ are aware of.

Another broker produced an equally priceless analysis: “The revised forecast [of 1.75% real growth next year] is below the median projection of 2.0% growth in the latest Reuters monthly Irish economists’ poll.” Oh, mighty, that wouldn’t be the same economists’ poll that missed the Great Recession and predicted soft landing for the property markets, failed to detect the beginning of collapse in Exchequer revenues and spot a market crash. Oh, and just in case you still doubt the powers of the Reuters ‘Irish economists’ poll’ – the poll covers only the 'economists' who thought Irish banks shares back in 2007 were not overvalued and Anglo was a great little bank besieged by bad short-sellers…

About the only research note on Irish Government announcement that didn’t cause a severe tooth-ache like reaction when I read them was NCB’s note.

The prize for the least readable (and least informative) commentary goes to Goodbody’s note, which spots a host of typos, grammatical errors, confusion and absolutely ludicrous assertions that “recent bond market jitters have been caused by factors outside of Ireland’s control, namely the fear that some European nations are considering a mechanism for restructuring of euro-area member’s sovereign debt at some stage in the future.” I mean what can you make of an ‘economics’ analysis that claims that ‘factors outside’ country control can override the fact that we have 32% deficit this year?! To me, it looks like a worldview which would miss a nuclear blast for a match strike.

Economics 4/11/10: Early DofF Estimates for Budget 2011

DofF has published some preliminary projections for Budget 2011 tonight, titled "Information Note
on the Economic and Budgetary Outlook 2011 – 2014 (in advance of the publication of the Government’s Four-Year Budgetary Plan)". Catchy, isn't it?

Here's my high-level read through:

1) pages 2-3 (note DofF couldn't even number actual pages in the document) present some rosy scenarios concerning growth. Most notably, DofF doesn't seem to think that Dollar is going to devalue against the Euro significantly in 2011. As if QE2 will have no effect or will be offset, under DofF expectations by a QETrichet. This is non-trivial, of course. Price of oil is expected to rise by 10.4% over 2011, but dollar will devalue by just 3.7% and sterling by 2.3%. Absent robust demand growth (per DofF-mentioned global slowdown) what would drive oil up at a rate more than 4 times dollar devaluation? This is non-trivial - any devaluation of sterling and dollar will impact adversely our exports and will increase our imports bills, chipping at GDP and GNP from both ends.

2) "in overall terms, real GDP is projected to increase by 1¾% next year (GNP by 1%). This takes account of budgetary adjustments amounting to €6 billion, which are estimated to reduce the rate of growth by somewhere in the region of 1½ - 2 percentage points. Nominal GDP is set to grow by 2.5% in 2011, implying a GDP price deflator of ¾%." Errr... ok, I can buy into low inflation, but... folks - DofF is talking tough budget. which will mean inflation on state-controlled sectors is going to be rampant. To keep total inflation at just 0.75%, you have to get either a strong revaluation of the euro (ain't there, as we've seen in (1)) or a strong deflation in the private sectors (possible, but if so, what would that do to Exchequer returns and to domestic activity? Interestingly, DofF refer to HICP, not CPI when they talk about moderate inflation of 3/4%. Of course, they wouldn't dare touch upon the prospects of our banks skinning their customers (err... also shareholders, rescuers etc) with mortgage costs hikes.

3) Now, consider that 1.75% growth in real GDP and 1% growth in GNP. Where, exactly will this come from? IMF projection for WEO October 2010 (before Government latest adjustment in deficit announcement) factored in 2.277% growth in constant prices GDP for 2011. DoF says that the reduction in Government consumption will amount to 1.2-2% point in the rate of growth. This is, I assume, before factoring in second order effects of higher taxation measures - just a brutal cut. So IMF, less DofF estimate leads to growth rate of 0.227-1.077%, which is less than what DofF assumes. Of course, that range - with a mid-point of 0.652% still does not capture the adverse effects of increased taxes and other charges, which - if we are to take €6bn headline figure for deficit reductions, applying 1.2-2% of GDP net adjustment on expected Government consumption side and factoring in stabilizers of 20% implies that DofF is aiming to get well in excess of €1.9-3bn in new revenues in 2011. Of these, maximum of €1.1-1.2 billion can be expected to arise from DofF forecast growth, leaving €0.8-1.9bn to be raised from tax increases and other charges. Apart from being optimistic, it does look to me like DofF didn't factor the effects of this into their growth projections.

4) About the only realistic assumption that DofF makes is that investment will contract by far less next year than in 2010. The reason is simple - stuff is going to start falling apart in private sector, so companies will have to replace some of the capital stock sooner or later. I can tell from here whether investment will fall 6% (as DofF assume) or 10%, but I doubt there is much upside from DofF assumption. The problem is that if you expect investment goods decline to be reversed on plant and machinery side (continuing to allow for investment to fall further on housing and construction sides) you are going to get an increase in imports, as we import much of equipment we use. So I suspect imports are going to rise more than 2.75% that DofF factored into their estimates.

5) I also think DofF are too optimistic on the employment contraction side. The Department assumes -0.25% change in overall employment levels in the Republic. I would say that several longer term trends are going to push this deeper into the red: pharma sector restructuring, continued shutting down of MNCs-led manufacturing, declines in public contracts etc.

6) All of the above is crucial, as per Table 3 we can see that even with the €6bn taken out, 2011 Exchequer balance will be exactly the same as in 2010: €19.25bn deficit in cash terms. In other words, folks - of the total €6bn in cuts almost €3.1bn will go to cover... errr... you've guessed it - BANKS! another €1.25bn to cover interest on the BANKS rescue notes (net under Non-voted expenditure). More bizarre, unless you understand our Government's logic, which escapes me - our Current Expenditure will not fall next year at all. Instead it will rise from €47.25bn in 2010 to €49.75bn in 2011, while Current Revenue will fall by €500mln, leaving our Current Budget Balance at -€16.25bn - deeper than -€13.5bn achieved this year. Under this arithmetic, the only way this Government can claim that it will be on any track in the general direction of 3% deficit by 2014 is by building in some mighty optimistic assumptions on growth side, plus projecting no further demands for funding from the banks.

7) Now, let me touch upon the last part of the concluding sentence in (6) above. Oh, boy. The Government, therefore is reliant on €31bn in promisory notes to cover the entire rescue of the banking sector. Yet, not reflected in any of DofF estimates, AIB's latest failure to raise requisite capital is likely to cost this Government additional €2bn on top of already promised funds. Toss into the mix expected losses for 2011-2012 on all banks balancesheets, and you get pretty quickly into high figures. Let's suppose that the whole banking sector will cost the state ca €60bn (this is well below my estimate of 67-70bn, Peter Mathews' estimate of 66.5bn, etc). The state will be on the hook for some €29bn more in 'promisory' notes. Suppose none are redeemed and no new borrowing against them takes place. The gross cost per annum of these notes will be roughly at least what DofF estimated for €31bn or €150mln in 2011, while the borrowing requirement for the state will have to go up by €2.9billion annually (if structured as previous promisory notes).

Overall, I have significant doubts that the numbers presented in these early estimates will survive the test of reality. However, the Department of Finance seemed to have gotten slightly more realistic in these estimates, when compared to the stuff produced a year ago. It remains to be seen if the learning curve is steep enough to get them to reach full realism by the Budget 2011 day.

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.