09/07/2011: Construction Activity : Ireland 1980-2010

Rummaging through the Federal Reserve database, I came across a fascinating set of numbers on the number of construction permits issued in Ireland. These are based on index with 100=2005 level of activity.

• By the end of 2010, new dwelling construction activity has fallen from the high of 102.4 attained in 2004 to the low of 15.3.
• Year on year, 2010 activity was down 56.8%. 2010 marks a decline of 80.7% on 5 years ago, 80.6% decline on 10 years ago, 56.4% decline on 15 years ago, 26.1% decline on 20 years ago, 8.5% rise on 25 years ago and 58% decline on 30 years ago.
• The only sustained decline period - other than current - was 1983-1996 period, when activity dropped from 35.2 in 1983 to the trough of 12.8 in 1988 - 4 years of decline and the cumulative drop of 63.6% (much more benign that the current drop of 85.1% to the end of 2010). The recovery in that contraction took over 13 years.
  

So we had a cycle of over 17 years and if one were to count 1981 as a peak with 1982-1983 as a temporary bounce, then the last cycle took 19 years to unwind. Good luck to anyone still hoping for a return to "normal" unless your normal is pre-boom average activity at 51-52 or roughly a half of the construction activity in 2004-2005.

Here's the chart:

Economics 3/10/10: Construction sector - destruction continues

Nothing exemplifies the collapse of the Celtic Tiger than the fate of our indigenous 'flagship' sectors: Banking and Construction. The two fates, linked at the hip, got some very different treatment in the media this week. Banks received all the attention, yet Construction suffered a total neglect. Yet, last week CSO published Q2 2010 data for Construction sector.

Undoing any damage to the Construction sector's reputation as the 'leading newsflow' sector of Ireland Inc, let's update the data. Here are the charts, most of which, as often is the case, speak for themselves.

First volume and value in all sectors ex-Civil Engineering:
Next: Civil Engineering:
Interestingly, if you recall, since Budget 2009, this Government has consistently claimed that Ireland is getting a significant stimulus in the form of public investment - which, of course, in Government's parlance always means 'building stuff'. In fact, even after the imposition of the latest cuts in the Budget 2010, Civil Engineering spend (ok, investment) declined at the rates greater than the Government has planned for.

Residential and Non-Residential:
To see the real extent of our crisis in the Construction and Building sector, compare ourselves to the European counterparts:
And what about our previous claims that we don't belong to PIIGS?
What's amazing, of course is that despite this massive contraction, our housing and property markets continue to free-fall while employment in the sector continues to contract.

Economics 24/9/10: Double Dip is now official

With a slight delay - here are the latest figures from the Quarterly National Accounts released yesterday.

The headline number is GDP double dip - Q2 2010 posted a decline in real GDP of 1.2%, deeper than the decline in GNP (-0.3%), signaling weakening side of the external economy.
In constant market prices and seasonally adjusted, Q2 GDP stood at €41,130mln down 1.81% on Q2 2009 and -1.21% on Q12010. Cumulative H1 2010 GDP was 1.28% below H1 2009. Despite shallower contraction in GNP, domestic income has suffered a much deeper contraction in the year to date. Quarter on quarter contraction in GNP between Q1 2010 and Q2 2010 was 0.278%, year on year GNP fell 4.05% in Q2 2010. H1 2010 GNP was 4.42% below H1 2009.

Let's put this into a perspective. Over the course of H1 2010, Irish economy lost €3,087mln in income. Per latest QNHS, there were 1,859,100 people in employment in the country, which means that our economic loss in H1 2010 amounted to €1,660 per working person. Since H1 2007, our economic losses total €13,078mln or €7,035 per working person. Annualized losses in national income now run at roughly €14,000 per working person since the Great Recession began.

The gap between GDP and GNP has narrowed as a result of horrific performance of GDP:
The slight recovery in GDP/GNP gap is, of course of little comfort.

Core components by sectors:

Spending and investment remain depressed:

Economics 9/8/10: Ireland's Construction PMIs

This morning brought with it another bunch of wonderfully optimistic statements from the Irish 'experts' on business cycles.

Let's take in the facts:

• Ulster Banks’ Irish Construction PMI data released today showed moderating decline in Irish construction activity in July. PMI increased modestly from 44.9 in June to 45.0 in July which still means a contraction in activity.
  
• However, at 45.0 the 'improvement' in terms of slower rate of decline is within margin of error, at least one based on time series residuals (Ulster Bank won't tell us what the real underlying margin of error in PMI surveys for the sector is).
  
• So on the surface, contraction in activity is now "the slowest in three years". Which of course is only a natural statistical property - after 3 years of destruction raging across the sector, you'd get an asymptotic curve to 'stabilization', aka the bottom. This has absolutely nothing to do with any pending improvements.
  
• Residential sub-sector was the weakest, showing accelerating drop-off to 40.8 in July, from 45.4 in June. So housing continues to fall off the cliff.
  
• Commercial and civil engineering sub-sectors posted an 'improvement' in July - with the rate of collapse slowing from 45.8 to 46.0 (another statistically insignificant change) and to 43.6 form 38.4 respectively (clearly a statistically significant number). Again - the 'good news' here is a slowdown in the rate of the fall off, no real improvement.
  

The real spin stuff was, actually, in the interpretations concerning future expectations: "Future sentiment remained strongly positive in July, and improved slightly since the previous month, as over 40% of respondents expect activity to be higher in twelve months’ time."

You see, should the question have been 'Do ou expect any improvement in activity 10 years from now?' the 'improved' sentiment would have probably been even stronger.

Virtually identical analysis was presented by the Ulster Bank itself (here). Ulster Bank chief economist Simon Barry told the Irish Times that "index showed that conditions in the Irish construction sector remained “very tough”, with firms continuing to cut back sharply on their employment levels... [But] 'Looking forward, the July survey picked up a further improvement in confidence among Irish construction firms,' Mr Barry said. The rise in new business would provide “added encouragement”, he noted... 'As heartening as this development is, the increase is very modest indeed and it is probably more an indication of possible stabilisation in the sector at very weak levels rather than a strong recovery anytime soon.'"

This type of interpretation omits a very simple economic reality: after 38 months of contraction, the firms still remaining standing in for the survey are those that survived so far into the downturn. These same firms might have higher expectation of surviving into the near future as well. In other words, the entire PMI survey component suffers from survivorship bias. This bias may (or may not) be significant for several reasons:

1. Surviving firms might be biased on the optimism side because they expect to pick up a greater share of future public spending on construction due to declined competition. In other words, survivors might be looking forward to having an increased market share of a shrinking economic pie. Surely that wouldn't be indicative of 'stabilization'.
2. Surviving firms might also be collectively biased in their responses to the survey, if they have individual incentives to do so. For example, a number of Irish construction firms are currently under continued pressure from their banks. If each one of those firms were to make a signal to their lenders that 'things are going to improve soon, just wait a little longer', the resulting bias can be significant enough to induce higher optimism readings on the survey side. This is a significant enough effect in other sectors using surveys of expected future conditions to invalidate entire indices. One classical example involves surveys of expectations for future direction in Forex markets.
3. Surviving firms might also be selected on the basis of their actual exposure to the Irish market. For example - two leading surviving firms in the Irish construction sector are Kingspan and CRH. CRH derives only 4% of its revenue from Ireland and Kingspan's share of revenue accruing to Ireland is 7%. If firms are indeed selected into survivors group by their lower exposure to the Irish market, the question is then whether the expectations data they report is purely based on their perception of future trading conditions in Ireland or whether it is 'contaminated' by their reading of other markets.
   

What (1) and (3) above really suggest is that before we engage in interpreting the future expectations we need to rigorously check for a number of classical biases that might be present in the data. Only economists unaware of the hazards of interpreting survey based gauges of expectations would make the basic mistake of taking the number at their face value and interpreting them directly.

Alternatively, for a more crude correction, the survey results should not be interpreted independent of the quantitative data from contemporaneous PMI reading. In other words, one can make a conclusion that 'It is likely that in the near term there will be improvements in trading conditions in the sector' only if there are some contemporaneous signals of improvements and only if these signals are statistically strong enough.

This, of course is hardly the case, given that PMIs contemporaneous reading increased by just 0.1 from 44.9 to 45.0 - an increase that appears to be well within the margin of error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am looking forward to this report...

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

Rates of decline, degrees of (construction sector) misery

Earlier today (here), I gave some figures from the CSO data release on planning permissions. Here is what I wrote:

"Also per CSO release, the number of dwelling units approved was down 22.4% in year to the end of Q4 2008. In Q4 2008, planning permissions were granted for 10,375 houses as opposed to 13,135 in the Q4 2007, a decrease of 21%. Only 3,392 planning permissions were granted for apartment units, compared with 4,598 in Q4 2007, a decrease of 26.2%. The total number of planning permissions granted for all developments was 8,977, as compared to 12,330 in Q4 2007, a decrease of 27.2%. Dire stuff once again. I will do the detailed analysis of the sectoral decline dynamics in a follow up to this post."

So, as promised here are some graphs illustrating the dire state of affairs in construction industry.

First chart below shows two things:

1. Numbers of permissions granted (annual totals) for main categories of dwellings and in total - these are now clearly falling at the fastest annual rate;
2. Total area of all construction projects applied for is also falling at the fastest rate of decline.
   

Now, the next chart shows total number of permissions granted per quarter. Here, the most dramatic trend is also found in 2008, most specifically in Q3 and Q4 2008, when quarterly rates of decline in total number of permissions granted were the steepest for any quarter since Q3 2000. And the rates of decline are accelerating, relative to Q1-Q2 2008.
Lastly, more detailed quarterly date below, by each broader category of permits. I also included trend lines for the period of peak-to-present contractions, showing that Q4 2008 dynamics were consistent with generally accelerating deterioration in all categories of permits, save for 'Other'. This means that we can expect this category to actually fall further and faster in months to come.
So here you have it, for construction industry - there is no bottom in sight, yet...