10/06/2011: Industrial turnover and production - April 2011

Industrial Production and Turnover data was released today for April, indicating the overall activity in the manufacturing sector and the broadly defined sources of this activity.

In line with this, I went back and linked - re-based - 2006 and 2007 CSO data to current base to show some comparatives to pre-crisis dynamics.

Here are the highlights:

• Manufacturing activity was up 4.09% on annual basis, compared to April 2010. Monthly increase was 2.24%. However, Manufacturing activity was down 1.44% on 3 months ago and 4.16% on April 2007 (pre-crisis). The seasonally adjusted volume of industrial production for Manufacturing Industries for the 3mo period to April 2011 was 1.8% lower than in the preceding 3mo period
• All industries activity was up 1.32% mom and 2.67% yoy, but down 2.095% on 3 months ago and down 5.33% on April 2007.
• Modern Sectors posted a volume increase of 2.52% yoy and 1.41% increase mom. The activity in Modern Sectors is up 4.79% on April 2007, but is down 2.4% on 3mo ago.
• Traditional Sectors activity was up 1.39% yoy and 1.15% mom, but down 0.57% on 3mo ago and a whooping 18.05% on April 2007.
• It is interesting to note that Modern Sectors are positively correlated with Manufacturing output to the tune of 0.772 for the full sample (January 2006-present), but this correlation grew to 0.863 for the sub-sample covering the crisis (since January 2008) and continues to grow today - up to 0.926 for the sub-sample since January 2010.
  
• In terms of Modern Sectors influence on All Industries volumes, the same relationship holds, with full sample correlation of 0.713 rising to 0.812 for the crisis period and to 0.887 for the period since January 2010.
• The predominant role of Modern Sectors in driving Irish Industrial production is contrasted by a very modest role played by Traditional Sectors, where correlation with All Industries has declined from 0.416 in the full sample since January 2006, to 0.290 in the sub-sample covering the crisis since January 2008, to 0.142 for the sub-sample since January 2010.
  

Chart to illustrate:
Of course, the driving factors discussed above imply that:

• The collapse of construction and real estate investment exposed the extreme degree of indigenous industries dependence on these areas of economic activity;
• MNCs-dominated modern sectors, free of constraints of domestic demand, have been experiencing strong recovery. Manufacturing has regained pre-crisis peak of 109 (attained in 2007) back last year (reaching index reading of 110.1 for the year), which also pushed All Industries index a notch above pre-crisis peak. Modern Sectors have shot to new historic highs in 2010, reaching 124.7 index reading, compared to pre-crisis peak of 111.2 attained in 2007. It is worth noting that Modern Sectors have recovered from the recession back in 2009, having posted volume of production index reading of 112.7 - above the pre-crisis peak.
• These trends continued in April 2011, as CSO notes, since "the most significant changes [in Volume of Production Indices] were in the following sectors: Basic Pharmaceutical products and Preparations (+11.3%) and Beverages (9.9%)... The “Modern” Sector, comprising a number of high-technology and chemical sectors, showed an annual increase in production for April 2011 of 2.6% and a increase of 1.4% was recorded in the “Traditional” Sector.

Next, consider turnover indices:

• Turnover in Manufacturing sector in April registered index activity at 95.9, which is 3.01% above March activity and 3.45% above April 2010 activity. However, turnover is 4.29% below that recorded 3 mo ago and 14.40% below April 2007. The turnover in April was also lower than the turnover in any of the months from May 2010 through February 2011
  
• Turnover in Transportable Goods Industries posted index reading of 95.4, which was up 2.69% mom and 3.02% above April 2010 reading. The index was down 4.6% on 3 mo prior to April 2011 and 15.22% below April 2007 reading.
• This suggest that output sales conditions have improved mom (monthly changes in turnover exceed change in volumes), but are still down yoy.

Chart to illustrate:
Lastly, the above chart also shows new orders activity which has risen from 90.7 in March to 95.9 in April for all sectors. However, new orders activity remains slowest for any month since the end of April 2010 through February 2011. New orders index is therefore up 5.73% mom (good news) and 3.79% yoy (also good news), but it is still down 4.39% from 3 mo ago and is down 15.52% on April 2007.

Economics 24/12/10: Ireland's Trade Balance

With a slight delay, here is a deeper look into Ireland's trade performance through October.

First - exports and imports in levels:
Notice first that Imports are following steeply down-trending line, while Exports are trending flat and even slightly down over 2007-to-date period. Encouragingly, since May 2010, Exports are managing to stay well above their longer term trend line.

Summarized in the tables below, monthly and annual figures show clearly that significant gains in the trade balance are driven primarily by the continued declines in imports.


Hence, trade balance gains - impressive at +7.46% month on month and 11.95% in year on year terms:

At the same time, strong performance in Trade Balance is coming against the tide of adverse changes in the terms of trade: September marked the 4th consecutive month of deteriorating terms of trade, with a fall of 0.7% on August. Overall, since May 2010 terms of trade
have fallen by a cumulative 5.11% through September 2010. We can now expect this process to continue through October-November and cumulative May-October loss in terms of trade to rise to 5.9-6%.

It is worth taking a closer look at the relationships between trade balance components and terms of trade over the 2007-2010 period.

There is no statistical relationship between the level of exports and the terms of trade over 2007-2010 (through October). The relationship stands at y = 0.0175x + 7257.1, R2 = 1E-08. There is a relativeley weak, but strengthening relationship between trade balance and the terms of trade (as reflected in levels). In 2007-2009 data, terms of trade were able to explain roughly 0.32% of variation in the Trade Balance (y = 14.215x + 1385.2; R2 = 0.0032). Including data through October 2010 provides for much stronger explanatory power of 12.3% (y = 90.668x - 4989.4; R2 = 0.1228).

As chart below shows, correlation between levels of exports and imports has reversed sign in 10 months through October 2010 (to – 0.1458) compared with the first 10 months of 2009 (+0.3264). In longer terms, 2007-May 2010 data implied relationship between the levels of exports and imports was: y = 0.3266x + 5726.9; with a strong R2 = 0.2171. Adding data through October 2010: y = 0.1953x + 6398.5 and lower R2 = 0.0802.

Looking at the annual data:

Using annual data for 1990-2010 (where 2010 is my forecast values) we have weak relationships between growth rates in imports, exports and trade balance as a function of terms of trade changes. My full year 2010 forecasts are: Imports value €43,506mln, Exports value €85,209mln and Trade Balance of €41,703mln. This represents a forecast of 3.4% drop year on year in imports, 2.02% rise in exports and a jump of 8.4% in trade balance.

All of this data clearly suggests accelerated process of transfer pricing by profit-generative MNCs during the 2010 period. In fact, looking at log-relationships, growth in the trade balance is currently being explained by faster shrinking imports than the changes in exports. Coupled with deteriorating terms of trade, we have strong suggestion that our trade performance is being sustained primarily by the MNCs driving through strong expansion of profit-booking transfer pricing.

Of course, one should remember that whether due to transfer pricing or organic exports growth or - as indeed is the case, both - the improving Trade Balance is about the only positive news we can count on in 2010.

Economics 25/9/10: Accounting for our exports

Quarterly national Accounts offer a rich set of data. Listening to all the talk about turnarounds and Government policies, I wondered -

• We know that Irish Government has little to do with our exports, which are largely determined by demand outside Ireland over which our leaders have no control;
• Exports have been performing strongly over the recession
• Exports, net of imports enter both GDP and GNP figures

So a natural question from my point of view was: "Absent net exports, how badly was our economy hit by the Great Recession?"

Here are the charts, taking our GDP and GNP (seasonally adjusted, expressed in current market prices) and subtracting net exports (exports less imports).
And same in terms of year on year growth rates:
Now, let's put together our growth rates for GDP and GNP ex-net Exports and standard GDP and GNP growth rates (gross of net exports, expressed as before in current market prices, with seasonal adjustments):
To me, this paints a pretty clear picture. Given that the Government has provided virtually no supports for our exporters, the gap between each solid line and each dashed line shows the true extent of net exports contribution to growth in GDP and GNP. And this gap also shows that the economy more directly controlled by the Government has been tanking at a much steeper rate than the economy which includes our exporting firms.

Let's put a cumulative figure to this same picture:
So in those parts of Irish economy where our Leaders had a say (red) we have suffered a decline in domestic income of cumulative 34.35% since 2007. In economy which includes the part which our Leaders have very little control over, the decline was 23.7%. One wonders if there is any truth whatsoever to the leadership claims on economic policy front we've been hearing in recent days?..

Boardrooms in denial: McKinsey study & Ireland Inc

McKinsey has done some homework and published impressive findings on the issue of corporate leadership in the current downturn. You can get the article here, if you have access to the Quarterly, but below are some main findings.

"While half of board members describe their boards as effective in managing the crisis, just over a third say their boards have not been effective; 14 percent aren’t sure how to rate their boards’ effectiveness. At the personal level, roughly half of corporate directors say their boards’ chairs haven’t met the demands of the crisis, and a nearly equal percentage of board chairs believe the same about their board members. Though most boards have implemented various changes to their procedures in response to the crisis, 62 percent say their boards need to change even more." Chart below (courtesy of McKinsey) illustrates.Now, we all by now can be counted as the slaves of 'innovation' fad - the trend in modern management and policy to label every strategy change an 'innovation', but what McKinsey data shows, strategy is still the king when it comes to responding to changing environments.

"Innovative strategies are the key when corporate directors evaluate their boards’ responses. Among the group who say their boards have been effective in responding to the crisis, 60 percent credit the development of new strategies to manage risk and take advantage of new opportunities (chart below). That same area of management is most frequently cited as lacking among respondents at companies with ineffective boards. (This finding is consistent with the results of another recent survey, in which executives said support for innovation should be the overall focus of governments’ actions in response to the crisis.) Other areas that have been addressed by many effective boards are financing and operational needs; at unsuccessful companies, respondents say their boards have been particularly ineffective at tackling talent management and restructuring."
So let me ask you this question. Since November 2008 I spent inordinate amount of time and effort trying to convince some of our top organizations and companies - amongst hardest hit by the current uncertainty in the markets - to set up some formal research function to evaluate various strategic responses to the crisis that they can adopt. The structures I have been proposing are pretty much in line with those summarized by the McKinsey below:
Not a single Irish corporate took up my challenge. Majority of our corporate leaders are sitting on their hands, in words of Leonard Cohen 'Waiting for the miracle to come". But don't take my word for it - here is hard data on the issue.

Here is the truth - 'miracle' ain't coming, folks. Wake up and smell the roses - if you your board/CEO assessments of counterparty contributions is anywhere close to what McKinsey reports, you are screwed. Your corporate structure is rotten from the head down and you need to do an independent appraisal of it from the head down. Waiting around for 'miracles' is not going to do it.

Irish Boardrooms in Denial

This is an unedited version of the article published in Business&Finance Magazine, February 26, 2009, pages 30-31

Almost a year ago, I warned in this column that Irish companies are going to face a tough recession, with rising bad debts, tighter payments collections and accelerating rate of insolvencies. A recession that is likely to last through 2009 and a good half of 2010. Figures for 2008 show us on track to fulfil these predictions with more than doubling of the number of corporate insolvencies in one year. By all possible indications, 2009 is going to be even tougher than the already abysmal 2008. And yet, when it comes to a realistic assessment of business conditions there is a strange sense of denial of reality taking hold in Irish boardrooms.

First consider recent evidence. Two weeks ago, CSO recorded the first drop in industrial output in Ireland since 1982. A combination of collapsed construction sector activity, decimated domestic consumer spending and ever-shrinking global demand, exacerbated by the overvalued Euro all have contributed to this trend. Even more significantly, these forces’ impact on Irish producers, exporters and service providers is getting stronger by the day.

Exporters under pressure
2008 slowdown in output was primarily due to traditional sectors of the economy – down 4.7% in y-o-y terms, with multinational companies expanding their production by an anaemic 1.7%. There is little hope that this latter trend will not continue through 2009 and into a good part of 2010. More ominously, December figures show broadly based collapse in industrial activity with output contracting by more than 10% m-o-m in both multinational sector and amongst domestic companies. 26 out of 29 broader industry categories recorded contractions in output. Figure below highlights this, while removing some of the seasonal volatility.
Source: CSO

This is broadly in line with international experience. Last week figures showed that in 2008 Europe posted its biggest trade deficit in 10 years – a whooping €32.1bn. This marked a deterioration in the trade balance to the tune of €48bn in y-o-y terms. According to the majority of the analysts, coming months will see severe recessionary pressures for eurozone exporters. Irish exports are particularly vulnerable, given the falling consumer demand and business investment activity in the US and UK, as well as in the emerging countries. Exports to the UK, the main destination for the region’s products, dropped 3 percent in the 11 months through November 2008. Exports to the US, the second-biggest buyer of euro area goods, fell 5 percent. In the case of Ireland, the two countries account for more than 36% of the goods exports flow by value and some 50% of all Irish trade is linked to either the Dollar or Pound Sterling.

The end result – our core industrial exports are facing a decline, as illustrated in the figure below, precisely at the time of already collapsed domestic consumption. Our services exports are also facing decline with financial services and tourism struggling to stay afloat, while broader business services exports are feeling the same pressures of currency overvaluation and high cost of credit as our goods trade.Source: CSO

The expectations are that the 2008 growth sectors – ICT and pharma – might be also hard hit by a slowdown in global demand this year. In particular, ICT is sensitive to households and business investment demand. Lack of new investment in plant and equipment, software and operating systems in the US and across Europe is taking its toll on the likes of Dell, Intel and smaller hardware and software suppliers. By all estimates, this sector is not going to see a significant recovery until the earliest second half of 2009. Dell alone accounts for some 6.5% of Irish exports.

At the same time, pharma sector is likely to face mounting cost pressures in the US, a significant decline in demand for higher-end drugs from the emerging economies, plus a stronger generics competition. A recent study by the International Pharmaceutical Policy Council has shown that traditional pharma and bio-pharma sectors are facing significant cuts in research spending and employment, with recession undercutting public and private spending on universities-affiliated research. In the mean time, last week, Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the world's largest maker of generic drugs, said it expects the deepening global recession to spur demand for generics – bad news for the likes of Big Pharma that dominate Ireland’s exports statistics. In other words, even the so-called ‘recession-proof’ pharma companies are starting to feel the heat.

Yet to face the music
Which brings us back to the corporate boardrooms perceptions of the near term future. Last week’s InterTradeIreland Quarterly Business Monitor sheds some light here.

A comprehensive survey of some 1,000 companies north and south of the border has revealed that businesses are more pragmatic in their assessment of the past than they are about the future. In other words, Irish companies are feeling the pain, but are potentially deluding themselves into believing that the first half of 2009 will turn out to be economically stronger than the consensus forecast predicts.

In terms of the current conditions, roughly four out of five businesses indicated that they have experienced an adverse impact on trading conditions in recent months. This is hardly surprising, given that the biggest problems reported by business leaders were impacting their core parameters: tighter cash flow (68%) and decline in demand (66%). Some 87% of businesses noted a fall-off in consumer spending. 61% of the Republic of Ireland businesses saw a fall in turnover as opposed to 44% in the North.

Nonetheless, when asked which policies the Government can undertake to help business,
• 27% cited the need for improving access to borrowing (most likely indicative of the severe pressures on debt-laden businesses to raise new credit and roll over maturing short-term debt),
• 9% called for reduced levels of VAT and 7% for reduced taxation,
• 7% named assistance for SMEs, and 6% identified financial assistance for distressed companies.
The low numbers supporting consumer confidence improving tax reductions measures suggests that majority of businesses are not perceiving the current downturn to be demand-driven. Instead, there seem to be a much stronger conviction that the recession is a function of the credit cycle. Yet, 61% of business in the South (as opposed to 44% of those in the North) reported declining turnover.

Do the companies underestimate the extent of the collapse in consumer confidence at home, demand for exports abroad and the extent of their exposure to debt markets? Judging by the main policy priorities listed above, the answer is yes. The same answer is supported by the fact that few companies so far have taken significant cost-cutting measures. Only 30% of the Republic of Ireland companies (19% in the North) have reduced their workforce to the end of 2008. This is reflective of the fact that just 18% of businesses expected the downturn to have a severe adverse impact on their business in the next 12 months. Majority (63%) still think that this recession will be a moderate and short-lasting one.

And this is despite the fact that forecasters virtually unanimously predict 2009 to be worse than 2008 when it comes to trading conditions. For example, McKinsey Global Economic Conditions Survey last month has shown that 71% of global businesses expected general conditions to worsen in Q1 2009.

Chart below shows that Irish business leaders pessimism about the future has increased only marginally between the end of 2007 and the end of last year, despite the rapid deterioration in Irish economic conditions.

Potential Impact of Economic Downturn, 12 months forward
Source: InterTradeIreland, 2009

Optimism amongst businesses, although having abated in 2008, remains relatively high. Only 39% of all Irish businesses anticipate a decrease in turnover in Q1 2009 as opposed to 52% of global businesses in McKinsey survey. Similarly, for profitability – only 35% of Irish businesses expect a decline in profitability in Q1 2009, against 67% for the global sample.

Thus, only 14% of businesses across the island (18% in the Republic of Ireland) expected more layoffs and redundancies in Q1 2009. This is well below 29% of the global sample firms that were planning layoffs for this quarter.

In short, consistent with the findings on employment, turnover and profitability, the Intertrade Ireland results suggest that Irish businesses, both sides of the border, expect a mild recession to last no longer than 6-8 months. At the same time, global business leaders expect “a battered but resilient economy …[that] implies a recession of 18 months or so”, much in tune with the forecasts by the EU, IMF and the OECD. One side of the sea is clearly foolin itself here…

Box-out: IFSC Liabilities

A research note from the Davy Stockbrokers last week attempted to clarify the issue of the banking sector liabilities in Ireland. According to the Bank for International Settlements data, in Q3 2008 banking liabilities of the Irish-owned banks totaled €575bn, or 309% of GDP – the third-highest in the euro area. The Irish government has guaranteed €440bn (or 237% of GDP) of this. At the same time, the liabilities of all financial institutions resident in Ireland were €1,424bn, or 839% of GDP. But €849bn of that “…is not in any way a liability of the Irish government,” says the Davy note.

Well, sort of. €849bn might not be a liability under the Government guarantee scheme (although it remains to be seen how the foreign banks deposits and loans by and to Irish residents will be treated in the case of default) but from the economy’s point of view – some share of the €849bn debt represents a potential risk exposure for the state.

Here is how. Recall the good old days when our country leaders trotted the globe telling everyone that IFSC is a flagship of our knowledge-based modern economy? How come we now conveniently shrug off any liability inherent in having IFSC on our soil? IFSC is an asset to Ireland: a major contributor to the exchequer, a large employer of Irish workers and a significant purchaser of associated business services, including the services of the stockbrokers.

Now, imagine if excess debt exposure of IFSC-based companies was to drive them out of business. Where would that leave the State, not to mention the economy? A rough guess – ca €700mln in Exchequer revenue, plus the returns from employment of ca 20,000 people, plus commercial rents returns and VAT returns due to business activity. The total state take from the IFSC can easily exceed €1.5bn. If the risk of losing this dough is not a liability for the Irish state, what is?

Davy is correct in the strict sense of listing the actual figures. However, ignoring the IFSC-held liabilities creates an illusion that somehow Ireland Inc is independent of what is happening in the Docklands and beyond. It is not. Just as in good times we reaped the benefits of the IFSc, we must, at the time of challenges acknowledge its liabilities as being at least in part our own.

BofE Rate Cut

In a historic move today, Bank of England cut interest rates below 2% for the first time in its 314 year history. This took the UK benchmark rate to 1.5% with the statement issued by the Board referring to the emergence of a deepening synchronized global economic crisis.

As a continuation of the theme we've picked up earlier (see here, and here), the statement also confirmed that credit availability for UK households and corporates continues to tighten, despite historically low interest rates, "pointing to the need for further measures to increase the flow of lending to the non-financial sector".

Unless the ECB carries out a matching 50bps cut in its benchmark rate, expect renewed devaluation of GBP vis-a-vis Euro (see figure below) with last year's highs in the range of EUR/GBP0.93-0.95 back in sight.The latest strengthening in GBP, just as in the case of US financial markets, is likely to remain in a classic bear rally until there is a pronounced change in underlying economic fundamentals, possibly around Q3 2009. Before then, however, there is more room for downward corrections than for an upward momentum implying that GBP will remain weak and volatile against the Euro in the interim, with GBP/EUR parity remaining a distinct possibility. The picture is only marginally better for the USD...

Such a prospect would be of serious concern to Irish exporters, to the economic theory buffs with a (healthy) obsession with stability of the GBP, and to those, planning an escape route out of Ireland Inc and into 'dollarized' world...