30/4/2013: Irish chart that worries me most

The chart that bothers me most in Irish context is:

This shows the structural nature of the growth slowdown in Ireland in post-2007 period (based on IMF forecasts through 2018). The period of this slowdown is consistent with the growth rates recorded in the 1980s. And here's the summary of decade-average real GDP growth rates:

Now, keep in mind, in the 1980s and 1990s, Irish growth was driven by a combination of domestic drivers, plus external demand, primarily and predominantly in the goods exports areas. Which means that more of our GDP actually had real impact on the ground in Ireland. Since the onset of the crisis, most of our growth has been driven by the growth in exports of services, which have far less tangible impact on the ground.

Another point to make: current rates of growth for the 2010s are below those in the 1980s and, recall back, the rates of growth achieved in the 1980s were not enough to deflate the debt/GDP overhang we had. Of course, in addition to the Government debt overhang (similar to that in the 1980s) we also now have a household and corporate debt overhang.

If the IMF projections above turn out out be close to reality, we are in a structural decline economically and are unlikely to generate sufficient escape velocity to exit the debt crisis any time before 2025 at the earliest.

27/4/2013: Sunday Times : March 31, 2014

The first of three consecutive posts to update on my recent articles in press.

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from March 31, 2013.

What a difference a week, let alone nine months, make. 

Nine months ago, on June 29th, 2012, the eurozone leaders pledged "to break the links between the banks and the sovereign" prompting the Irish Government to call the results of the euro summit 'seismic' and ‘game-changing’. 

Fast-forward nine months. The number of mortgages in arrears in Irish banks rose at an annualised rate of 25%, the amounts of arrears have been growing at 65%. The number of all mortgages either in arrears, or temporarily restructured and not in arrears, or in repossessions is up 23% per annum. 

Deposits held in Irish ‘covered’ banks have fallen 13.9% between June 2012 and January 2013. In three months through January 2013 average levels of Irish residents' private sector deposits was down 2.34% on three months through June 2012, clocking annualised rate of decline of 4%. Over the same period of time, loans to Irish private sector fell 1.54% (annualised drop of 2.7%).

Smoothing out some of the monthly volatility, average ratio of private sector loans to deposits in the repaired Irish banking system rose from 145.8% in April-June 2012 to 147.0% in three months through January 2013.

Put simply, in the nine months since June 29th last year, the urgency of implementing the eurozone leaders' 'seismic' decisions on direct recapitalization of the banks and on examining Irish financial sector programme performance has been rising. 

Yet, this week, in the wake of yet another crisis this time decimating the economy of Cyprus, a number of EU officials have clearly stated that the euro area main mechanism for funding any future bailouts - the European Stability Mechanism fund - will not be used for direct and/or retrospective recapitalization of the banks. The willingness to act is still wanting in Europe.

First, chief of the euro area finance ministers group, Jeroen Djisselbloem, opined  that the ESM should never be used for direct capital supports to failing banks. Mr Djisselbloem went on to add that Cypriot deal, imposing forced bail-in of depositors and bondholders, is the template for future banks restructuring programmes. This pretty much rules out use of ESM to retroactively recapitalize Iriosh banks and take the burden of our past banks’ supports measures off the shoulders of the Irish taxpayers.

On foot of Mr Djisselbloem's comments, the EU Commission stated that it too hopes that direct recapitalisation of the banks via ESM will be avoided. In addition, the EU Internal Markets Commissioner Michel Barnier, while denying Mr Djisselbloem's claim that Cypriot 'deal' will serve as a future template for dealing with the banking crises, said that "Under the current legislation for bank resolution . . . it is not excluded that deposits over €100,000 could be instruments eligible for bail-in". Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen weighed in with his own assertion that the ESM should not be used to deal with the banking crises, especially in the case of legacy banks debts assumed. Klaus Regling, the head of the ESM, made a realistic assessment of the viability of the June 29, 2012 promises by stating that using ESM to directly recapitlise troubled banks will be politically impossible to achieve.  German officials defined their position in forthcoming talks on ESM future as being consistent with excluding legacy banks debts from ESM scope.

All of this must have been a shocker to the Irish Government that presided over the Cypriot bailout deal structuring which has shut the door on our hopes for Europe to come through on June 2012 commitments. After last weekend, uniqueness of Ireland is surpassed by the uniqueness of Greece where sovereign bonds were thrown into the fire and Cyprus where depositors and bondholders were savaged and not a single cent of Troika money was allocated to support the banks recapitalisations. 

The slavish conformity to the EU diktat that prompted the Irish Government to support disastrous application of the Troika programmes in Greece and Cyprus is now bearing its bitter fruit.

Which means that three years into what is termed by the Troika to be a 'successful adjustment programme', Ireland is now facing an old question: absent legacy banks debts restructuring, can we sustain the current fiscal path to debt stabilisation and avoid sovereign insolvency down the road?

Let’s look at the banking sector side of the problem.

Latest reports from the Irish banks show lower losses for 2012 compared to 2011, prompting many analysts and the Government to issue upbeat statements about the allegedly abating banking crisis. Such claims betray short foresight of our bankers and policymakers. Even according to the Central Bank stress tests from 2011, Irish banks are not expected to face the bulk of mortgages-related losses until 2015-2018. Latest data from CSO clearly shows that residential property prices across the nation were down for three months in a row through February. Prices have now fallen almost 23% since the original PCAR assessments were made. Even at the current levels, prices are still supported to the upside by the banks' inability to foreclose on defaulting mortgagees. Meanwhile, there are EUR45.3 billion worth of mortgages that are either in repossessions, in arrears or restructured and performing for now. Taken together, these facts mean that at current rates of decline in property values from PCAR valuations, we are already at the top of the envelope when it comes to banks ability to cover  potential mortgages losses. Add to this the effect of increasing supply of distressed properties into the market and it is hard to see how current prices can remain flat or rise through 2014-2015. 

All of the above suggests that before the first half of 2014 runs its course we are likely to see renewed concerns about banks capital levels starting to trickle into the media. Thereafter, the natural question will be who can shoulder any additional losses, given the entire Euro area banking system is moving toward higher capital ratios and quality overall. The answer to that is, of course, either the ESM or the Irish State.  The former is being ruled out by the euro area core member states. The latter is already nearly insolvent as is.

The headwinds to Irish debt sustainability argument do not end with the mortgages saga. 

Take a look at the economic growth dynamics. Back at the end of 2010, when Troika structured Irish ‘bailout’, our debt sustainability depended on the 2011-2015 forecast average annual growth at 2.68% for GDP.  By Budget 2013 time, these expectations were scaled back to 1.76%, yet the Troika continued to claim that our Government debt is sustainable. To attain medium-term sustainability, defined as declining debt/GDP ratios, between 2013 and 2017, IMF estimates that to stay the course Ireland will require average nominal GDP growth of 3.9% annually. To satisfy IMF sustainability assumptions, Irish economy will have to grow at 4.5% on average in 2016-2017 to compensate for slower rates of growth forecast in 2013-2015. So far, in 2011-2012 recovery we managed to achieve average growth rate in nominal GDP of just under 2.25%  - not even close to the average rates assumed by the IMF.

And the real challenge will come in 2015-2017 when we are likely to face sharp increases in mortgages-related losses. In other words, growth is expected to skyrocket just as banks and households will engage in massive mortgages defaults management exercise. 

There are additional headwinds in the workings, relating to the shifting composition of our GDP in recent years. Between 2007 and 2012, ratio of services in our total exports rose from 44.8% to 51.2%, while trade balance in services went from EUR2.75bn deficit to EUR3.1bn surplus. Trade in services is both more imports-intensive (with each EUR1 in services imports associated with EUR1.03 of services exports, as opposed to EUR1 in goods imports associated with EUR1.73 in exports) and has lower impact on our real economy. Irish tax system permits more aggressive, near-zero taxation of services trade against higher effective taxation for goods trade. This implies that while services-exporting MNCs book vastly more revenue into Ireland, most of the money flows through our economy without having any tangible relationship to either employment here or value added or any other real economic activity. In recent years, a significant share of our already anemic growth came from activities that are basically-speaking pure accounting trick with no bearing on our economy’s capacity to sustain public debt levels we have. If this trend were to continue into 2017, we can see some 5-7 percent of our GDP shifting to services-related tax arbitrage activities. 

Which, of course, would mean that the ‘sustainability’ levels of nominal growth mentioned above must be much higher in years to come to deliver real effect on our government debt mountain.

Take these headwinds together and there is a reasonable chance that Ireland will find itself at the point of yet another fiscal crisis with reigniting underlying banking and economic crises. Far from certainty, this high-impact possibility warrants some serious consideration in the halls of power. Maybe, continuing to sit on our hands and wait until the euro area acts upon its past promises is not good enough? Is it time we start building a coalition of the states willing to tackle the Northern Core States’ diktat over the ESM and banks rescue policies?

Box-out: 

Following the High Court judgment in the case involving rent review for Bewley’s Café on Dublin’s once swanky now increasingly dilapidated Grafton Street, one of the premier commercial real estate brokerages issued a note to its clients touching upon the expected or potential fallout from the case. The note mentions the stress the case might be causing many landlords sitting on ‘upward only rent review’ contracts and goes on to decry the possibility that with the Court’s decision in some cases rents might now revert to open market valuations. One does not need a better proof than this that Irish domestic sectors are nowhere near regaining any serious competitiveness. Instead of embracing self-correcting supply-demand reflecting market pricing, Irish domestic enterprises still seek protection and circumvention of the market forces to extract rents out of their customers. That’s one hell of a ‘the best small country to do business in’ culture, folks.

21/7/2012: Sunday Times July 1, 2012 - Not a 'stimulus' again...

An unedited version of my Sunday Times article from July 1.

One of the points of contention in modern economics is the role of fiscal spending shocks on economic growth. Various empirical estimates suggest Irish fiscal multiplier at 0.3-0.4, implying that for every euro of additional Government spending we should get a €1.30-€1.40 in GDP uplift. However, these are based on models that do not take into the account our current conditions. Despite this fact, Irish policymakers continue talking about the need for Government to stimulate the economy, while various think tanks continue to argue that Ireland should abandon fiscal stabilization or more aggressively tax private incomes to deliver a boost to our spending.

International research on this matter is more advanced, although it too leaves much room for a debate.

June 2012 IMF working paper titled “What Determines Government Spending Multipliers?” by Giancarlo Corsetti, Andre Meier and Gernot Muller (June 2012) studied the effects of government spending on the economy under the variety of macroeconomic conditions.

What IMF researchers did find is that the initial conditions for stimulus do matter in determining its effectiveness – an issue generally ignored in the domestic debates about the topic.

Under a pegged exchange rate regime, similar to Ireland’s but still allowing for some exchange rate and interest rates adjustments, trade balance is likely to worsen in response to a fiscal stimulus, while output can be expected to rise. Domestic investment and consumption will decline in response to the positive stimulus shock. These factors are likely to be even more pronounced in the case of Ireland’s currency ‘peg’ that permits no adjustment in real exchange rate except via domestic inflation.

The role of weak public finances in determining the effectiveness of fiscal spending stimulus is also revealing. The study defines fiscally constrained conditions as the gross government debt exceeding 100 percent of GDP and/or government deficit in excess of 6 percent of GDP. Both of these are present in the case of Ireland. On average, the study shows that consumption response to fiscal stimulus is negative-to-zero following the stimulus, but becomes positive in the medium term. Impact on output and investment is negative. The core reasons for the adverse effects of fiscal expenditure on economic performance are losses from stimulus through increased imports of goods and services by the State, internal re-inflation of the economy through inputs prices, plus the expectation from the private sector consumers and producers of higher future taxes required to cover public spending increases.

In the case when financial crisis is present, increase in Government spending results in a positive and strong output expansion, rise in consumption and, with some delay, rise in investment. However, net exports still fall sharply and the stimulus leads to the inflationary loss of external competitiveness in the economy.

The problem with the above results is that the IMF study still does not consider what happens to a fiscal stimulus in a country like Ireland, combining a strict currency peg, exclusive reliance on trade surplus for growth generation and characterized by historically high levels of fiscal imbalances and financial system collapse. In other words, even the IMF research as imprecise as it is, is far from conclusive.

These are non-trivial problems in the case of Ireland. Official estimates for fiscal policy multiplier in this country range between 0.38 (European Commission) and 0.4 (Department of Finance).  These are based on relatively simplistic models and are, therefore, likely to be challenged by the reality of our current conditions. A more recent study from the Deutsche Bank cites Irish fiscal multiplier of 0.3 without specifying the methodology used in deriving it. Either way, no credible estimate known to me puts the fiscal multiplier above 0.4 for Ireland.

In short, Government stimulus is not exactly an effective means for raising output, even at the times when the economy can take such stimulus without demolishing the Exchequer balancesheet. And lacking precision in estimating the fiscal multiplier, the entire argument in favor of fiscal stimulus is an item of faith, not of scientific analysis.

In my opinion, Ireland does not need a Government expenditure boost. Instead we need a policy shift toward stimulating domestic and international investment, plus the public expenditure rebalancing away from current spending toward some additional capital investment.

Quarterly National Accounts clearly show that the problem with the Irish economy is not the fall off in private or public consumption, but a dramatic collapse in private investment. While private consumption expenditure in Ireland has declined 13.6% relative to the economy’s peak in 2007, net expenditure by Government is down 12.0% (including a decline in public investment). However, overall private investment in the economy is down 67%. 2011 full year capital investment was, unadjusted for inflation, at the level last seen in 1997, while consumption is down ‘only’ to 2005-2006 levels and Government spending is running at around 2006 levels. With nominal GDP falling €33.5 billion between 2007 and 2011, our investment declined €32.6 billion over the same period, personal consumption dropped €12.8 billion, while net Government expenditure on goods and services is down a mere €3.4 billion. Between 2007 and 2011, total voted current expenditure by the Government rose 12%, while total net voted capital expenditure fell 44%.

Adding a Government investment stimulus of €2 billion would have an impact of raising net capital expenditure by the Exchequer in 2012-2014 to the levels 22.4% below those in 2007 and will lift our GDP by under 1.8% according to the EU measure of fiscal multiplier. However, factoring in deterioration in the current account as estimated by the IMF, the net effect might be closer to zero. Based on IMF model re-parameterized to our current conditions, the net result can be as low as 0.1% increase in GDP.

Again, the problem here is the effect of capital spending on our imports. As a highly open economy, Ireland imports most of what it consumes. This includes Government and private capital investment goods – machinery, materials and know-how relating to construction, assembly, installation and operation of modern transport systems, energy and ICT, etc. Some of these imports will continue well beyond the period of actual investment. In other words, using fiscal stimulus to finance public capital investment risks providing some short-term supports for lower skilled Irish labour and few professionals with the lion’s share of expenditure going to the multinational companies supplying capital goods and services into Ireland from abroad.

The fiscal cost of such a stimulus, however, would be exceptionally high. Between 2008 and 2011, Irish Government has managed to cut €4.3 billion off the annual capital spending bill while increasing current spending by €662 million. This resulted in total voted spending reduction of only €3.6 billion. A stimulus of €2 billion on capital investment side will throw the state back to 2009 levels of expenditure, erasing two years worth of consolidation, unless it is financed out of cutting current spending and transferring funds to capital programmes. The extra capital spending will lead to further retrenchment in private consumption and investment, as households and businesses will anticipate relatively rapid uplift in tax burdens to recover the momentum to the fiscal consolidation. This, coupled with already committed €8.6 billion in further fiscal adjustments in the next three years, will further reduce growth effects of the stimulus and shorten its positive effects duration.

Overall, the right course of policies to pursue today requires restructuring of the debt burden carried by the real economy, starting with household debts and stimulating, simultaneously domestic and foreign investment into small and medium enterprises and start-ups. Instead of focusing on the less labor-intensive MNCs’ investments, we need to put in place tax and institutional incentives to increase inflow of equity capital, not new debt, to Irish businesses. Such incentives must target two areas of investment: investment into activities associated with new jobs creation by the SMEs, plus investment into strategic repositioning and restructuring of Irish SMEs to put them onto exporting path.

Lastly, if we really do want to have a stimulus debate, the discussion should not be focusing on creating a net increase in the public expenditure, but on the potential for reallocating some of the funds from the current expenditure side of the Exchequer balancesheet to capital investment.

  

Box-out:

The latest Index of Failed States published this week ranks Ireland the 8^th best state in the world. Our overall score in the league table was helped by extremely high performance in some specific indicators. Surprisingly, according to the Index authors, we are having a jolly good time throughout the crisis. Allegedly, Ireland’s problem in terms of emigration is relatively comparable to that found in New Zealand and Germany. Our economy, heavily dominated by MNCs exports in pharma, medical devices and ICT sectors ranks higher in terms of the balance of economic development than majority of the advanced economies that have more diversified and domestically anchored sources of growth. Our ‘balanced development’ model, having led us into the current crisis, is allegedly more sustainable, according to the Index, than that of Canada – a country that escaped the Great Recession. In terms of poverty and economic decline we are better off than France, Japan and New Zealand, which had a much less severe recession than Ireland over the last 5 years. In quality of public services, we are better than Belgium and the UK, and are ranked as highly as Canada. And our elites are less factionalized than those in the vast majority of the states of the Euro area. In short, according to the Foreign Policy, index publisher, Ireland is a veritable safe haven within a tumultuous euro zone, comparable to New Zealand, Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. We rank well ahead of Canada, Australia, the UK and the US, as well as all other states that currently receive tens of thousands of Irish emigrants.

Economics 26/03/2010: National output figures

Held back by work, I am only now catching up with data released this week by CSO, so do stay tuned - these pages will be featuring more analysis in days to come.

First, QNA for Q4 2009 came in, putting annual decline in GDP at 7.1% for 2009 and GNP at a whooping 11.3% (per table below):
This is slightly better than my predicted annual declines of GDP to the tune of 7.3% and GNP to 11.5-11.7%. Nonetheless, as CSO admits, these figures mark historical record of declines.

Throughout the year, I have traced the paths for the main QNA series in charts. A picture, after all, is worth a thousand words. So here they are, updated for the latest figures:

The first chart above shows GDP and GNP time series. Two things are apparent from these figures: first, all three series peaked at the same time - in 2007. This is significant for as we shall see below, the same does not hold for growth rates. Second, notice how factor cost-based GDP is showing more mild downward trend than market prices-based GDP measure? This suggests that deflation (market prices change) has been so far much more significant than declines in factor costs. This does not really bode well for our hopes of improving our competitiveness through this cycle.

Next chart shows components of GDP and GNP:
Notice how two state-supported sectors - public sector and agriculture (the latter supported, of course, via CAP) show no signs of a recession? Both are having jolly good time - courtesy of taxpayers (Irish and European). Also, do keep in mind that some of the public sector activities fall into other categories - e.g. transport was probably supported by the semi-state companies and their ability to ignore recession when it comes to hiking prices and charges (DAA is one good example here). So in real terms, private sector activity in each one of these sub-sectors is down by more than the CSO aggregates suggest.

Next chart illustrates another historic record:
The gap between our MNCs-dominated exporting economy and our domestic economy is now at historic highs - reaching 23% in 2009. This means that almost a quarter of what Ireland claims to produce (GDP) is really an accountancy trick and has nothing to do with this country. Of course, for years we have been conditioned to think that we are filthy rich because our GDP is so high. Oh, how deep the fallacy runs.

Now, think about the core metrics of state solvency deployed in international markets. Take our national debt. At current €77.6bn (per NTMA) it officially stands at just 45.6% of our GDP (46.2% if we are to use more time-consistent estimate from Finance Dublin). In the real world, this figure should reflect our real national income, for we can't seriously expect the foreign MNCs to be responsible for Ireland's debt. So the real figure should be 55.5% of GNP. Almost a 10 percentage points spread.

Now, let's take our current position and take a peek into the future. Suppose we take last 6 years' average growth rates for respective series. How long will it take for our various measures of income (bogus GDP and more honest GNP) to bring us back to the prosperity of 2007?
As chart above illustrates, should our MNCs continue racing ahead as they did up until now, happy days will come back to our shores again in 2018. Of course, relying on our domestic (real) economy to chug along as it did in 2003-2009 period means we will be back to 2007 levels of income some time around 2026. Mister Cowen can keep telling us that things have bottomed out and that all will be well once growth returns. Numbers are a bit more honest here.

What else did the QNA release give us that CSO omitted in its release?

Let's take a look at quarterly frequency:
Notice how both GDP and GNP are running close to (but below) 4-quarter moving averages? This is the third time it is happening in the current crisis and every time it is followed by a renewed pull away from the MA line downward. GNP is seemingly poised to cross over in Q1 2010, posting a possible quarterly gain. Of course, this is just a momentum force, which has to be backed by fundamentals. And the fundamentals are still pretty nasty. But there isn't a hope of even a technical rebound indicated in the GDP line. So:

• Will we see a GDP/GNP gap contracting somewhat in Q1 2010 with GDP starting to show much more weakness than GNP?
• Will GNP loose technical momentum building up and renew its downward slide?

Only time will tell, but, here is an interesting snapshot. Remember the latest QNHS? Q4 2009 marked the return of Construction sector to the leading role in driving unemployment higher. This is collaborated by the following figure:
Activity in construction and building sector shows absolutely no willingness to move above the moving average line. If anything, it is still contracting at a massively rapid rate.

Lastly, let me show you an interesting chart on annual rates of change in the GDP/GNP series:
Notice that in contrast with levels in overall activity (the first chart above), growth rates actually peaked in two different years, with 2007 decline in the growth rate of GNP clearly providing a warning signal for the Government that things might be getting slightly unsteady. Coupled with what was going on at the time in the financial markets (remember, the crisis in financial markets started actually in July 2007), that was a warning shot. I recall interpreting it this way in a couple of my columns - back in Business & Finance and in the Sunday Tribune.

I will cover trade figures contained in QNA release in the later post dealing with overall trade issues, so do stay tuned.