28/5/2013: US Gen-Xers are Screwed... but Not as Much as the Irish Ones

Here is what the brain-dead Irish political and business 'elites' should read every time they talk about negative equity not being a big problem 'until you move house' & debt being sustainable 'until you can't repay loans'. The wealth destruction wrecked on Irish mid-generation families is so much more comprehensive than that for the US Generation-X households, and the debt levels loaded onto the shoulders of Irish households (private and public) are that much more extensive than those for the US Gen-Xers, and yet,

• Irish politicians are incapable of comprehending the effects of wealth destruction and are solely obsessed with public finances; while
• Irish business elites are mumbling left-right-and-centre about the need to 'free' people from their savings to 'get economy going again'.

Read this, morons:
http://www.businessinsider.com/generation-x-least-prepared-for-retirement-charts-2013-5#debt-is-killing-them-too-gen-xers-carried-more-than-80000-worth-of-debt-by-2010-on-the-flip-side-depression-era-babies-had-zero-debt-and-war-babies-had-just-15000-to-worry-about-7

28/5/2013: Russian GDP and GVA: Composition

Two interesting charts on composition of Russian GDP (and gross value added):

Chart above shows remarkably low share of Mining and Quarrying activities in GVA (11%). Even recognising that some of the manufacturing value added is transfered (via subsidies etc) from the extraction sector, still the chart above is puzzling. And it is especially puzzling given the chart below shows net exports (dominated heavily by extraction sectors outputs) running at 8.6% of the total economic output.

Note that comparatives in the last chart are a bit off due to normal seasonality differences (H1 vs FY), so here's a table showing H1 to H1 comparatives:

28/5/2013: EU Looks Into Bending Rules... Again...

Spiegel [http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/vorschlag-der-eu-kommission-deutschland-kaempft-um-den-sparkurs-a-902198.html] reports that the EU Commission, as a part of a planned shift in the policy focus from austerity to structural reforms, will consider altering accounting rules per classification of fiscal deficits. The idea is that member states will be allowed to exempting certain types of government spending from the deficit calculations.

How this will work? Ok, insolvent state, like, say Greece, can borrow (somewhere) EUR X billion to use as a backing for its 50% share in matching EU Structural funds, thus raising EUR 2X billion for investment. The EU will then allow Greek Government to classify EUR X billion borrowings as aquarium fish and not deficit nor debt.

So
(1) EU thinks it is a grand idea to hide even more debt and deficit under the proverbial rug of 'accounting rules' bent to suit EU; and
(2) EU thinks that 'structural funds' deployment will be sufficient to 'stimulate' euro area economies out of structural balance sheet recession.

I suggest they (a) read up on why honesty and transparency matter in fiscal accounting and (b) read up on what happened in Japan where a stimulus ca 100 times larger than 'structural funds' one was applied to no avail.

Then again, the EU might also change the rules on reading, so the inconvenient reality does never interfere with the dreamy Enronising…

28/5/2013: That Cracking Success of the Troika Programmes

Some 'stuff' is coming out of the EU nowdays to greet the silly season of summer newsflow slowdown:

The loose-mouthed Eurogroup head Jeroen Dijsselbloem [http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130527-702547.html?mod=googlenews_wsj] is striking again. This time on Portugal's 'progress' on the road to recovery:
""If more time is necessary because of the economic setback, that more time might be considered" as long as the country is being "compliant" with the program, Mr. Dijsselbloem told reporters after meeting with Portuguese Finance Minister Vitor Gaspar."

Of course, Dijsselbloem is simply doing what is inevitable - acknowledging that the EU/Troika programme for Portugal is as realistic as it was for

• Ireland (which undertook two extensions, one restructuring, one expropriation round vis-a-vis pensions funds, and two rates cuts to-date on its 'well-performing programme' and is looking for more), 
• Greece (which received three extensions, three restructuring, PSI - aka outright default, deficit and privatizations targets adjustments),
• Spain (which so far got only banks bailouts, but has already secured two rounds of deficit targets extensions),
• Cyprus (which hasn't even received full 'support' package yet, and already needs more funds).

It is worth noting that Portugal itself has already seen debt restructuring by the Troika in two rounds of loans extensions and two rounds of interest rates cuts.

So in the world of EU logic: if loans restructuring => success.

Please, keep in mind loans restricting ⊥ <=> success (for those of you who tend to argue that my above argument can mean that absence of EU restructuring implies success).


Oh, and while on the case of Ireland, Herr Schaeuble has stepped in to put a boot into Minister Noonan's dream of ESM swallowing loads of Irish banks' legacy debts [http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/05/27/business/27reuters-germany-schaeuble-banks.html?src=busln&_r=0]:"European countries should be under no illusion that they can shift responsibility for problems in their national banking sectors to the bloc's rescue mechanism". Now, recall that Minister Noonan is having high hopes riding on ESM taking stakes in Irish banks to ease burden on taxpayers. See point 1 links here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/26052013-ireland-hard-at-work-on-troika.html

So it looks like another round of loans restructurings is in works, just to underpin the immense success of the Troika programmes in Euro area 'periphery'.

26/5/2013: FTT v Sovereigns' Addiction to Debt

FT.com reports (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c3121802-c480-11e2-9ac0-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fhome_us%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2UQE68h14) that 

"The European Central Bank has offered to help the EU redesign its financial transactions tax to avoid any ‘negative impact’ on market stability, highlighting official fears about the implementation of the levy."

So far so good, as FTT indeed is likely to cut liquidity in the markets, reducing markets efficiency, and potentially increasing volatility, rather thane educing it.

Of course, the original idea the EU came up involved levying tax on trading in bonds, equities and derivatives. So one would expect the following prioritisation from the ECB concerned with markets impacts:
1) Not to distinguish between bonds and equities in tax application and rates, as the two instruments are de facto long-only instruments in either corporate (real) economy, banks (financial economy) and sovereigns (for bonds - which somewhat qualifies as a real economy as well).
2) Levy tax primarily on derivative instruments (although here, tax can be avoided much easier)
3) Recognise that in the restricted competition environment and with legacy subsidies from the crisis period still in place for incumbent financial institutions, any FTT will be at least in part passed onto retail investors and savers, and in more extreme cases - e.g. duopoly model of banking in Ireland - onto all retail users of banking services)
4) Real economy - incomes, investment, entrepreneurship, unemployment, etc - will be most impacted by the FTT levied on real assets - equities and some (not all) bonds and this effect will be stronger the stronger is the banking and investment banking sector concentration in the economy.

Alas, as is clear from the FT.com article, the ECB is not concerned with (3) and (4) whatsoever, and it is unconcerned with (1) either. It also seems to be aware of (2) pitfalls. Aside from that, ECB is concerned with the perennial task faced by all European Government - the obsession of raising as much tax revenue as possible while incentivising more debt pumped into sovereign bond markets.


Per FT.com: "The ECB believes markets should efficiently “transmit” changes in interest rates to the real economy." You might think that this means transmitting higher (lower) ECB rates into higher (lower) (a) Government bond yields and (b) higher/lower cost of private credit. Err… you would be wrong.

Per FT.com there are rumours that "…the ECB would prefer to have a limited UK-style stamp duty on equities". What can possibly go wrong, then?

ECB concern is clearly to grease the wheels of sovereign bond markets. The fact that FTT will reduce markets liquidity in real instruments & will cost retail investors in the end - well, that is hardly ECB's concern at all. ECB like the EU Governments is only worried about own coffers & give no attention to the economy.  

Equity markets volatility (FTT original raison d'être is to reduce volatility) had NOTHING to do with the current crises. The ECB focus on 'UK-styled stamp duty on equities', if confirmed, thus exposes FTT as a pure scam to raise more tax revenues, not a measure to deal with 'markets instability'. 

As FT.com quotes one of the market participants: "bond markets were a “phenomenally attractive” way of channelling savings into investment." Alas, it is not - corporate bonds are debt. Shoving more debt while disincentivising equity investment is not a great idea for long term sustainable funding.

In Europe, lending money to Governments, including to fund dodgy unfunded pensions and white elephant projects, is tax-wise deemed to be more laudable than to invest in equity of real enterprises. By corollary, lending to companies is also deemed to be more preferential than funding them via equity. One of the outcomes of this decades-long preferential treatment of debt is the current crisis: over-bloated and under-funded public spending coupled with too much private debt (including banking debt) against too little equity (the latter imbalance drove the bailouts of banks in euro area periphery).

With this in mind, talking about 'Robin Hood' taxes on Financial Services in EU is equivalent to believing in Santa's Magic raindeer as a viable alternative for public transport.

26/5/2013: Corporate Tax Haven Ireland Weekly Links Page

"Taxes are not up to Google," Schmidt reiterated. "If the international tax regime changes we will follow. But virtually all American companies have structures like this; this is how the international tax regime works. The fact of the matter is if we pay more tax in one area, we pay less somewhere else."

Thus spoke Eric Schmidt of Google (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/22/eric-schmidt-tax) and guess what: he is right. Google is not breaking the law. It is the law that allows for countries, like Ireland, to follow beggar thy neighbour economic policies and strategies.

The issue is not the low tax rate, but the fact that various loopholes allow companies operating - allegedly in Ireland - to channel revenues from other countries into Ireland. This is not about exports from Ireland, and it is not about low tax regime in Ireland. When an MNC books revenue earned somewhere else to Dublin, MNC is not break a law. Instead, Ireland is facilitating transfer of funds that relate to value added activity elsewhere to its own economy. This, in the nutshell, summarises the entire nature of Irish economic development strategy: take value added from somewhere else and appropriate it as Irish.


And in the spirit of usual weekly posts (see thread start on Irish Corporate Tax Haven here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/1452013-corporate-tax-haven-ireland.html ): in this week, it is virtually impossible to list all Tax Haven Ireland links from around the world in a post, but here are some:

• http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/eu-eyes-tax-residency-law-change-232325.html
• several listed here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/26052013-ireland-hard-at-work-on-troika.html
• An important link from March 2013: http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1025752.shtml
• Noonan's feeble defence of the regime he claims doesn't exist: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/us-senate-committee-quoted-incorrect-tax-rates-for-apple-activities-here-d%C3%A1il-told-1.1404834
• And here is an 'official' admission that we might change that which, allegedly, does not need to be changed because it is not an 'Irish' problem: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/26/us-ireland-tax-reform-idUSBRE94P04820130526?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews
• Of course, the problem does not exist: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0522/451805-tax-ireland-apple/
• But things are smelling of some smoke: http://www.euronews.com/2013/05/22/ireland-branded-tax-haven-ahead-of-eu-summit-on-tax-evasion/
• and the smoke ain't white: http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/22/ireland-were-no-tax-haven-but-yes-apple-did-pay-2-tax/
• Vincent Browne wades in with some good links: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/government-zealously-protects-the-wealthy-in-ireland-s-wild-west-tax-haven-1.1401752
• Recall Budget 2013 'Strategy' on Corporate Tax (betcha you didn't know we had this strand of thinking flowing through...) http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2013/Documents/Budget%202013%20-%20Presentation%20on%20Corporation%20Tax%20and%20FDI.pdf
• IDA Tax 'Guide" from 2012: http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/publications/library-publications/ida-ireland-publications/IDA_Tax_2012.pdf you have to love Figure 3:

• Accountants' view: http://www.annebrady.ie/page6/page35/page91/page91.html Note that 'statutory transparency and uniformity' principle really is not what is being used as core discriptor of Irish regime...
• An interesting 2012 document from IAM on the value of tax regime to Ireland's capacity to attract FDI - as in tax being a singularly most important factor http://www.iamireland.ie/dashboard//upload/134522238057FDI_and_Tax_16th_August_2012.doc
• Jim Stewart's paper on Irish Corporation Tax regime: http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/documents/discussion/pdfs/iiisdp375.pdf This concluded that "The corporate tax rate in Ireland is often described at the ‘cornerstone’ of industrial policy. This paper argues that excessive reliance on tax reliefs and on the attraction/retention of foreign direct investment has led to the development of certain tax haven type features for the Irish economy. Tax haven type features are in turn at variance with the development of sustainable firms."
• CS Monitor article on Google and Apple cases: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0521/Google-Apple-draw-transatlantic-ire-over-double-Irish-tax-haven
• Counterbalance from one of the few knowledgeable people on the subject: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/peter-vale-five-reasons-why-ireland-is-not-a-tax-haven-29287879.html

I shall stop there, for now...

26/05/2013: Ireland Hard at Work on Troika & Tax Haven Fronts

Several recent points raised in relation to the work being done by Minister Noonan are worth a quick consideration.

Point 1: Ireland, allegedly, is the best-performing 'Troika programme' in the 'periphery' (forget the semiotics of a country being a programme and 1/3 of the EZ being a 'periphery'). We are fulfilling all programme requirements and are even ahead of schedule on some (namely - issuance of bonds we don't have to issue). If so, then can Minister Noonan explain:

• Why have we needed all the material alterations to the programme, obtained in conjunction with 2011-2012 Greek 'rescues' (term extensions and rate reductions on loans), the restructuring of the promo notes, etc. If we are satisfying the programme requirements, then why do we constantly attempt (and succeed) in changing the programme?
• If, as a part of well-functioning programme, Ireland has already recapitalized its banks and if the measures - approved by the EU and the Troika - to rebuild Irish banking sector are working, then why does Minister Noonan constantly 'working' on finding ever more convoluted ways to shove more funds into them? As in using CoCos as here: http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/noonan-examining-ways-to-capitalise-banks-232186.html or tapping ESM as here: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/05/21/ireland-still-hoping-to-refinance-bank-debts-through-esm/

Point 2: Ireland, allegedly, is not reliant in its adjustment on beggaring its neighbours via asymmetric tax regime, when it comes to corporate tax rates. Per Minister Noonan (see: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/us-senate-committee-quoted-incorrect-tax-rates-for-apple-activities-here-d%C3%A1il-told-1.1404834): "The ability of multinational companies to lower their global taxes using international structures reflected the global context in which all countries operated." 

But then, "Mr Noonan said ... “some multinational corporations, with the assistance of legal practitioners and tax advisors, have exploited the differences in these systems to their own advantage”." So, wait a second here: it is down to 'some' MNCs - with help of legal & tax advisors - to 'exploit' tax system to their advantage. "The Minister said tax management was an international business. “Very clever accountants and very clever lawyers are involved in it and they basically try to get into an unspecified space between the tax laws of two jurisdictions." 

Ok, we get the point - bad advisors and bad companies are exploiting good Irish regime or global regime. Were it not for this 'exploitation, one can assume things would have been different, right? Wrong: “Operating in that space, they find ways of avoiding the tax that otherwise would not have been payable.”

Come again? Apparently, some multinationals just love hiring expensive advisors to avoid tax that would not have been payable even absent these advisors. You see, per Minister Noonan, Ireland's reputational problems of being branded a tax haven stem from utter stupidity of some MNCs that are so dim, they hire useless but very clever advisors to devise complicated and clever schemes to avoid that which doesn't exist. 

Seems like Minister Noonan has been exposed to too much logic lessons as of late.

26/5/2013: 'North' out, 'South' in?

The theme of 'North' (advanced economies and primarily EZ) banks deleveraging (exiting) out of the future centres if global growth - the 'South' - has been consistent one in my presentations on the future of global financial services. Here's an example: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/2452013-future-in-financial-services.html

It is good to see other researchers also spotting the trend: http://www.voxeu.org/article/european-bank-deleveraging-and-global-credit-conditions

However, my concern is distinct from that of the above authors. I do not think that EZ banks' deleveraging out of the middle income and emerging markets will have a huge detrimental impact, as - in contrast to earlier episodes - we now have emerging markets and BRICS banks more than capable of absorbing capacity created by the EZ banks exits.

25/5/2013: Saturday Reading Links

Some interesting reading links:

FT Weekend edition has a full supplement on Venice Biennale 2013 - no link, but here's the official page: http://www.labiennale.org/en/art/exhibition/index.html?back=true


A fascinating article from The Economist on the movement toward technology displacing 'knowledge' workers next: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21578360-brain-work-may-be-going-way-manual-work-age-smart-machines

This cuts across my own view that we are seeing rising complementarity between technology and human capital, as opposed to substitutability thesis advanced in the article. The Economist view is thought provoking, for sure.


At last, there is a proof of the theorem that postulates that gaps between prime numbers are bounded: http://blogs.ethz.ch/kowalski/2013/05/21/bounded-gaps-between-primes/ and more on same http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/do_the_math/2013/05/yitang_zhang_twin_primes_conjecture_a_huge_discovery_about_prime_numbers.single.html


An excellent piece on the changes big data is bringing to economics - not from the point of view of new studies directions, but from the point of view of verifiability: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2013/may/17/economic-big-data-rogoff-reinhart?CMP=twt_gu
There added 'bonus' points in the article discussing overall relationship between the research recognition, rewards and background work.


And a brilliant example of just how atavistic and primitive is the understanding of the web-based and mobile-platformed services in the top political echelons in Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/10054717/France-preparing-tax-on-Apple-and-Google-to-fund-culture.html
Apparently, dinosaurs in French political elites have trouble comprehending just how revolutionary to culture and its creators (artists, thinkers, analysts, developers etc) Apple 'i'- and Google platforms are. It is highly likely that iTunes, for example, are doing more to distribution of Francophone music across the world than the entire Ministry of 'French' Culture. Then again, the entire tax debate in Europe is never about culture or arts or anything tangible, but about finding ever more elaborate and bizarre paths for milking the economy to sustain ever expanding state.


While on topic of matters European, a fascinating study on genetic persistency in European populations covered in http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/3770411-europeans-we-re-all-kissing-cousins
Given it comes from the US (original home to Apple and Google), may be the French can pay a special levy to the US for bothering to include their subjects in global research? Afterall, shall they fail to pay up, ignoring France should not be that hard - it works in geopolitics and economics, after all...

24/5/2013: Future in Financial Services

My presentation on risks, disruptions and innovation in global financial services from earlier today

19/5/2013: Namawinelake closure

I do not know the reasons behind the Namawinelake decision to stop operations, but the announcement that the blog will cease publishing new material starting from tomorrow was a shocker for me.

I can attest from my own & others' experiences that those of us who run anything independent of the officialdom mouthpieces (regardless of political / ideological orientation or even the lack of one) have near-zero support (moral or citations- and links-wise) from our internal (not to be confused with international) media and all businesses.

Those in our society, including the traditional media, who only benefit from the free analysis and the climate of openness and debate the independent analysts help to create prefer to endlessly endorse and support, including via advertising revenues, cross-links, citations and readership, those who offer no alternative but consensus.

In contrast, independent analysts in Ireland operate in the environment of constant, usually indirect, 'soft', pressure from the part of the Irish society which is fully aligned with the official elite. This 'aligned' sub-section of Ireland often has direct and indirect support (including financial) from major business, political and ideological organisations in this country, and even from European organisations. Because of this, Irish new independent media remains relatively small, under-resourced and often marginalised.

The rarity of honest, no-spin analysis in this country is exemplified by the rarity of excellence regularly provided by a handful of independent blogs, like Namawinelake. To say that Namawinelake will be missed is a massive understatement for me, personally.

Any healthy society requires healthy dissent both in the traditional and new media, funded and resourced by the society that values debate, honesty, independence and discourse. Any healthy economy requires a healthy society. It is a benefit to businesses, their customers, their investors, as well as in the interest of the entire nation to nurture and support such dissent. I can only hope that Namawinelake closure had nothing to do with our collective and repeated, long running failures to recognise the immense personal, social and economic values of the independent new media.

17/5/2013: Ireland v Iceland 2013

Ireland vs Iceland macroeconomic comparatives in 15 simple charts that DofF wouldn't want you to see...

All data is either IMF direct-sourced or based on IMF data. Click on the charts to see more detailed comments imbedded in them.

Three charts on GDP comparatives:

Investment:

External trade and balance:

Unemployment and Employment:

Government Finances: