4/11/2014: Prosperity Index 2014: Ireland's Reforms Failing to Produce Strong Socio-Economic Results

Today, Prosperity.com (http://www.prosperity.com/#!/) are publishing the 2014 Legatum Prosperity Index which offers cross-countries' comparable data on how economic, social and governance conditions define socio-economic prosperity around the world.

According to the index methodology, "traditionally, a nation’s prosperity has been based solely on macroeconomic indicators such as a country’s income, represented either by GDP or by average income per person (GDP per capita). However, most people would agree that prosperity is more than just the accumulation of material wealth, it is also the joy of everyday life and the prospect of being able to build an even better life in the future. The Prosperity Index is distinctive in that it is the only global measurement of prosperity based on both income and wellbeing."

This post covers my analysis of the Legatum data for Ireland compared to our European peers, covering two peer groups:

• Advanced and highly competitive small open economies within the euro area, including Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Slovak Republic (SOE EA) and
• Advanced and highly competitive small open economies outside the euro area, including Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland and Norway (SOE ex-EA).
• Both peer groups are represented by the simple average ranks achieved in 2012-2014 period.

Overall, 2014 Prosperity Index ranks Ireland as 12th most prosperous nation in the world and 8th in the European region (combining 40 countries). This means that Irish rankings remained unchanged on 2013 levels both globally and within Europe. Over 2013-2014, Ireland's rankings deteriorated by 2 place worldwide.

This is an impressive ranking for Ireland placing us 5 ranks ahead of other small open economies in the euro area countries, SOE (EA), but lagging the average ranking of the ex-euro area small open economies (SOE ex-euro) by 7 places. Significantly, while similarly to Ireland's average ranking for SOE (EA) economies has deteriorated over 2012-2014, the average ranking of SOE ex-Euro group has improved. The gap between Ireland's rank in 2014 and the average rank for non-euro area SOE has widened to 7 points compared to 3 points in 2012 and 6 points in 2013.

Very similar dynamics in Ireland's performance are also evident in almost all of the eight sub-categories of the rankings.

While Irish global ranking in the economy sub-category improved from 33rd in 2013 to 29th this year, the latest ranking remains significantly worse than 2012 Index position (25th). For our peers within euro area, average rankings in 2012-2014 were 21st, 28th and 27th, respectively - a slightly better performance than Ireland's. Meanwhile, our peers' average rankings for SOE ex-euro area have consistently improved from 21st in 2012 to 17th in 2013 to 14th in 2014. Despite the officially-registered booming GDP and GNP growth, Ireland still lags behind both the advanced euro area small open economies average and ex-euro area economies average.

The gap between Ireland's rankings (2012-213 at 14th place, 2014 at 16th place worldwide) in Entrepreneurship and Opportunities sub-category and the performance of the ex-euro area SOE group (average rank of 5th in every year between 2012 and 2014) is getting wider. Significantly, after several years of talking up targeted entrepreneurship policies reforms, Ireland is showing deteriorating performance in this sub-index, with our world wide position falling from better than euro area average 14th place in 2013 to 16th (matching the exact average for the SOE euro area economies) in 2014.

Another area targeted by numerous structural policies in recent years is institutional and governance reforms. 2014 Legatum Prosperity Index ranks Ireland 14the in the world in quality of governance - with no change in the rank on 2012 and 2013 levels. Despite much of an effort to clean up and improve Irish institutional systems, our rankings show identical dynamics as that of our euro area peers. Meanwhile, our non-euro area peers' performance has improved from the average 9th rank in 2012 and 2013 to the average 7th rank in 2014. While slightly outperforming the SOE euro area average ranks (16th), Ireland's gap to non-euro area SOEs has widened from 5 places in 2012-2013 to 7 places in 2014.

In terms of core public services, such as health and education, the picture is more mixed. In education sub-category of the 2014 Legatum Prosperity Index, Ireland ranks respectable 8th, which represents an improvement on 2013 and 2012 positions (11th and 14th respectively). Here we outperform our euro are and non-euro area peers, although the gap in favour of Ireland to non-euro area peers group is closing, falling from 5 places in 2013 to 2 places in 2014 rankings. In contrast, in health services, Ireland's performance is rapidly deteriorating in absolute and relative terms. In 2012-2014, our euro area peers average rank stayed stable at 12th. Ditto for our non-euro area peers, whose average rank remains steady at the 9th place worldwide. Ireland's global rankings slipped significantly, from 11th place in 2013 to 15th in 2013 and 17th in 2014. If in 2012 we outperformed our euro area peers' average by 1 place, in 2014 Ireland showed an underperformance relative to this group of 8 ranks.

2014 Legatum Prosperity Index covers three sub-categories of social performance parameters: Personal Freedom, Social Capital, and Safety and Security. In all of these, with exception of Safety and Security sub-category, Ireland's performance has deteriorated over 2012-2014 horizon in absolute terms, and relative to non-euro area small open economies. On a positive side, our performance relative to the euro area peers remains robust.

While Legatum Prosperity Index rankings are not comparable across 2009-2011 and 2012-2014 years, actual index scores offer some indication of our performance in absolute terms in 2014 period compared to 2009-2011. Chart below shows changes in the index and sub-categories in 2014 compared to peak performance in 2009-2011.

All sub-scores that form the overall Prosperity Index are showing poorer performance in 2014 compared to their peak performance in 2009-2011 period. Index scores are reflective of country own performance, as opposed to country ranks which show relative performance compared to other countries covered in the surveys. As the chart above clearly indicates, in all sub-categories of the Legatum Prosperity Index, Ireland performs poorer today than in 2009-2011. Aside from the economic performance deterioration, Ireland's scores suffered significant declines in health, personal freedom, governance and education - all areas targeted by public sector reforms enacted by the current Coalition.

To summarise: while overall rankings for Ireland present a rather positive picture of our socio-economic institutions and environment compared to other euro area small open economies, two major concerns warrant significant attention of our policymakers:

1. Ireland remains relative under performer compared the non-euro area small open economies with our gap to this peer group average ranks and scores widening in 2014 compared to 2013 and 2012.
2. Ireland's reforms are not appearing to yield positive returns compared to 2009-2011 performance across all sub-categories of the index.

Reforms, including structural reforms, enacted from 2012 to-date have broadly failed to significantly alter the our socio-economic competitiveness compared to our core peers.

3/11/2014: BusinessInsider's "Most Important Charts in the World"

BusinessInsider's Most Important Charts in the World (Q4 edition) are out:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-in-the-world-q4-2014-10?r=US#dan-ivascyn-pimco-1

If you are anxious, my entry at http://uk.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-in-the-world-q4-2014-10?r=US#constantin-gurdgiev-trinity-college-dublin-101

Enjoy.

3/11/2014: Tech & Innovation in Finance: Cyborg Algos?

My blogpost on innovation in finance, covering HFT, speed and machine learning in financial markets is up on LearnSignal blog: http://blog.learnsignal.com/?p=111. Enjoy.

2/11/2014: Ireland's Recovery: Economic Hopium for the Masses

My column for this month's Village magazine is out : http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2014/10/economic-hopium-for-the-masses/ covering the underlying currents in Ireland's 'miraculous' recovery in Q2-Q3 2014.

1/11/2014: Expresso on Russian Ruble

My comment from earlier this week on Russian Ruble fate for Portugal's Expresso:
http://expresso.sapo.pt/rublo-afunda-se-face-ao-euro=f895605

In basic terms - there is too much ignoring of the underlying structural weaknesses in the Russian economy (in my view accounting for roughly 1/2 of Ruble devaluation) and too much focus on the shorter-term effects of the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine.

1/11/2014: IAE Raises Concerns with Irish Energy Policy Framework

Here is an interesting study published by the Irish Academy of Engineering in response to the Government Green Paper on energy: http://www.iae.ie/publications/publication/iae-response-to-green-paper-on-energy/.

To put matters into context IAE notes elsewhere that:

• Since 2007 energy prices in Ireland have risen by 29% in real terms compared with an  average rise of 20% in OECD countries.
• Between 2010 and 2013 Ireland’s electricity and gas prices rose between 5% and 15% more than the EU-28 average.
• Household electricity prices have increased by approximately 30% in the last 3 years.
• Household electricity prices in the Republic are 33% higher than in the UK. Industrial electricity prices are ca 12% higher than the UK and the EU-28 average (ex VAT)

According to IAE, at least in part, the above price distortions are accounted for by the wind generation policies.

Summarising the above document, IAE said that "Continuing with the existing policy and related conditions is likely to have adverse economic consequences. Commitments entered into in 2007 relating to the amount of renewable generation on the Republic’s electricity system ...could lead to the addition during the next decade of more than 3,000MW of Windpower onto a system that has already excess capacity.  Approximately 1,000MW of existing gas or coal fired power plants would be displaced with the following consequences:

• At current price differentials it would add €200 million to the annual cost of electricity.
• It would involve additional capital expenditure of between €1 - €2 billion to integrate this level of Windpower into the grid. (The entire Exchequer capital program for 2014 is €3.3 billion)."

I am not an energy or environmental economist to make an in-depth observations on technology and its economic efficiency, but it is clear that Irish energy policies to-date

1. Have been actively focused on renewables generation at the expense of consumers; and
2. Resulted in one of the most expensive energy generation and supply systems in the advanced world.

All of which suggests that our continued pursuit of increasing wind generation investments should be put to a rigorous and public scrutiny.

1/11/2014: Few Signs of Fiscal Reforms in Europe

My article on Euro area Government debt levels - the lack of any moderation in thereof - is out: http://www.compasscayman.com/cfr/2014/10/31/Few-signs-of-fiscal-reform/

31/10/2014: Eurocoin Falls Again in October

Meanwhile, in the vastly-repaired, improvingly-coordinated, enhancely-harmonised Euro area, leading growth indicator, Eurocoin (published by Banca d'Italia and CEPR) posted another (4th consecutive monthly decline in October, falling from massively anaemic 0.13 in September to even more anaemic 0.08 in October.

The projected underlying GDP growth rate is now back at zero, having posted a 'recovery' to 0.1% in Q3 2014.

And the ECB is now even more stuck in the proverbial dark corner of near-deflation, zero growth and zero interest rates:

The drivers to the downside?

Industrial production is down across all Big 4 economies:

Business Confidence is down everywhere, save in Spain:

Consumer surveys down in performance terms everywhere and below zero on balance in France and Italy:

With stock markets performance markedly deteriorating, this means the only previous consistent support for 'growth forecasts' is also gone:

And the 'exports-led' recovery is just... err... shall we say 'fizzled out'?

But keep reminding yourselves, this is a 'European Century'...

29/10/2014: ABN AMRO on Emerging Europe's Economic Woes

ABN AMRO gloomy outlook for Emerging Europe region came out yesterday. Here are some highlights as related to Russian economy:

Over the past months, emerging Europe has increasingly faced headwinds.

Two core factors selected by ABN AMRO for these: Russian economy weaknesses and "weaker-than-expected performance of the eurozone, emerging Europe’s main trading  partner". In particular, "this can for instance be seen in Poland, where exports to the EU have slowed noticeably".

"All in all, according to our emerging Europe GDP tracker, annual growth in the region  fell to 1.1% yoy in Q3, down from 1.3% in Q2, keeping it on a downward path. Within the region, despite its structural outperformance over the past years, the Polish economy seems to be  slowing the most, while growth in the Czech Republic and in Hungary seems to be a bit more resilient."

"Looking further out, though risks remain tilted to the downside, growth should pick up next year. This reflects that we think that somewhere down the road, both Russia and Ukraine should recognise that some form of a diplomatic solution is needed. Alternatively, the conflict could evolve to a ‘frozen conflict’ with fewer economic consequences than currently is the case."

ABN AMRO sees this set of factors giving "room to a slight rebound in Russian GDP growth, though the slide in oil prices poses yet another headwind."

Here's their more detailed analysis for Russia:

And worse for Ukraine:

28/10/2014: US News & WR: Global University Rankings

US News & World Report published their first global Universities rankings: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

And the numbers are pretty much disastrous for Ireland:

No Irish University in top 100. No Irish University in top 1-199. Best ranked Irish university is 210th (TCD). Only one Irish university in top 250. Only two Irish universities in top 300. Only 3 Irish universities in top 500...

Here are the 'neighbourhoods' for TCD:

 For UCD:

 And for UCC:

Nothing else to comment...

See other rankings links here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/08/2182014-shanghai-academic-rankings-2014.html

28/10/2014: Buffett’s Magic: Cheap Leverage and Risk Control

My new post on Warren Buffett's investment 'style' is available on http://blog.learnsignal.com/?p=102

28/10/2014: Page 75... ECB Washes Out Its Big Bazooka QE with New NPLs...

In the previous (lengthy) post I covered my view of the ECB stress tests results. But, per chance, you have missed two core points on these, here they are, in a neater summary:

Point 1: Stress tests are weak compared to expectations and independent analysts' estimates of capital shortfall (by a factor of up to or in excess of10:1).

Point 2: Stress tests have raised non-performing loans levels in the euro area banking system by EUR136 billion to EUR879.1 billion or close to 9% of the euro area GDP. The increases were recorded in all categories of loans, which in simple terms means the banks have been under-providing for loans losses across all categories of their core assets.

Now, that puts into perspective the ECB's 'big game all-in' shot for TLTROs and ABS purchases targeting to raise ECB balancesheet exposures by... you've guessed it... EUR1 trillion.

Why, despite improving asset markets, stoic rhetoric of deleveraging and historically low cost of central banks' funds, the NPLs are climbing... and by the end of the ECB's big bazooka firing, that EUR1 trillion is probably will be just about enough to cover the outstanding NPLs. Assuming economy does not tank any more, in which case, it might fall short.


Update: Here's WSJ Blogs analysis of the effects application of the tougher quality tests for Core Tier 1 capital would have had on ECB stress test results: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/27/tough-new-rules-would-have-caused-ten-more-stress-test-fails/

26/10/2014: Mind the ECB 'Stress Tests' Gap

The pain of European economy's Japanification is going to be proportionate to the cheering of the ECB 'stress tests' results.

The real problem faced by European economy is that of the depressed domestic demand (investment and consumption). This problem is fuelled by:
1) declining real incomes of those working,
2) continued sky-high numbers of those who are not working (unemployed, discouraged and never-once-employed workers left out in the cold),
3) growing unease amongst older workers about the state of their pensions,
4) rising burden of the state (including state debts),
5) growing pressure of redistribution of income from households and SMEs to politically favoured white elephant projects (e.g. renewables subsidies, large infrastructure spending, farm supports, regional integration etc),
6) un-abating waste at the EU and national levels anchored to corporatist politics selectively rewarding specific interest groups interests at the expense of entrepreneurs, younger workers, ordinary households and domestic firms, and
7) demographic collapse spreading across the continent as populations age and children remain dependent on ever older parents to support their education and transitioning into joblessness.

This real problem is driving down domestic demand, and with it depressing economy, but also spreading rot across the banks balance sheets.

And yet, despite the obvious and ever-deepening macroeconomic crisis of depressed demand, the ECB stress tests released today provide no insight into what can happen to the banks balance sheets should Japanification set in. Worse, the entire exercise of 'stress tests' is once again not much more than a PR stunt dreamed up by the folks who are 'would be' chief economists for the sell-side equity research.


Here's why.

Back in January 2014, two academics published a preliminary assessment of the Euro area banking union capital shortfalls: http://www.voxeu.org/article/what-asset-quality-review-likely-find-independent-evidence.

This identified stressed shortfalls estimated at between €82 billion and €176 billion (4% benchmark capital ratio) and €509 billion to €767 billion (7% capital ratio) based on book capital.  Take the average to compare to ECB results: ca EUR295-470 billion. "The market capital shortfall estimates indicate a capital shortfall of €230 billion (4% benchmark capital ratio) or €620 billion (7% capital ratio) for the 41 publicly listed banks". Take the average to compare to ECB results: EUR425 billion.

Worse, "estimates of SRISK or the capital shortfall in a systemic financial crisis (40% market decline over a six-month period) is €579 billion; 41% is due to downside correlation with the market, while 59% is due to the leverage of these institutions." So compare to 20% decline under ECB tests (across property assets, 30% decline) and get roughly half of the above figure at EUR290 billion.

Ugly? Try next: "Capital shortfall estimates when writing down their net non-performing loan portfolios range from €232 billion (using the C Tier 1 ratio and an 8% threshold as in the AQR) and €435 billion (using the tangible equity/tangible assets ratio and a 4% threshold)." Again, average these out at EUR330 billion or so.

And get this: "There is a high rank correlation between the shortfalls based on book and market capital ratio measures [but] no significant correlation between shortfalls calculated using regulatory (i.e. risk-weighted asset-based) capital ratios and shortfalls calculated under market or book capital ratios… this highlights how flawed risk-weighted asset-based measures can be."

Take the conclusion in with a deep breath: "Cross-country variation in our capital shortfall estimates indicate that:

• French banks are leading each book and market capital shortfall measure, both in absolute euro amounts and relative to national GDP. The capital shortfall ranges from €31 billion (using the equity/asset ratio and a 4% threshold) to €285 billion (using the tangible equity/tangible asset ratio and a 7% threshold). The SRISK stress scenario suggests a shortfall of €222 billion, which corresponds to almost 13% of the country’s GDP.
• German banks are close seconds, although they benefit from a stronger domestic economy with a higher GDP and a greater capacity for public backstops.
• Spanish and Italian banks appear to have large capital shortfalls when non-performing assets are fully written down. Both countries account for about a third of the total shortfall after write-downs. Market-based measures such as SRISK amount to about 6.5%–7.6% of the GDP of both countries."

So a close common value for estimated shortfalls, comparable to the ECB tests is around EUR290 billion for 41 listed banks (not 150 tested by EBA/ECB).

Oh dear, now think ECB stress tests: The ECB stress tests found virtually none of the above problems to be present or pressing (see full release here: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/aggregatereportonthecomprehensiveassessment201410.en.pdf?d2f05d43d177c25c57e065ebdbf80fe7). Instead, the ECB tests estimated shortfall in the banks to be EUR24.6 billion as of December 2013 and that all but EUR9.5 billion of this has been already rectified by the banks.

This is plain mad not only because it is more than 10 times the number averaged out above, but also because the same ECB review found that some EUR136 billion of loans held by the banks as assets should be classed as non-performing. That is an 18 percent hike in one sweeping year. 85% of banks tested had to revise up their bad loans exposures. And this implies that EUR47.5 billion worth of losses is required to bring these 'assets' in line with their true values.

These losses will have to be covered from either more tightening of existent loans costs or via capital raising or by shrinking returns on equity or all of the above. And these losses are at the lower (as noted by independent analysts) end of the range. And these losses are going to impact future capital access by the banks too, as who on earth would want to stake a house on investing in sick banks hiding the true extent of their losses to the tune of 18 percent?!

All in, Euro area banks now have a hole of EUR879 billion in non-performing loans, facing losses of some EUR300 billion, plus. Based on already stretched (by extend-and-pretend measures adopted to-date) loss rate on non-performing assets. Oh, dear…

Table below summarises sources of NPL increases by category of assets:

As of the end of 2013, per ECB own assessment, some 1/5 of all major banks were in the position of facing high risk of going bust. Forward nine months into this year - what has changed? Nothing, save for the following factors:

1. ECB funding became temporarily cheaper (rates down), but LTROs are being replace by higher priced TLTROs and this means cost of funding going slightly up;
2. Assets valuations have improved on massive monetary stimuli. These being gradually reduced (outside the euro area) is going to depress carry trades that have been helping asset prices boom. Asset values might not fall, but realising these values in the markets forward and counting on their further significant appreciation would be equivalent to taking serious risks.
3. Real economic conditions have deteriorated. Which is far from being trivial, as in the long run, asset values and availability and cost of funding should start reflecting this reality. Once they start, there'll be pain on balance sheets. 

What are the safety cushions post-ECB tests? Ugh, rather thin. Of 130 banks tested by the ECB, 25 failed, 31 had core capital ratio below 10% - the safety threshold accepted in the markets. 28 more banks were within a 10-11 percent range. Thus, 84 out of 130 banks tested were either in an ICU or on ventilators.

Looking back at the main findings from January 2014 paper by Viral Acharya and Sascha Steffen, what is striking is the position of the German and French banks. ECB found virtually no problems in both countries banking systems (see Table below):

Table: Banks that failed ECB tests

Look at geographic distribution of losses under stressed scenario:

Setting aside the proverbial 'periphery' (and Slovenia) there are virtually no problems in the stress case across the national banking system anywhere, save for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Even Italian system is within 1 percentage point of the median losses. You have to be laughing, right?

And the above only holds for 57% of all assets of the tested banks. That's right, the AQR exercise did not cover all assets held by the 130 banks tested.

Meanwhile, macroeconomic risks factored in are rapidly becoming not stringent enough. The ECB tests were based on EU Commission forecasts from Q1 2014. Since then, the forecasts have seen consistent downward revisions. Instead of focusing on the risk of deflationary recession and stagnation (Japanification), the risks tested were based on bond markets stress, plus recession.

There is virtually no material deterioration in ECB assessment results for German banks compared to previous tests. How? We can only scratch our heads. In the last 2 years, German economy has gone from moderate growth to slow growth and is heading into stagnant growth.

Emerging markets risks exposures were non-existent in the view of the ECB tests, except via higher interest rates impact spillover from the US (assumed by the ECB). Neither were the risks arising from the global slowdown in trade flows. So here's a kicker, if rates are higher and there is a global slowdown, impact on banks balance sheets will be most likely lower than if rates are low (and with them lending margins), but there is a secular long term growth crisis in the euro area itself. Second order effects will be smaller than first order effects.

All in, the 'stringent' tests carried by EBA and ECB took 150 banks and banks subsidiaries and found that 25 of these were short of EUR24.6 billion in capital: 16.7% of banks failed, average capital requirement per failed bank EUR984 million, average capital required per all banks tested: EUR164 million. Contrast this with 2011 when EBA tested 90 banks, failed 20 of these (failure rate of 22.2% much higher than 16.7% in this round of tests), requiring them to raise EUR26.8 billion in capital which amounts to EUR1.34 billion per failed bank (much higher than ECB stress tests this time around) and EUR298 million per bank tested (much higher than ECB tests). Yet, 2011 tests were labeled a farce by the markets.

Today's tests are no better. If not worse.

Worse because they fail to account for the real risks arising in the Euro area today and worse because they create a false sense of security within the system. Or maybe they do not. In which case the entire exercise is a PR stunt, with ECB having a different and more descriptive picture of what is really happening in the banking sector. Maybe so… in which case, does the whole charade qualify as market manipulation by the soon-to-be super regulators? Take your pick, either the regulators-to-be are wearing rose-tinted glasses, or they are fixing the market. Neither is a pretty option...

26/10/2014: Ireland's trade in goods with BRICS

Summary of the latest trade in goods for bilateral trade between Ireland and BRICS:

Keep in mind: trade balance is what counts in GDP, GNP and GNI calculations. Data above reflects some impact of the Russian counter-sanctions of July 2014.

24/10/2014: Weekly Russian Economy Update

Bofit released some latest data on Russian economy, so here is the summary, with some of additional points by myself.

September economic activity acceleration came as a bit of a surprise.

• Manufacturing output was up 4% y/y, driven in part by devaluation of the ruble and in part by increased oil refining activity.
• Defense spending is up 33% y/y in January-September, which also is helping manufacturing orders.
• Agricultural output is sharply up as harvest hits near-record levels.
• Consumption is up as retail sales rose 1.7% y/y with non-food sales up 3.5%. Some observers suggest that households are taking out savings to prepare for higher inflation (inflation hit 8.3% in September, sharply up on 8% in August). Since incomes declined in real terms (down to devaluation and inflation), we can assume that this is to some extent true, although banks are not reporting declines in deposits.
• New car sales shrank 20% y/y in September from 0% y/y in Q1 2014. 
• But consumption is most likely showing lags relative to the rest of the economy, so we can expect continued deterioration in retail sales into Q1 2015.
• Decline in fixed capital investment shallowed out by about 2 percentage points, as Bofit notes "thanks to distinctly better development in investment of large energy and transport enterprises than other investment".
• Meanwhile, construction activity is slowing down from the H1 2014 boom.

Net outcome: the Economy Ministry estimates GDP growth at +0.7 % y-o-y in January–September 2014, with only slight deceleration in the July-September.

This is strong reading, considering some forecasts (e.g. World Bank at 0.5% for 2014). That said, as I noted earlier today, with Central Bank heading into October 31 decision on rates with expected 50-100 bps hike, we might see a sharp decline in the economy in Q4 2014. It would take 0.2% drop in Q4 to get us to WB outlook.

On the other front, everyone who grew tired of focusing on ruble collapse have switched into prognosticating federal budget meltdown on foot of falling oil prices. Yes, Brent fell by a quarter compared to 2014 highs. And Urals followed the trend with prices around USD85/barrel. The chart below (via Bofit) illustrates.

But no, this is not a letdown yet on fiscal side. Here's Bofit analysis: "If the price of crude oil holds at the $85–95 level for a longer time, Russian growth will be much slower than current consensus forecasts predict… Russia’s 2015 federal budget also assumes an average oil price of $100 next year, producing a budget deficit of 0.5 % of GDP. The impact of a lower oil price on Russia’s fiscal balance will still be manageable; the nominal increase in budget revenues from ruble depreciation will in part off-set losses. Prof. Sergei Guriyev estimates public sector finances could withstand an oil price of $80–90 for a couple of years thanks to reserve funds and the weak ruble. Sberbank’s research department has calculated that the current account will remain in surplus next year even if the oil price holds at $85. Export revenues will fall, but also imports will decline substantially on e.g. the weak ruble and impacts from economic sanctions."

How fast Russian imports fall relative to exports? Tough guess, but here's IMF data showing 2009 crisis period:

One thing is clear: the above forecasts by the IMF for 2015 show pretty small reaction in imports. If Russian demand for imports goes negative, it will be down to a number of factors:

1. Lower ruble leading to imports substitution - which is GDP-enhancing;
2. Russian sanctions leading to imports substitution - which is GDP-enhancing;
3. Government contracts shifting to imports substitution (including those with Ukraine, relating to military equipment) - which is GDP-enhancing.

And as 2009 shows, the room for contracting imports is massive: 28.7% y/y in one shot. And IMF is forecasting 2015 decline to be just 0.3% y/y.

24/10/2014: One Ugly with some Ugly Spice... EURO STOXX EPS

It's Friday... ECB is coming up with the banks tests on Sunday... And before then, if you want 'ugly', here's 'ugly':

The above chart plots Earnings per Share, in euro, for S&P500 and for EURO STOXX. It comes via @johnauthers

Now, despite this, you wouldn't believe it, but roughly 68% of European companies reporting earnings this quarterly cycle to-date have been outperforming analysts expectations.

And for some real 'ugly' spice on top of this pizza, the sub-trend decline in the EPS for European stocks has set on roughly H2 2011... something we shall remember when we re-read all the European 'recovery' tripe from 2011 and 2012 and a good part of 2013.

24/10/2014: Behavioural Political Economy

A very interesting survey paper on the topic of behavioural drivers of political economy by Schnellenbach, Jan and Schubert, Christian, titled "Behavioral Political Economy: A Survey" (September 30, 2014. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4988. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2507739).

From the abstract:

"Explaining individual behavior in politics should rely on the same motivational assumptions as explaining behavior in the market: That’s what Political Economy, understood as the application of economics to the study of political processes, is all about." So far - fine.

However, there is a problem: "In its standard variant, those who played the game of politics should also be considered rational and self-interested, unlike the benevolent despot of earlier models. History repeats itself with the rise of behavioral economics: Assuming cognitive biases to be present in the market, but not in politics, behavioral economists often call for government to intervene in a “benevolent” way. Recently, however, political economists have started to apply behavioral economics insights to the study of political processes, thereby re-establishing a unified methodology. This paper surveys the current state of the emerging field of “Behavioral Political Economy” and considers the scope for further research."

It is a lengthy and solid review, covering some 41 pages. Dense. But absolutely a great read as an introduction into the subject. 

23/10/2014: Irish Residential Property Prices: Q3 2014 data

Latest data for residential properties price index for Ireland is out, covering September. Instead of repeating all the analysis provided elsewhere, here is a look at quarterly data series and longer-term comparatives.

Firstly, on quarterly basis, Q3 2014 ended with index averaging at:

• 79.1 in Dublin, up strongly on Q2 2014 reading of 72.0. This brings property prices to the levels of Q2 2010 or on pre-crisis comparative basis close to Q4 2002 (80.8).  Year on year prices in Q3 2014 stood 23.9% above Q3 2013 reading, which is a modest increase on Q2 2014 y/y increase of 21.2%.
• Outside Dublin, index read 71.4 in Q3 2014, marking a rise of 5.8% y/y. In Q2 2014, y/y increase was 2.2%. Outside Dublin prices are currently trending at the levels comparable to Q1 2012 (71.2) and on pre-crisis basis - at the levels between Q2-Q3 2001
• National prices index is at 76.9, up 14.4% y/y and this compares to a rise y/y of 10.6% in Q2 2014. National prices levels are around Q2-Q3 2011 averages and on pre-crisis basis these are up at the levels of Q2-Q3 2002.

Chart to illustrate:

Rates of growth in prices are worrying, as they were for some time now. Chart below shows y/y increases in price indices for quarterly averages:

The chart above clearly shows that Dublin price increases have been running well above the historical averages for the main periods since Q1 2000. Q3 2014 marks full year since price appreciation in Dublin market has risen above sub-period (2013-present) average and this now becoming a serious issue.

At the same time, long-term level indices suggest that prices remain below historical trends:

So once again, data is showing troubling developments in the rate of price increases in Dublin and below-trend price levels. Based on historical evidence, real price bubble concerns are still outside the scope of index readings by some 25-30 percent. But we are closing that gap very fast.

23/10/2014: BlackRock Institute Survey: EMEA, October 2014

BlackRock Investment Institute released the latest Economic Cycle Survey results for EMEA:

"The consensus of respondents describe Russia, Croatia, Egypt and the Ukraine in a recessionary state, with an even split of economists gauging Hungary and Turkey to be in a recessionary or contraction phase. Over the next two quarters, the consensus shifts toward expansion for Egypt and Turkey"

Red dot represents Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Israel, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia

"At the 12 month horizon, the consensus expecting all EMEA countries to strengthen or remain the same with the exception of Russia and the Ukraine."

Global: "respondents remain positive on the global growth cycle with a net 43% of 37 respondents expecting a strengthening world economy over the next 12 months – an 7% decrease from the net 50% figure last month. The consensus of economists project mid-cycle expansion over the next 6 months for the global economy"

Previous month results are here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/10/6102014-blackrock-institute-survey-emea.html


Note: these views reflect opinions of survey respondents, not that of the BlackRock Investment Institute. Also note: cover of countries is relatively uneven, with some countries being assessed by a relatively small number of experts.

23/10/2014: Euromoney Country Risk survey results Q3 2014

Euromoney Country Risk survey for Q3 2014 is out:
http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3392195/Euromoney-Country-Risk-survey-results-Q3-2014-Looming-China-crisis-adds-to-eurozone-and-emerging.html

Euro area risks are down, but starting to regain upward momentum in recent weeks. Meanwhile, BRICS are struggling, Russia risks deteriorating and overall global environment is not encouraging.

21/10/2014: Two Articles on Ukrainian Conflict

Two items relating to Ukrainian crisis worth noting today.

First an English version of the earlier De Spiegel article on German federal authorities concluding that it was likely that MH17 was shot down by the Eastern Ukrainian separatists using the BUK launcher they obtained from the seized Ukrainian military base: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-airlines-mh17-rebels-shot-down-plane-seized-111727238.html#vzXgemW Note: this is still speculative, in so far as we do not have conclusive evidence as to where the BUK came from, nor in fact do we have full evidence on the rest of the event.

Second, Human Rights Watch issued a report: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions that provides evidence that Ukrainian Government used cluster munitions against civilians in East Ukraine. The report also references on several occasions the potential use of such munitions by the separatists, although in all cases, HRW does qualify such references as not being confirmed. What is confirmed, however, is that Kiev forces used cluster munitions.

21/10/2014: Of Statistics: Ireland and ESA2010

Eurostat released a handy note showing revisions to euro area debt and deficit figures that arose as the result of conversion to ESA2010 methodology (yes, yes, that infamous inclusion of illicit trade and re-classification of R&D spending as investment, and much more).

You can read the full note here: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/government_finance_statistics/documents/Revisions-gov-deficit-debt-2010-2013.pdf

And the effects are:

Government deficit revisions:

Click on chart to enlarge

One clear outlier in the entire EU28 is... Ireland. We had the largest, by far, downward revision in our deficit/GDP ratio of some 1.5 percentage points, pushing our deficit down from 7.2% of GDP (ESA95) to 5.7% of GDP (ESA2010) overnight. No austerity, just accounting.

We were similarly 'fortunate' on the debt calculations side:

Click on chart to enlarge

While revised actual debt levels rose, under new rules, the revised debt/GDP ratio fell due to GDP push up under the new rules. Lucky charms...

Per note, relating to deficit revisions: "Ireland (-3.1pp for 2010, -0.1pp for 2011, -0.1pp for 2012 and +1.0pp for 2013): the 2010 and 2011 deficits were  revised mainly for other reasons (than ESA 2010 introduction) and the 2012 and 2013 deficits mainly due to  introduction of ESA 2010. The deficit for 2010 was increased mainly due to reclassification of the capital injection  to AIB and the deficit for 2011 due to various reasons such as an adjustment to accrual calculation for PRSI,  health contribution and National Training Levy. The revisions in the deficit for 2012 and 2013 are mainly due to  the classification of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC) to the central government. " 

Per note, relating to debt revisions: "Ireland (+12.2pp for 2011, +10.3pp for 2012 and +7.2pp for 2013): the revisions in the debt are mainly due to  introduction of ESA 2010: the classification of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC) to the central  government as it became a government controlled financial defeasance structure in 2011."

So our actual debt rose. But our debt/GDP and deficit/GDP ratios fell:

Enron would be proud...

21/10/2014: Russian Gas, European Deliveries, Ukrainian Blackmail?

Over recent days there have been plenty of statements about the winter supplies of Russian gas to Europe. Majority of these fall to one side of the argument, alleging that Russia is likely to cut off gas shipments to Europe via Ukraine.

Here are the facts, strongly indicating an entirely different possibility.

Fact 1: Allegations. At the end of August, Euractive reported that "Europe faces the increasing threat of a disruption to gas supplies from its main provider Russia this winter due to the crisis in Ukraine." (link)

But when you read beyond the headline, you get something entirely different. "Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said today (27 August) Kyiv knew of Russian plans to halt gas flows this winter to Europe. "We know of Russia's plans to block [gas] transit even to European Union countries this winter, and that's why their [EU's] companies were given an order to pump gas into storage in Europe as fully as possible," he told a government meeting, without disclosing how he knew about the Russian plans."

So Yatsenyuk presented a conjecture - that incidentally boost his own agenda. Media reported it with zero questioning. Meanwhile, Russian officials denied the possibility of such disruption: "It's unlikely that Russia would cut gas supplies. Ukraine will start siphon off it itself, as it has been the case in the past," a senior source at the Russian Energy Ministry said."

We have set the stage: Ukraine says Russia may disrupt supplies. Russia says Ukraine may siphon off gas destined for other buyers in order to satisfy its own needs.

Fact 2: Historical Precedents. As Euractive reports: "Russian gas flows to Ukraine have now been halted three times in the past decade, in 2006, 2009 and 2014, due to price disputes between Moscow and Kyiv, and flows to the EU were disrupted in 2006 and 2009 after Ukraine took some of the gas intended for the EU to meet its own winter demand."

In other words, Ukraine stole (as in appropriated without a payment and beyond its contracted power) Russian gas destined for European customers. This, presumably is Russian fault, as it is Russia that is being blamed for the disruptions.

So we have it: Ukraine steals, Russia gets blamed.

Fact 3: Counter-accusations. Official Russian position on supplies of gas to Europe: "Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak refuted the claim by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk that Russia is planning to halt gas transit to EU member states. “Specific comments by Ukrainian politicians on alleged Russian intentions to stop gas transit to EU countries are puzzling. We can qualify them only as absolutely baseless speculations aimed at confusing or deliberately misinforming of European consumers of Russian gas”, said Alexander Novak."

Now, you can possibly say there is risk of Novak lying. Or you can say there is risk PM Yatsenyuk is lying. Remember: Yatsenyuk made a statement of claim unbacked by any evidence (Fact 1 above). Novak made an official statement on the record. Yatsenyuk has an incentive to push European member states to take a tough stance on Russia in brokering a gas deal between Russian and Ukraine. Russia does not have such an incentive. Yatsenyuk is actively campaigning for an outright re-writing of Russian-European contracts for gas supply to suit Kiev interests (read below). Russia does not have such an incentive.

So who is the beneficiary of all these conjectures about Russia 'cutting gas supplies to Europe'? Why, it is Ukraine.

Fact 4: In his own words. On October 17 Itar Tass (link) claimed: "Europe should respond to a statement by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk that Ukraine can give no guarantees for safe Russian natural gas transit to Europe, Gazprom Deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev said on Friday. “Yatsenyuk said yesterday that Ukraine will not be able to ensure the safety of gas supplies from Russia to Europe,” he said."

So did Yatsenyuk say this? He did. His statement is supported by his own actions tracing back to end of July / beginning of August.

Fact 5: In his own deeds. Let's go back to August 8th, when Yatsenyuk threatened sanctions to cut off all transit of Russian gas: "Ukraine may impose sanctions against any transit via its territory, including air flights and gas supplies to Europe, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Friday." (link confirmed by Bloomberg here and the Wire here).

So real was this threat, Germany had to step in to put PM Yatsenyuk back into his place (link). And European buyers continued to pump up storage facilities not because of a Russian threat, but because of the Ukrainian actions.

Things got comical: Naftogas - a Ukrainian state-owned gas company - said back in August it was prepared to bypass its own Government-imposed restrictions on transit (link). So even Naftogas was aware that it was Kiev, not Moscow, who planned the cut off.

20 days after Yatsenyuk backed out the first threat, "Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk pushed a bill through the Verkhovna Rada that …would permit the transit of natural gas to be blocked." Source (link). In other words, on August 28, Yatsenyuk pushed through a law that legalises Ukraine's power to shut down transit.

Ukraine was no longer speaking about shutting down Russian gas transit. It actually set legal grounds for acting on doing so.

On September 23rd, Kiev backed out of the month-old stand and committed itself to allowing transit (link). Strangely, the article does not really try to explain why PM Yatsenyuk had to commit to such an act, if it was Russia that was a threat of disrupting gas flows.

Conclusions: Now, we can think of a straight logic implying that actually it is Ukraine that is a threat point replete with threat --> act --> deny chain of events. But the Western media continues to insist that it is all down to Russia's bad politics.

This week (link) Ukraine is again refusing to guarantee uninterrupted transit to Europe unless it gets all Russian-European contracts renegotiated on its own terms. These terms are: Ukraine gets full control over actual gas transiting over its territory and gains a de facto veto power on any contract any European buyer signs with a Russian supplier.

Again, who is the attempting to hold European gas supplies hostage to its own political agendas?

20/10/2014: Ruble: Poisoned, a Touch Less Than Real or NZ Dollar?

Two days ago I wrote about the pains of Ruble devaluations (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/10/18102014-latest-news-on-russian-economy.html) and here is an interesting new set of data courtesy of @ReutersJamie which shows positioning in the FX markets. All bearish, except USD, and bearish on Ruble too, but what is interesting is that Brazil Real and NZ Dollar are more bearish... And Ruble, for all its problems is positioned pretty close in line with Euro, which, apparently has no problems (remember, ECB refuses to call this a currency crisis, insisting first it was a debt crisis, now a structural growth crisis, next probably a milk quota crisis):