Saturday, June 23, 2012

23/6/2012: Sunday Times 10/6/2012



This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from June 10, 2012.


Last week, the Irish voters approved the new Euro area Fiscal Compact in a referendum. This week, the Exchequer results coupled with Manufacturing and Services sectors Purchasing Manager Indices have largely confirmed that the ongoing fiscal consolidation has forced the economy into to stall. Irish economy’s gross national product shrunk by over 24% on the pre-crisis levels and unemployment now at 14.8%. The most recent data on manufacturing activity shows a small uptick in volumes of production offset by significant declines in values, with profit margins continuing to shrink. Deflation at the factory gates is continuing to coincide with elevated inflation in input prices. In Services – accounting for 48 percent of our private sector activity – both activity and profitability have tanked in May. The Exchequer performance tracking budgetary targets is fully attributable to declines in capital investment and massive taxation hikes, with current cumulative net voted expenditure up 3.3% year on year in May.

On the domestic front, the hope for any deal on bank debts assumed by the Irish taxpayers, one of the core reasons to vote Yes advocated by the Government in the Referendum, has been dented both by the German officials and by the ECB. Furthermore, on the domestic front, the newsflow has firmly shifted onto highlighting the gargantuan task relating to cutting our deficits in 2013-2015 and the problem of future funding for Ireland.

Per April 2012 Stability Programme Update, Ireland’s fiscal consolidation path will require additional cuts of €5.55 billion over the next three years and tax increases of at least €3.05 billion. Combined, this implies an annual loss of €4,757 per each currently employed worker, equivalent to almost seven weeks of average earnings. This comes on top of €24.5 billion of consolidations delivered from the beginning of the crisis through this year. The total bill for fiscal and banking mess, excluding accumulated debt, to be footed by the working Ireland will be somewhere in the region of €18,309 per annum in lost income.

This has more than a tangential relation to the Government’s main headache – weaselling out of the rhetorical corner they put themselves into when they solemnly promised Ireland’s ‘return to the markets’ in 2013 as the sole indicator for our ‘regained economic sovereignty’.

Even assuming the Exchequer performance remains on-target (a tall assumption, given the headwinds of economic slowdown and lack of real internal reforms), Ireland will need to raise some €36 billion over 2013 and 2014 to finance its 2014-2015 bonds rollovers and day-to-day spending. In January 2014 alone, the state will have to write a cheque for €8.3 billion worth of maturing bonds. The rest of 2014 will require another €7.2 billion of financing. Of €36.5 billion total, €19.3 billion will go to fund re-financing of maturing government bonds and notes, plus €6.9 billion redemptions to Troika. Rest will go to fund government deficits.

At this stage, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell this level of funding can be secured from the markets, given the losses in economy’s capacity to pay for the Government debts. Which means Ireland will require a second bailout. And herein lies the second dilemma for the Government. Having secured the Yes vote in the Referendum of the back of scaring the electorate with a prospect of Ireland being left out in the cold without access to the ESM, the Government is now facing a rather real risk that the ESM might not be there to draw upon. In fact, the entire Euro project is now facing the end game, which will either end in a complete surrender of Ireland’s economic and political sovereignty, or in an unhappy collapse of the common currency.

The average cumulative probability of default for the euro area, ex-Greece, has moved from 24% in April to 27.5% by the end of this week. For the peripheral states, again ex-Greece, average cumulative probability of default has risen from 45% to 52%.

Euro peripherals, ex-Greece: 5-year Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and cumulative probability of default (CPD), April 1-June 1


Source: CMA and author own calculations

These realities are now playing out not only in Ireland and Portugal, but also in Spain and Cyprus.

Spain has been at the doorsteps of the Intensive Care Unit of the euro area for some years now. Yet, nothing is being done to foster either the resolution of its banking crisis, nor to alleviate the immense pressures of it jaw-dropping 24.3% official unemployment rate. Deleveraging of the banks overloaded with bad loans has been repeatedly pushed into the indefinite future, while losses continue to accumulate due to on-going collapse of its property markets. At this stage, it is apparent to everyone save the Eurocrats and the ECB, that Spain, just as Greece, Ireland and Portugal, needs not loans from the EFSF/ESM funds, but a direct write-off of some of its debts.

Spain’s problems are immense. On the upper side of estimated demand for European funds, UBS forecasts the need for €370-450 billion to sustain Spanish banking sector and underwrite sovereign financing and bonds roll-overs. Mid-point of the various estimates is within the range of my own forecast that Spanish bailout will require €200-250 billion in funds, a move that would increase country debt/GDP ratio to 109.9% in 2014 from current forecast of 87.4%, were it to be financed out of public debt, as was done in Ireland or via ESM.

Overall, based on CDS-implied cumulative probabilities of default, expected losses on sovereign bonds of the entire EA17 ex-Greece amount to over €800 billion, or well in excess of 160% of the ESM initial lending capacity.



Europe is facing three coincident crises that are identical to those faced by Ireland and reinforce each other: fiscal imbalances, growth collapse, and a banking sector crisis.

Logic demands that Europe first breaks the contagion cycle that is seeing banking sector deleveraging exerting severe pressures and costs onto the real economy. Such a break can be created only by establishing a fully funded and credible EU-wide deposits insurance scheme, plus imposing an EU-wide system of banks debts drawdowns and debt-for-equity swaps, including resolution of liabilities held against national central banks and the ECB.

Alongside the above two measures, the EU must put forward a credible Marshall Plan Fund, to the tune of €1.75-2 trillion capacity spread over 7-10 years, with 2013 allocation of at least €500 billion. This can only be funded by the newly created money, not loans. The Fund should disburse direct monetary aid to finance private sector deleveraging in Spain, Ireland and to a smaller extent, Portugal. It should also provide structural investment funds to Greece, Italy and Spain, as well as to a much lesser extent Ireland and Portugal.

The funds cannot be allocated on the basis of debt issuance – neither in the form of national debts, nor in the form of euro bonds or ESM borrowings. Using debt financing to deal with the current crises is likely to push euro area’s expected 2013 debt to GDP ratio from 91% as projected by the IMF currently, to 115% - well above the sustainability threshold.

The euro area Marshall Plan funding will require severe conditionalities linked to long-term structural reforms. Such reforms should not be focused on delivering policies harmonization, but on addressing countries-specific bottlenecks. In the case of Ireland, the conditionalities should relate to reforming fiscal policy formation and public sector operational and strategic capabilities. Instead of quick-fix cuts and tax increases, the economy must be rebalanced to provide more growth in the private sectors, improved competitiveness in provision of core public services and systemic rebalancing of the overall economy away from dependency on MNCs for investment and exports.


Chart: Euro Area: debt crisis still raging

Source: IMF WEO, April 2012 and author own calculations


The core problem with Europe today is structural policies psychosis that offers no framework to resolving any of the three crises faced by the common currency area. Breaking this requires neither harmonization nor more debt issuance, but conditional aid to growth coupled with robust resolution mechanism for banking sector restructuring.


Box-out:

This week’s decision by the ECB to retain key rate at 1% - the level that represents historical low for Frankfurt.  However, two significant developments in recent weeks suggest that the ECB is likely to move toward a much lower rate of 0.5% in the near future. Firstly, as signalled by the euro area PMIs, the Eurozone is now facing a strong possibility of posting a recession in the first half of 2012 and for the year as a whole. Secondly, within the ECB governing council there have been clear signs of divergence in voting, with Mario Draghi clearly indicating that whilst previous rates decisions were based on a unanimous vote, this time, decision to stay put on rate reductions was a majority vote. A number of national central banks heads have dissented from previous unanimity and called for aggressive intervention with rate cuts. In addition, monetary dynamics continue to show continued declines in M3 multiplier (which has fallen by approximately 40 percent year on year in May) and the velocity of money (down to just under 1.2 as opposed to the US 1.6). All in, the ECB should engage in a drastic loosening of the monetary policy via unsterilized purchases of sovereign debt and cutting the rates to 0.25-0.5%, with a similar reduction in deposit rate to 0.25% to ease the liquidity trap currently created by the banks’ deposits with Frankfurt. The ECB concerns that lower rates will have adverse impact on tracker mortgages and other central bank rate-linked lending products held by the commercial lenders is misguided. Lower rate will increase banks’ carry trade returns on LTROs funds, compensating, partially, for deeper losses on their household loans.

23/6/2012: Iceland makes another early repayment of IMF funds

Iceland makes another early repayment of IMF funds:


Friday, June 22, 2012

22/6/2012: Bilateral Trade with Russia - January-April 2012

After a couple of months, it is time to update the stats for Ireland's bilateral trade with Russia, especially since this week we saw the release of January-April Trade in Goods data.

Exports to Russia (goods only) rose to €189mln in 4 months from January-April 2012, up on €170mln for the same period of 2011. The y/y increase therefore is running at 11.2% for trade with Russia, against -0.62% contraction recorded for our total goods exports. Among 21 geographies other than EU27, bilateral exports to Russia posted 7th highest rate of growth in first four months this year compared to same period 2011.

Meanwhile, Imports from Russia fell from €54mln to €40mln y/y over the first four months of 2012.


As the result, our trade surplus vis a vis Russia rose from €116mln in January-April 2011 to €149mln for the same period of 2012 - a rise of 28.5% y/y (third largest increase among non-EU27 countries).


When compared to the rest of BRICs, Russia is not the only country that is generating trade surpluses for Ireland's exporters. India accounted for just €81mln in exports from Ireland in the first 4 months of 2012, up on €64mln a year ago, but it generated a trade deficit for us of €74mln in 2012 so far, against a deficit of €73mln in the same period of 2011. Brazil imports from Ireland fell from €94mln in January-April 2011 to €91mln in January-April 2012. As the result of this and due to much higher imports from Brazil, Brazil-Irish trade posted a deficit against Ireland of €100mln in January-April 2012 against a surplus of €31mln a year ago. China accounts for a much larger share of our exports, with exports of €757mln in January-April 2012, down on €759mln in the same period of 2011. However, we imported €859mln worth of goods from China in the first four months of 2012 (up on €855mln in 2011), resulting in a trade deficit against Ireland in our bilateral trade with China.


Crucially, Irish trade balance in goods with Russia is much more value-additive than our trade with any other non-EU27 country, save Australia and Switzerland. In the first four months of 2012, our ratio of exports to imports vis-a-vis Russia rose from 3.15:1 a year ago to 4.73:1. Meanwhile, our overall trade in goods imports intensity rose from 1.76:1 in 2011 to 1.81:1 in 2012.

Forecasts for 2012 bilateral trade with Russia based on historical trend and latest changes in volumes is provided below:

22/6/2012: Deleveraging of Households US v UK, Spain

An interesting chart from McKinsey today updating deleveraging process for household debt in the US, Spain, and the UK:



Nothing new here (I have been saying the US is ahead of Europe on deleveraging, if only due to speedier foreclosure actions - which are slowing down due to legal challenges etc). And, unfortunately, the chart is very limited as to the scope of countries represented... but it does show how unrealistic are Spanish current expectations when it comes to how much more debt repayment would have to be generated to even get close to a more benign debt crisis in Sweden in the 1990s.

22/6/2012: One hell of a graphic

Love this graphic via Washington Post:


22/6/2012: Don't rush with that 'Germany Imploding' headline, mate

So the silly season of 'Germany is collapsing' is on again today with the release of the Ifo Index and the subsequent media charade on foot of yesterday's PMIs.

Now, let's take a look at the thesis so beloved by on-line business media hacks. Is Germany really caving in?

Headline Business Climate Index from Ifo:



What do the numbers tell us?

  • Headline Business Climate index fell from 106.9 in May to 105.3 in June - a monthly drop of 1.5%. Previous monthly drop was steeper at 2.7%, but 'business media' missed that.
  • Year on year, the index is down 7.9% - steeper than back in May when it fell 6.4% y/y.
  • 3mo MA is down 1.7% on previous 3mo period and is down 5.9% y/y.
  • 6mo MA is at 108.3 same as 12mo MA and the last two months both came in at below that. But the 3mo MA is at 107.4 - and that is probably more significant of an indicator than monthly readings. 
  • June reading is the lowest since March 2010 - the headline that many captured in their reports.
So things are not great. But are the schloss walls caving in? Look at the historical chart above. Current reading. Current 3mo MA is 107.4 - well ahead of historical average of 100.8 and crisis-period average of 103.2.

Next, take a look at the components of the index:



  • Business Situation sub-index actually improved in June to 113.9 from 113.6 in May. So last m/m move was +0.5% against previous m/m move of -3.6%. Y/y comparatives are less pleasant: June 2012 y/y index fell 7.5% against May 2012 y/y fall of 6.7%. 3mo MA fell 1.8% on previous and 5.7% y/y. 
  • Overall Business Situation sub-index remain weak - marking second lowest reading since August 2010. And it is below 12mo MA of 117.0 and 6mo MA at 116.0 both in level terms and in 3mo MA terms. Still, the sub-index is well ahead of 101.7 historical average and 107.1 crisis-period average.
  • Business Expectations sub-index fell 3.6% m/m in June to 97.3 compounding the fall of 1.8% in May. Y/y sub-index is down 8.3% in June after -6.0% drop in May. 3mo MA is down 1.7% on previous and down 6.2% on same period in 2011.
  • At 100.3 3moMA is now below 6moMA at 101.2 but is identical to 12mo MA at 100.3. The 3moMA for the sub-index is basically tracing the historical average of 100.2 and is only slightly ahead of the crisis-period average of 99.7.
  • Sub-index is now at the lowest point since October 2011.
  • But I wouldn't read too much into expectations sub-index, which tends to reflect the mood of the day, rather than act as a true leading indicator.
So overall, things are weak. The weakness is not accelerating in m/m terms, but is accelerating in y/y terms. Short-term averages are performing in line with June trends. Not a happy place, but not quite Armageddon either.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

21/6/2012: IMF Article IV on euro Area: a massive miss, but loads of passion

So having penned the G20 response to the euro area crisis (see post here) last night, tonight, IMF decided to issue another missive on the topic (here). Which makes you wonder if the IMF has become so frustrated with the euro area's lack of real leadership, it has now resorted to the tactic known as blanket bombing the EU with gloomy assessments.

Here are some interesting extracts [comments and emphasis are mine]:

"Downward spirals between sovereigns, banks, and the real economy are stronger than ever

As concerns about banks’ solvency have increased—because of large sovereign exposures and weak growth prospects in many parts of the euro area—the effectiveness of liquidity operations has diminished. [It is clear that the IMF is seeing the entire euro area response policy as a set of liquidity supply measures, rather than solvency and structural reforms set of measures.]

Sovereigns, in turn, are struggling to backstop weak banks on their own. Absent collective mechanisms to break these adverse feedback loops, the crisis has spilled across euro area countries. Contagion from further intensification of the crisis—including acute stress in funding markets and tensions involving systemically-important banks—would be sizeable globally. And spillovers to neighboring EU economies would be particularly large. 

A more determined and forceful collective response is needed."

So far so good. In the nutshell, the IMF is saying that the euro crisis is now threatening the EU itself. In other words, were some nut eurosceptic to invent a tool for undermining the EU, he couldn't have done much better than inventing the current euro zone.

So what are the IMF proposals for the euro area more forceful collective response? Why, of course it is integrate more and grow.

"Completing EMU: Banking and Fiscal Union to Support Integration

A strong commitment toward a robust and complete monetary union would help restore faith in the viability of EMU. This should encompass a credible path to a banking union and greater fiscal integration, with better governance and more risk sharing. However, achieving this goal will take time and hence requires a clear timeline, with concrete intermediate actions to set the guide posts and anchor public expectations."

Err... Mr IMF, I have a question: suppose we have a banking union. Which means all banks will be regulated under singular umbrella. Note - this does not mean having a proper regime for shutting down currently insolvent banks, nor does it mean a unified system of banks assets workout. It means, however, joint deposits protection scheme. Good thing, deposits protection. Confidence improving. Alas, last time I checked, Greek banks are sick because of the sick sovereign, bonds of which they hold & of the sick economy. Spanish and Irish banks are sick because they made bad loans. In all cases so far, banks are sick not because they lack regulatory unification, and not because they lack deposits protection, but because they have bad assets. How can a banks union make these assets any better?

Good news, IMF says: "The proposed EU framework for harmonized national bank resolution processes is a necessary first step. But it needs to go further. ...A common bank resolution authority is also needed. It should be backed by a common resolution fund to ensure burden sharing and to limit fiscal costs. These efforts should be supported by a common supervisory and macro-prudential framework to forestall further financial fragmentation. While a banking union is desirable at the EU27 level, it is critical for the euro 17."

Bad news: there are absolutely no proposals even discussed yet to cover banks resolution mechanism. IMF is exceptionally silent on what should be done to achieve such 'resolution' and EU has shown no willingness to allow shutting down of a single bank. Thus, common resolution mechanism in the IMF parlance means preciously little, but in the EU vocabulary it means simply 'burden sharing'. In other words, 'banks resolution' mechanism is more about shafting bad banks debt onto all of the euro zone collectively. While this might help individual countries, e.g. Ireland, it does nothing to change the reality that euro area combined Government debt is going to be 90% of GDP this year alone. In other words, relabeling, for example, Irish banks debt an EA17 debt, instead of the Irish Government debt, will not achieve any net improvement in terms of breaking the links between banks and sovereigns (the sovereign here, thus becomes EA17 instead of national) and it will do absolutely nothing to restore functioning banking in EA17. 

My suggestion would be for IMF to be more forthright and tell exactly what this 'resolution mechanism' should look like.


IMF goes on with lofty dreamin: 

"More fiscal integration, with risk sharing supported by stronger governance, can reduce the tendency for economic shocks in one country to imperil the euro area as a whole. Ultimately, this could mean sufficiently large resources at the center, matched by proper democratic controls and oversight, to help insure budget shortfalls at the national level. Getting to this endpoint will take time. But the process can start with a commitment to a broad-based dialogue about what a fuller fiscal union would imply for the sovereignty of member states and the accountability of the center. This should deliver a schedule for discussion, decision, and implementation."

Wait, aside from the desirability of such a solution (which is open to a debate), the IMF says that the solution will take time. Lots of time. And yet, this is supposed to be a response to the ongoing acute crisis? Or does IMF honestly believe that 'a commitment to a broad-based dialogue' will do anything to compensate for the fact that euro area peripheral states are currently insolvent? How? By telling the markets that they are 'broadly-speaking talking to each other'?

I do note that the IMF is clearly stressing the need for democratic systems reforms in line with integration. I wonder, however, what they have in mind, exactly. Are they saying EU is currently not democratic enough? After all, if EU is democratic, then 'proper democratic controls and oversight' would exist already and would simply need to be deployed to a new structure...


The IMF also offers an interesting insight into its perception of the euro bonds ideas: 

"Introduction of a limited form of common debt, with appropriate governance safeguards, can provide an intermediate step towards fiscal integration and risk sharing. Such debt securities could, at first, be restricted to shorter maturities and small size and be conditional on more centralized control (e.g., limited to countries that deliver on policy commitments; veto powers over national deficits; pledging of national tax revenues). Common bonds/bills financing could, for example, be used to provide the backstops for the common frameworks within the banking union."

Interesting, isn't it? On one hand, IMF foresees limited common debt issuance. On the other it foresees this common debt being used to 'backstop ... banking union'. Now, wait - I thought banking union backstop would have to be enough to deal with current acute problems in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy. That would be what? €300 billion? €500 billion? And that would have to be 'cheaper' and 'more stable' source of funding than ECB already provides. So it cannot be 'limited' and it cannot be 'short-term' (LTROs are already €1 trillion-large and 3-years long and they are not working).


In short, I see loads of frustration from the IMF side, but no real tangible solutions to the euro are crisis. 

21/6/2012: FDI attractiveness survey 2012

A very insightful, albeit subject to survey data/methods caveats, report from Ernst&Young on 2011 FDI and attractiveness of Europe (including Ireland) to FDI is just out. Link to downloadable report here.

Some (mostly Ireland-centric) highlights:

The good news is - Ireland is in top 10 in the 9th position - same as in 2010. The bad news - 2011 saw a decline in FDI into Ireland (kind of undercutting the Government claims). Now, keep in mind - these stats are based on number of deals, not size of deals, and these cover only Europe.

Here's what Ernst&Young survey had to say about Ireland:
"Securing 106 new FDI projects in 2011, Ireland retained its ninth place in the ranking of European FDI destinations. US investors provided nearly two-third of the projects. During the past three years Ireland’s competitiveness has improved significantly, with a striking reduction in business costs, including those for payroll, energy, office rents and services. A corporation tax rate of 12.5%, one of the lowest in the world, adds to Ireland’s attractions. In addition, Ireland enjoys good access to the rest of Europe and the Middle East and Africa. The country is also emerging as a preferred onshore destination for software firms seeking to establish regional or global headquarters. During the year, companies including Oracle Corp, EasyLink Services and McAfee Inc established or expanded their European headquarters in Ireland. The country also drew more FDI projects from pharmaceutical companies including Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis SA, Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co Inc."


Ireland didn't make the list of most attractive countries for FDI in the next 3 years

Nor did Dublin make the list for innovation top locations relating to ICT services (our core competency area), suggesting that ICT FDI into Ireland might be more focused on delivery to European markets, rather than innovation:

Interestingly, when asked what Europe can do to improve its innovation capacity, the responses were:
Needless to say, we are not doing much in Ireland to get priority 1, we claim to have good priority 2, but are hardly putting any policies in place to improve that, we have much of tax incentives already in place, but they are patently not working... as per rest... well, same story, really.

21/6/2012: Flash PMIs for Euro Area, Germany & France - June

Flash PMIs out for France, Germany and euro area. Predictably, not a pretty sight...

Here are the details:

Eurozone:



Germany:

 France:


There's a lot of surprise today in the media about 'German economy showing cracks' right... let's see:

  • The Chinese stopped buying Mercs & BMWs on foot of their own property bubble deflating... &
  • European companies & sovereigns stopped buying high end capex equipment on foot of euro bubble deflating... & 
  • German consumers... well, they've been dead since 1991... & 
  • German banks are discovering Greece-sized skeletons in their closets... 
  • Oh and per leading indicator for Germany - look at France...
so those cracks in German economy's facade... what a surprise then!


In reality, what is happening out there is simple -  a bunch of junior journos who got promoted into online news start-ups are all hopping mad over data they don't really quite know how to read. And lacking any real business experience, they are drawing conclusions no one can quite understand. 

21/6/2012: Few thoughts on G20 report on Euro Area

Joint G20 assessment of the euro area (emphasis and comments are mine):

"Efforts on several fronts  are still needed to build a stronger monetary union. Specifically: 

  1. moving toward a pan-euro-area financial stability framework, which inter alia implies centralized powers in banking supervision and resolution, and common deposit insurance; [banking union, consistent with my view of what is required to shore banking sector, but absent a pan-European insolvency resolution regime, not sufficient condition for sustainable crisis resolution]
  2. stronger fiscal integration, including national fiscal rules, as envisaged by the Fiscal Compact, complemented by fiscal risk sharing to ensure that economic dislocation in one country does not develop into a costly fiscal and financial crisis for the entire region; [Naive, or rather politically correct, statement. The Fiscal Compact can be expected to have any real effect on fiscal performance in the medium-long term. Precisely the time scale over which it will be most likely non-enforceable.]
  3. structural reform to strengthen competitiveness and improve the  ability to adjust to shocks, including by a wage-setting mechanism that is more responsive to firm-level economic conditions, reducing labor market duality and in general barriers to hiring and firing, and lowering barriers to domestic and foreign competitions in product markets. [This is another weak policy orientation. Structural reforms are needed, beyond any argument, but these must start not from altering cost competitiveness but from creating institutional and operational platforms for entrepreneurship and investment. Europe lacks growth dynamics not because its labour costs are too high or there is a difficulty with hiring and laying off workers. These are important factors, but they are not primary ones. Europe lacks growth because the Governments take up 50% of the economy, because taxes are prohibitive to investment and jobs creation, consumption and saving, because the structure of European institutions favors incumbents over newcomers and thus retards fully social mobility and renewal.]

There is growing awareness among European policy makers to move along these lines and
active efforts are underway to build the necessary consensus."

Overall, G20 is still held hostage to:

  1. Consensus policies represented by the IMF-think - of micro-fixing sub-structures of specific politically correct markets for inputs (labour) instead of focusing on the larger scale imbalances that lead to unsustainable expansion of the state over private sector opportunities and returns.
  2. Politically correct 'non-interference' in specific solutions designed by the euro area - most visible in the acceptance of the Fiscal Compact framework as a 'sustainable' solution to the fiscal crisis.

I find it amazing that the G20 (or rather it is IMF who authored the document) is treating recent adjustments in the economic imbalances in the euro area as if it is something that is consistent with a functional adjustment.

"The global financial crisis has triggered a noticeable narrowing of external imbalances. As world trade collapsed, current account balances of deficit economies improved substantially—well in excess of what would have been expected given the fall in output based on standard trade elasticities (i.e., “residual” changes are large), despite a significant increase in interest costs on their external debt. Substantial demand compression following the collapse of credit, asset and housing booms and a decline in confidence in periphery economies, reinforced by fiscal consolidation, played an  important role in this wrenching adjustment. Many of the factors identified below as contributing to the imbalances—such as excessive optimism and easy financial conditions begetting consumption and construction booms—are out of the picture now. Hence, much of the adjustment observed so far is likely to be lasting."

Firstly, I agree that much of the adjustment outlined above is now engrained into consumer and investor behavior. Secondly, I disagree that the fiscal adjustments have been either significant or sustainable in the long run. Let us keep in mind that there is no decrease in government spending in 2011-2012. There is an increase. But what worries me most in the above is that the adjustments described would be consistent with the rates of growth into the future that are hardly sustainable given debt overhang. In other words, the environment of depressed consumer credit, consumer spending, high interest cost of capital, etc warrants growth expectation for euro area of 1-1.5 percent annually in real terms, if not lower. Working out debt of 90% to GDP (fiscal debt alone) and well in excess of 250% for the total debt at the above rates of growth, in my view, is simply not going to happen. Unless we are talking about double-digit inflation.

An interesting related chart: 

The above clearly shows how deep collapse of economy has driven 'improvements' in Irish external balance (purple area representing collapse in growth) and how our automatic fiscal policy destabilizers (income & transfers) have been a 'break' on the external balance improvements. (Note: I am not suggesting there is a positive value in driving income & transfers down, just observing the fact). As per my term of automatic fiscal destabilizers, here's the quote from the report:
"In some booming economies (e.g., Ireland and Spain), debt ratios declined, but given the extent to which ample fiscal revenues had been linked to unsustainable asset market developments, structural balances remained fundamentally weak. That weakness was unmasked by the crisis."


I'll blog on specific risk assessment report tomorrow, so stay tuned.



Tuesday, June 19, 2012

19/6/2012: Euro area - flawed from design through execution

Here's the article on euro's flawed construct from Canada's The Globe&Mail citing myself (among others). And here is the full comment on the topic:


The core mistake within the entire architecture of the euro is the creation of the common currency in the first place. 

Absent organic, democratically-anchored federal union, common currency zone is simply non-viable even at the level of the 'strong Nordic' euro, let alone at the level of the euro that binds together vastly divergent - politically, economically, culturally and institutionally - states. 

The comparison of divergences present within the euro with those present amongst the states of the US - the common argument that divergences are not the systemic weak point of the euro construct - is missing the core point. That point is that divergence within the euro area are demographically, historically and institutionally anchored and no amount of 'top-to-bottom' siloed integration and harmonization of policies will deliver on breaking these divergences. Only organic, bottom-up and horizontal integration first of political systems, alongside human capital mobility and capital mobility, with trade liberalization, stretched over a number of generations can result in the emergence of the shared platforms that can unify the systems and instituions of vastly differing demographics that represent Europe.

By foregoing flexibility of diverse currencies and monetary policy systems, by forcing superficial convergence of policies and institutions onto the economies with no developed competitive advantages suitable to the current constantly and rapidly changing world (and often even against the already existent competitive advantages), the euro has weakened, not strengthened the core economies, making it virtually inevitable that the less advanced economies of the euro area will develop an asset bubble of one type or the other as the sole driver for growth, absent real organic drivers.

The crisis of the euro does not stem from the lack of monetary fitness. The lack of such fitness is itself is the symptom of the deeper problems within the euro architecture. Instead, the crisis was caused by the failure of the European economic model that first relied on public debt and subsequently, having run out of the road on public debt financing of growth in early 2000s, on private debt. Now, like Japan of the early 1990s, Europe is a debt-ridden economy with no catalyst for growth. Like Japan, it eliminated social and entrepreneurial mobility and pursued self-preservationism at all levels of its economy for far too long. 

Alas, unlike Japan, Europe is neither an R&D, nor exports, nor modern infrastructure powerhouse in the world that is much more advanced than it was in the 1990s. Which makes euro area a Japan2.0 with far fewer options and user friendliness. 

Good luck selling that as a 'vision' to global investors.

19/6/2012: IMF raises more funds at Los Cabos

IMF has secured some serious money at Los Cabos G20. From Christine Lagarde statement today:

"A number of IMF member countries have today announced pledges to boost IMF resources, completing the effort launched jointly at our Spring Meetings in April 2012 by the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) and G-20 (see Press Release No. 12/147). Countries large and small have rallied to our call for action, and more may join. I salute them and their commitment to multilateralism. As a result, total pledges have risen to US$456 billion, almost doubling our lending capacity."

Here's a table. Stars mark countries that contributed at G20 meeting in Los Cabos:


Keep in mind - contributions totals are new contributions on top of existent ones, so IMF is not running out of money. Spain will make things worse, but it too will not put IMF over the top... not yet. 


You can read the above as the 'good news': IMF got more fire power to deal with the crises. You can also read it as the bad news: in desperately seeking its next debt fix, Europe has de facto surrendered its last bastion of geopolitical influence - the IMF - to the new economies. The road that led us to Los Cabos marks that change from the Euro area being the controlling power over the IMF, if only in conjunction with the US, to it becoming the largest borrower from the IMF. With this change, we might as well recall that ten years ago, Brussels leaders were talking about this being a European Century.

Monday, June 18, 2012

18/6/2012: Told ya so... Greek tax collection slumps during elections

Yesterday, I commented that during the elections, Greeks have stopped pushing through austerity measures so as not to aggravate the electorate. When challenged to explain what I meant I said that during the elections, Governments pay their debts to businesses on time, pay suppliers on time, stop enforcement actions on taxes due and stop tax reforms. Here it the confirmation that this has happened: link. Note Novotny saying that Greek tax collection is virtually halted during elections and will now be restarted and recent austerity measures are said to add hundreds (if not thousands) of unexpected euros to tax bills.

Update 25/6/2012: this just in - Greece exceeded targets for hiring civil servants and effectively suspended structural adjustments for two months during elections (link). 

18/6/2012: Irish Trade in Goods: April 2012

In the previous post (here) I highlighted some concerns emerging from April 2012 data on trade in goods. Now, let's take a look at actual data. All data is seasonally adjusted.

April imports volume came in at €3,561 million, down 22.5% or €1,034 million on March 2012 and down 27.61% or €1,358 million on April 2011. Historical average for monthly imports is €4,417 million, while crisis period average is €4,121 million. 12mo MA is €3,945 million. All of this means that current April imports are seriously under-trend and we can expect either an uptick going forward or continued weakness. The former would imply recovery in exports, the latter would imply continued slowdown in exports.

Compared to same period 2010, Imports are now running down -15.64%.

April volume of exports was €6,993 million down €713 million or -9.25% m/m and down €584 million or -7.71% y/y. Exports in April were down 3.08% on April 2010. Current level of imports is significantly below historical average of €7,289 million and crisis period average of €7,407. 12mo MA is €7,647.


Trade surplus has risen on foot of rapid fall off of imports despite a rather pronounced drop in exports. Trade surplus stood at €3,432 million, up €320 million (+10.28%) m/m and up €774 million (+29.12%) y/y. Compared to April 2010, April 2012 trade surplus for goods trade is up 14.63%.

Average monthly surplus is €2,872 million and crisis period average is €3,286 million. 12mo MA is ahead of both at €3,702 million.


January-April 2012 imports are down 7.2%, exports are down 0.9% and trade surplus is up 7.6% year on year.



Imports intensity of exports (or ratio of exports €€s per € of imports) is now at 196.4 - up on March level of 167.7 and up on 154.0 in April 2011. Historical average ratio is 168% and crisis period average is 182%. 12mo MA ratio is 195 and January-April 2012 average ratio is up 6.6% y/y.


The CSO has not reported any terms of trade indices since December 2011.






18/6/2012: Irish Trade: April 2012 disappoints

Irish trade stats for trade in goods are out for April. The numbers are, frankly put, alarming.

Remember, we are supposed to generate robust exports growth in order to even sustain the misery of the ongoing austerity. April 2011 SPU envisioned exports growth of 6.8% in 2011 and 5.7% in 2012. Budget 2012 envisioned 2011 exports expansion of 4.6% and 2012 exports growth of 3.6%. April 2012 SPU set 2011 achieved exports growth of 4.1% - down massive 2.7 percentage points on year-ahead forecast of April 2011 and down 0.5 percentage points on Budget 2012 assumption. But more significantly, April 2012 SPU revised 2012 projected exports growth to 3.3%. So within a year, exports forecast for 2012 has dropped from 5.7% to 3.3%.

Even more realistic IMF is projecting exports growth of 3.0% this year (see the first table here).

And the latest data is not encouraging. For tarde in goods only, January 2012-April 2012 period total volume of imports is down 7.17% y/y, while total volume of exports is down 0.87%. Not up 3.3%, but down almost 1%. Trade surplus is up 7.7%, but that is due to fall-off in imports that can mean only two things: either imports accelerate much faster than exports in months ahead as MNCs rebuild their diminishing stocks of inputs, or imports do not accelerate as MNCs cut back exports output. Not a good thing.

And worse. In January 2012, seasonally adjusted exports grew robust 14.1% y/y, but in February they shrunk 9.8%. This was followed by 1.5% growth again in March and now it is followed up by a massive 7.7% contraction in April. Thus average rate of growth in exports in the first four months of 2012 is -0.59%. Things are volatile in goods exports, but that is an alarming trend.

I will deal with detailed exports and trade stats for goods for April in the second post - stay tuned.

18/6/2012: Russian Ruble Note

For the ongoing Irish trade mission to Russia, IRBA issued the following note to our members concerning the current FX environment relating to Russian ruble (click on individual slides to enlarge):




Sunday, June 17, 2012

17/6/2012: Stability & Greek elections

Quote of the week:

Pamela McCourt: "Stability in language is synonymous with rigor mortis. - Ernest Weekley, lexicographer". To EU & its 'national' elites: watch what you wish for, for it just might happen.

And in light of the Greek elections results, 'stability' in the euro area is, indeed, a form of rigor mortis. Need proof? Here's the EU statement on the Greek elections results, quoted in full [emphasis mine]:

"The Eurogroup takes note of the provisional results of the Greek elections on 17th June, which should allow for the formation of a government that will carry the support of the electorate to bring Greece back on a path of sustainable growth.

The Eurogroup acknowledges the considerable efforts already made by the Greek citizens and is convinced that continued fiscal and structural reforms are Greece’s best guarantee to overcome the current economic and social challenges and for a more prosperous future of Greece in the euro area.

The Eurogroup reiterates its commitment to assist Greece in its adjustment effort in order to address the many challenges the economy is facing.

The Eurogroup therefore looks forward to the swift formation of a new Greek government that will take ownership of the adjustment programme to which Greece and the Eurogroup earlier this year committed themselves.

The Eurogroup expects the Troika institutions to return to Athens as soon as a new government is in place to exchange views with the new government on the way forward and prepare the first review under the second adjustment programme."

So you have to be a bit of an optimist to read any of the above as a commitment by the Eurogroup to any sort of change in the Greek bailout terms. And absent significant and rapid changes in the programme, there is not a snowballs' chance in Hell that Greece is going to satisfy these conditions in the medium term. Stability of status quo reaffirmed in the Greek elections results is, in fact, the death warrant to the yet-to-be formed Greek Government.