DofF Forecast: does it hold any water?

I have a serious question to ask of our Government: Do budgetary projections by the DofF in (e.g those contained in their January 2009 Addendum covered here) hold any water?

In particular, no one has yet taken the DofF forecasters to a task of explaining how on earth, with projected:

• shrinking GDP (-€7.6bn in 2009 in nominal terms relative to 2008) and GNP,
• negative inflation (-1%),
  
• rising unemployment (+2.9 percentage points on 2008) and falling employment (-4%), and
• rising, not falling, Net Current Expenditure (+4.3bn in 2009),
  

does DofF come up with a revenue fall-off of just €3.9bn for 2009 relative to 2008 and total revenue as a percentage of GDP actually rising from 33.6% in 2008 to 33.7% in 2009? (Those of you who are impatient enough, see one potential answer at the end of this post)...

These numbers - the backbone of Irish Government plans for the year - are suspiciously incongruous. Not only because they do not seem to add up. But also because we have no reason to trust DofF forecasts on the basis of their historical accuracy.

Do Government numbers hold up to scrutiny?
This week, it came to media attention that the entire Department of Finance employs only one PhD-level economist. As far as I am aware, we do not know:

1. Where and when did this person obtain her/his degree?
2. Was her/his degree in the field of macroeconomic modeling?
3. Has he/she ever published peer-reviewed research in the areas of taxation and/or macroeconomic forecasting?

In other words, we have no idea how qualified this economist is to carry out macroeconomic forecasting, policy evaluations and risk analysis.

Furthermore, per my knowledge, no one knows who exactly is responsible for supervision and execution of forecasting in DofF and what model is being used. Searching DofF website for Chief Economist reveals no such person. We do not know whether forecasting function is, indeed, an established and managerially resourced function of the Department. Ditto on the Risk Analysis side, which requires both an expert in microeconomic risk modeling and macroeconomic risk specialist.

It is simply not sufficient to say that accountancy or previous budgetary experience, potentially possessed by some DofF employees (how many?) qualifies the Department to deliver any sort of economic analysis or projections. Certainly not the ones which can used by the Government to argue about the need for one reform or another.

In fact, to see the absolute poverty of economic policy research output produced by DofF one should go straight to the source: here. They might as well publish these reports in Gaelic only, for no serious economist would recognize this as proper economics.

One example: in the sole document relating to economic reviews and outlook for 2008, titled Irealnd's Contribution to the Public Consultation Process on the Review of the EU Budget (I am not kidding - they couldn't even spell Ireland correctly). Here, DofF's 'Research' team devotes only 4 pages to the entire analysis of a vital fiscal policy process. The issue of EU-wide tax - something that was a hot topic of debate in Ireland throughout 2007-2008 is given 148 words! Of course, DofF gives five times this much to the discussion of CAP - suggesting, perhaps, our Finance boffins are more comfortable in the cow sheds than in the world of macro-finance and macroeconomics.

Getting basic research wrong - something that is being done by virtually all Irish Government departments on a routine basis - is a serious issue. Brandishing as a major reform a promise to get policies onto an 'evidence-driven' platform, as our Government did last week (see here: 3rd bullet point under Taxation heading), while having no capability to prepare proper economic analysis is hardly a responsible way of governing.

When even the mighty fail by poor research
Few months back, I was sent a research note from PIMCO's cult giant, Bill Gross. Gross is an archetypal salesman, in my view, who has fantastic intuitive understanding of the market (which is way more than our public sector mandarins and politicians have). This is, in most instances, sufficient to earn high rates of return and to contain downside risks.

But, it is not enough to do two things -
(a) provide rigorous analysis of your position in the market at any point in time - past, present, or future; and
(b) explain to others why your intuitive searchlight is capable of picking the right opportunities out of the mass of potential investment strategies.

Published in June 2008 (see here: those of you who attended my class last Fall in TCD's MSc in Finance would recognize it) the note contained a rant about US inflation indices. Specifically, Gross expended some 4 pages of small print arguing that

1. US inflation has been historically higher than measured by the CPI;
2. True US inflation should be much closer to the 'global' average (including such economically stable and developed countries like Venezuela, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Columbia, Turkey, Ecuador and Vietnam - out of a sample of 24 countries chosen, seemingly, to deliver Gross' point).
   

All of this led to the following conclusion:
"What are the investment ramifications [of the 'fact' that U.S. inflation is closer to worldwide levels than previously thought]? With global headline inflation now at 7% there is a need for new global investment solutions, a role that PIMCO is more than willing (and able) to provide. In this role we would suggest: 1) Treasury bonds are obviously not to be favored because of their negative (unreal) real yields. 2) U.S. TIPS, while affording headline CPI protection, risk the delusion of an artificially low inflation number as well. 3) On the other hand, commodity-based assets as well as foreign equities whose P/Es are better grounded with local CPI and nominal bond yield comparisons should be excellent candidates. 4) These assets should in turn be denominated in currencies that demonstrate authentic real growth and inflation rates, that while high, at least are credible. 5) Developing, BRIC-like economies are obvious choices for investment dollars."

Lacking:

• serious analysis - Gross tweaked the evidence to support his own premise;
• proper investigation of academic and practitioner research - Gross ignored the fact that several Congressional and academic investigations since the early 1990s have concluded that CPI actually overestimates the true extent of inflation in the US by between 0.5% and 1% pa,

he produced a call to arms for investors that cost PIMCO and those who follow its strategy an arm and a leg. How? Gross' advice - issued in June 2008 -

• has missed a significant H2 2008 rally in Treasuries, Munis and TIPS;
• calling for heavier weighting for commodities-linked economies came at the time of extreme valuations of these economies (e.g Russia and Brazil both have peaked in June-August 2008), before they fell off the cliff in H2 2008;
• led to an unprecedented cancellation of dividends by several PIMCO munis funds - the first time in known history any fund suspended payouts for what is, in effect, a monthly yield-generating securities class.

I do enjoy the fact that, being criticised at the time for arguing against Gross' June note, I did turn out to be right about both his call on inflation (he was concerned with hyper-inflation as the world was teetering on the verge of deflation) and on emerging markets.

Back to DofF numbers
But I am not telling this story with some malice towards Gross or PIMCO in mind. At the very least, the man can spell Ireland better than our DofF boffins can. Instead, I am using it as an illustration as to the importance of proper research in backing any strategy - investment and/or policy-related. PIMCO's operations are much more superior to what is going on in our DofF and the rest of civil service when it comes to the quality of research and analysis. This implies that if people like Gross can get things spectacularly wrong, people that occupy our DofF - quipped with one token PhD level economist - simply have no chance at getting anything right.

Remember their latest numbers:

• shrinking GDP (-€7.6bn relative to 2008),
• negative inflation (-1%),
  
• rising unemployment (+2.9 percentage points on 2008) and falling employment (-4%),
• a revenue fall-off for the Exchequer of just €3.9bn for 2009 relative to 2008, and
  
• a total revenue as a percentage of GDP actually rising from 33.6% in 2008 to 33.7% in 2009

Well, of course to get these things to add up, one has to assume that tax increases passed in the Budget 2009 will not reduce tax revenue. In other words, that the Laffer Curve does not work. We shall see, of course, but empirical studies provide little comfort that such an assumption is a reasonable one. Ditto the numbers on retail spending in the NI and South of the border, SuperQuinn's plan to shut down supermarket located near Newry and loads of anecdotal evidence showing that Irish shoppers are fleeing the Republic for that VAT heaven of NI.

This spells serious trouble for the Government. Suppose that due to increases in the income tax, VAT and other taxes, the revenue were to decline by, say, 2.1% of GDP - as it did in less recessionary 2008. This would imply that tax increases will still be contributing positive revenue growth for the Exchequer, although on a much smaller scale. In such a scenario,

• the net Exchequer borrowing will jump from 6.3% of GDP to 8.4% of GDP,
• the General Government Deficit will rise by €3.8bn in 2009 - from 9.1% of GDP projected by DofF assuming €2bn in savings goes through, to over 12%.

Now, suppose tax increases wipe out any revenue gains by 2010 - the deficit will then rise to above 13% of GDP in 2009 and 15% in 2010.

Add to this the fact that while DofF was basing its numbers on -4% growth rate in GDP for 2009, the economy quite probably will contract by at least 5% - balooning potential deficit to 15-16% this year.

A scary thought, indeed, because even the IMF will not lend Mr Cowen a penny with such financial performance on the plans. So much for Brian, Brian&Mary's 'evidence-based' policies...

Debt Mountain 'Ireland Inc'

For those of you who missed my yesterday's article in the Indo on this topic, see here. The article was filed before we had latest figures on the stupendous amount of negative net worth on Irish corporate balance sheets (here).

JohnM was right in his comment that the State has been 'dumping' risk on taxpayers. The irony is - the state has been 'dumping' risk also onto the shoulders of debt-loaded companies, households and even the stock markets. About the only segment of the population that escaped this 'benevolence' of our Leaders is the public sector. Although one must recognise that some workers in the public sector are being paid too little, given that a few of them are actually productive in their jobs, just as one must recognise the fact that not everyone in Fianna Fail is happy to support what the Government has been doing to us.

The above caveats aside, it is, thus, the difference between ZanuPF and ZanuFF that the former cronies are wearing military uniforms, while the latter favours grey suits of the civil service and bearded folks from the unions.

Mushroom Cloud Redux II

Per excellent comment (see here and scroll to comment) to an earlier post on this matter, here are comparatives for Irish Banks index vis-a-vis European Banks. The first chart plots, as before, time series of indices.
In many ways, the series do indeed co-move much closer together until about October 2008, when things are starting to go per-shape for Ireland. This trend of significant deviations in Irish Banks from their peers in Europe accelerated through today, although to see this more clearly, consider the second chart below.
If you look at the correlations between Irish bank shares and both indices, it should be pretty clear that a relatively close link between Irish and European financials broke down around September 29th and was never repaired since. (Note that these are weekly moving correlations, so that a date of 13/10/2008 corresponds to data from 7/10/2008 through 13/10/2008.)

In fact things have spun completely out of sync starting in mid November - precisely when Irish Government got busy 'repairing' our Banking sector. In fact, things got much more dramatic in terms of Irish v EU Banks than in terms of Irish Banks v EU markets since the end of December.

Overall, my strategy still stands, but it is even more pronounced in terms of Irish Banks v European Financials: "Lenihan/Cowen are about to speak? Short Ireland, long Europe"... The only thing worth examining at this junction is whether 'long Europe' might be inferior to, say, 'long US' or UK. But that has nothing to do with our Government's ability or with the topic of this post.

Update: Irish bank shares correlations with both EU Financials and EU total price index are now moving down - ca 96% last night's close (in weekly moving correlations terms) to 86% today... Watch these!

Mushroom Cloud Redux

Per my earlier posts, here are the latest comparisons between our Financials and the broader European markets.

A new dip is courtesy of our Government's 'Best 5 Ways to Ruin a Country' Framework that I released yesterday (beating the Irish Times in bringing it to public attention by some 12 hours - here).

But enough bragging - back to charts.

The first one is self-explanatory:Mass of volatility (risk) being dumped onto Irish shares by our Government wobbling on economic crisis and banks is self evident. If the Government was really accountable for its actions, maybe investors could have taken it to courts for value destruction.

Alas, this is not how the real world works. Here, on Planet reality, Brian-Brian-Mary prevaricate (in taking hard decisions), we pay. And so it looks like we've had a bear rally and now we are back on a downward track. The only hope - it might bottom out at somewhere above 550 for ISEQ FIN this time around, fingers crossed.

It is the second chart that opens up a more detailed picture of the latest outbreak of the Irish markets disease.
As shown above, weekly correlation between Irish Financials (ISEQ FIN) shares index and the broader Eurozone markets had a series of rollercoaster rides ever since the current Government took up a task of 'fixing' our economy. In particular, Irish markets forays outside the 'No Hedge' territory - into low positive (below 0.25 or negative) correlation values implies that at virtually every point of change in the Government policy, an investor would have done better by betting against the Irish market and in favour of the broader European indices. As powerful of an indication as one can get that markets do not trust this Government in resolving Ireland's economic crisis.

I mean, how bad can the things get for a Government if selling into Brian-Brian-Mary's statements can become a winning strategy for investors?..

Government's Plan for Ireland: Exclusive... Part 5

Per earlier posts, italics are my


5. Work together to implement a reform agenda

(i) to implement an agenda for enterprise and competitiveness based on the Framework for Sustainable Economic Renewal: Building Ireland’s Smart Economy including:

• building on strengths in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sectors (back to De Valera's Dream, then?)
  
• developing the ideas economy with intensified R&D activity and greater commercialisation of the output of that research (more MIT Media Labs and E-voting machines?)
• supporting the manufacturing sector (How?)
• encouraging entrepreneurship and business start-ups (by raising taxes and taking more money out of families' pockets?)
• pursuing opportunities to expand the services sector, in particular international services (by doing what?)
• realising the long-term potential of the tourism sector (How? By setting a minimum wage that makes our labour uncompetitive? By hiking VAT rates and adding new taxes on tourism?)
• improving trade, investment and tourism links with new and fast-developing markets (more junkets to exotic destinations for the Cabinet?)
• pursuing opportunities in the Green Enterprise sector, including in the area of energy efficiency (aka we take your money and your light bulbs?)
  

(I have commented on this plan before. It is a road map to nowhere for a number of reasons outlined here and here. But what is truly egregious in all of this is that the ‘plan’ above comes after the promise of carrying out only evidence-based expenditure programmes, despite most of it being based on no evidence at all and parts of it having the preponderance of evidence against them.)

(ii) to develop a new approach to upskilling and reskilling those in employment and those outside the labour market; we will convene a Jobs and Skills Summit in March 2009 to devise innovative approaches to maintenance of employment, creation of new employment and early and active engagement with those losing their jobs; we will also seek to maximise eligible support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for initiatives to support those who are made redundant

(Read: we'll get FAS to fly back to see NASA and beg the EU to give us some handouts to pay for their trips)

(iii) to ensure that sheltered sectors of the economy, including professional services, bear their full share of the burden of adjustment

(This Government cannot even force its own employees to take a cut, imagine them going after protected professions? But what they will do is tax. Tax anyone with a degree - for people who invested in their education tend to earn more. Tax anyone with skills - for people with skills tend to earn more. Tax anyone with experience - for... well - you get the wind.)

(iv) to implement the employment rights provisions in the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement

(And raise wages and perks for the least productive in our economy?)

(v) to deliver measurable public service reform to improve the efficiency and quality of public services, based on the Government’s Statement on Transforming the Public Service published in 2008

(Since 2008, the Government sat on its hands, doing absolutely nothing about this. Will they change their mind? Not. The entire programme proposed by Mr Cowen today is a give-away to the public sector trade unions and politically-connected lobbies. Mark my words - there will be no change!)

(vi) to continue implementation of the Health Service Reform Programme, including utilising the Health Forum under Towards 2016

(After a gratuitous increase in pay for consultants in exchange for no new responsibilities or any work load increases, there hardly anyone in the country who believes in this drivel)

(vii) to finalise a comprehensive framework for future pension policy which responds to the challenges facing the Irish pensions system in the years ahead

(Read: mandatory pensions, claw back of tax benefits for pensions savings and vast transfers of pensions-linked wealth from the private sector. In other words - another tax!)

(viii) to ensure our approach to regulation, accountability and corporate governance delivers a sustainable society and economy

(Mr Cowen's speak for more red tape on ordinary businesses!)


6. Conclusion

The Government and Social Partners commit to work intensively over the immediate period ahead to develop specific measures to finalise and then implement a Pact based on this framework.

Ends

This 'plan' is a classic example of “How to Destroy a Country in Five Easy Steps” guide:
1) Raise taxes in a recession;
2) Yield on everything to the narrow interest groups;
3) Spend precious taxpayers cash on feel-good Government waste;
4) Pile on more regulation and delegate democracy to an unelected group of public sector lobbyists;
5) Keep rolling back your previous promises and commitments (i.e Mr Lenihan’s repeated promises that he will not raise taxes)

If this is Mr Cowen’s way, his philosophy, would the last person leaving this country turn of the lights, please!

Government's Plan for Ireland: Exclusive... Part 4

Continued, as earlier italics are my:

Part 3:


An Equitable Approach

The Government and Social Partners believe that support for these adjustments will be strengthened by measures which demonstrate that the burden is being shared equitably across society. This includes:

• the need to ensure that moderation in respect of executive remuneration is seen to contribute meaningfully to the adjustment required
• that those who benefited most from the economic boom should make a particular contribution to the adjustment required
  

(This is it? Given that wages in the public sector earn 40%+ premium on pay in comparable private sector occupations, who, Mr Cowen, has benefited most from the boom?)


Delivering the Fiscal Stabilisation Framework

The Government and Social Partners agree that a credible response to the fiscal situation requires a further adjustment at this stage of the order of €2 billion in 2009.

(But this is the same response Mr Lenihan announced in July. This means that either the Government finds no need to change its response to the crisis as it evolved since July, or that Brian-Brian-Mary are simply dumping more than 90% of the budget deficit for 2009 onto the shoulders of the private sector alone, with the unionized public sector carrying less than 10% of the burden. Is this their version of evidence-based equitable policy?)

In addition to this immediate adjustment required in 2009, the Government and Social Partners commit to working together under the Pact to support the further adjustments required to reduce the General Government Deficit below 3% over the remainder of the five year period.

(Can the authors of this document explain how on earth can this Partnership deliver on cuts of €4bn in 2010, €2bn in 2011, €1.75bn in 2012 and €1.25bn in 2013 – as envisioned by the DofF January 2009 forecast (see here http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/01/doff-instability-report.html) if the same Partnership is having such a hard time delivering a €2bn cut this year? Furthermore, observe that there is not a word about cutting excessively high public sector pay, freezing public sector wages or reforming public sector pensions and perks. None! This leaves the cuts to come solely from the service side.)

4. Short-term Stabilisation of the Economy

In order to maximise economic activity and employment in the short-term, the Government will:

• provide a fiscal stimulus in 2009 and 2010 by maintaining capital investment at a high level by both international and historical standards

(In other words, their emergency response is to continue with NDP investment planned well before the crisis hit. This is equivalent to doing nothing, Brians)

• re-prioritise this capital expenditure in 2009 and 2010 in order to support labour-intensive activities where possible
• bring forward further proposals to support enterprises during this extremely difficult period, recognising in particular the pressures arising from currency movements, and thereby support those in vulnerable employments
  

(What does this mean? There are no details on any of these measures and it is impossible to determine what exactly can the Government do to achieve these objectives)

• act quickly to improve competitiveness including increasing competition across the economy and reforming price regulation in areas such as energy

(ditto)

It is recognised that stabilising the financial and banking sector is essential to secure a banking system which is fit for purpose. Accordingly, Government action will seek to:

• assist those who get into difficulties with their mortgages; in early 2009 a new statutory Code of Practice in relation to mortgage arrears and home repossessions will be brought forward, and the mortgage interest scheme will be reviewed

(Again, no details on a crucially important promise.)

• maximise the flow of credit to the enterprise sector and ensure early introduction of a code of practice on business lending

(This is pure financial and economic nonsense. The Government cannot ‘maximize’ credit flows and short of requiring the banks to issue sub-prime equivalent high risk business loans at knock down rates, no ‘code of practice’ will help restaring credit flows to failing businesses. Subsequently, this section simply proves economic and financial illiteracy of our leaders.)

• introduce controls on the remuneration of senior executives, in accordance with the recommendations of the independent committee established by the Minister for Finance...
• maximise sustainable employment in the sector
  

(What sector? How about maximising sustainable employment of proof-readers for future Government programmes?)

Recognising that unemployment will rise significantly in the period ahead, the Government and Social Partners will work together to maximise employment and help those who lose their jobs by:

• designing a flexicurity approach appropriate to Irish conditions which keeps people working where feasible and equips people to return to employment as quickly as possible by maximising the availability and impact of education, upskilling and training supports

(Flexicurity is an unproven approach to labour market regulations that can be cost-prohibitive to the society at large and ineffective in delivering real employment gains. The Government, having committed itself earlier in the document to ‘evidence-based’ policies has just committed to a policy which was never debated and the evidence in support of which is thin and contradictory. What is far worse than that however, is that the entire labour market policy of Ireland has been at the will of the Government surrendered to an unelected, unaccountable to the taxpayers Partnership. This is an afront to democracy.)

• redeploying resources to ensure efficient and timely delivery of direct State supports to those who lose their jobs including social welfare payments, redundancy payments and payments to workers in cases of insolvent companies

The Government and Social Partners will address the serious and urgent difficulties facing private sector pension schemes.

(Again, after wobbling through a list of secondary measures, a major area where reforms in the public sector and private sector are truly needed is left unadressed!)


More to come, stay tuned...