Economics 16/04/2010: The incoming train II

It is a good feeling to be ahead of the curve, especially when the curve is drawn by the likes of FT. Per today's FT Deutschland report: the ECB is warning about a new crisis, a return of global imbalances in the coming years. In its monthly report the ECB warns: “At the current juncture, global imbalances continue to pose a key risk to global macroeconomic and financial stability . . . The stakes are high to prevent a disorderly adjustment in the future that would be costly to all economies.” Jurgen Stark is predicting that we have entered a new stage in the financial crisis – a sovereign debt crisis which means that “dealing with [the resulting severe macroeconomic imbalances] will represent one of the most daunting challenges for policymakers in modern history.”

My own take on the same topic was published here.

Another issue, also raised repeatedly on this blog, is discussed in Joachim Fels' (Morgan Stanley) piece on FT Alphaville (here). Fels makes a claim that countries with a high degree of inflation aversion (Germany) might have an incentive to quit. Fels suggests three warning points for the crisis to develop:

• First, any signs of moral hazard emerging in the fiscal policies in the euro area
• Second, ECB failure to raise interest rates on time to cut inflationary pressures, and
  
• Third, the political pressure rising against the Euro in Germany.

Hell, by these metrics, we are already in the midst of the euro collapse by 2 out of three measures (first and third). Alas, the second metric is a bogus one. There is plenty of evidence to show that ECB has not been an 'inflation hawk', acting often pro-cyclically before and targeting the likes of PMIs instead of hard inflation and monetary parameters. So the real question here is: What's the potential trigger for an exit?

Greece asking for the pledged money won't do. If you think in terms of game theory, once that happens in earnest (and it might be today or over the weekend), Germany will face the following two options:

1. Grant request for assistance in full and thus pre-commit itself to the common currency at the sunken cost of an exit of ca 10-12 billion euro that it will commit to Greek deficits financing;
2. Exit now, saving the aforementioned money, but destroying its political capital within the EU.

The problem is that the net cost of (1) is much smaller than the net cost of (2). And this means there has to be another - non-Greek - trigger. Italy or Spain?

Economics 15/04/2010: Greece problems back to the frontline

So, as I have predicted in the interview with BBC World Service (excerpt here), the markets have little faith in the Greeks and, indeed, in the EU’s ability to effectively underwrite Greek crisis.

Greek bond yields are now rising again on the investors’ view that German, French and Irish legislators might veto the deal. And in Germany there is a growing movement to challenge the Greek deal in a constitutional court, as being an illegal subsidy. The yield on Greek two-year bonds jumped 66bps yesterday reaching 6.99% and 5-year CDS rose 56bps to 436bps.

And FT’s Daniel Gros argues that the EU package is unlikely to solve anything, as the country needs about €30-50bn annually, depending on the future deficits path assumptions. Either way, 3-year package of up to €45bn won’t cut it. And the interest bill savings are also too thin – under the EU proposed deal, Greece will be facing an interest rate of ca 5%, which will provide the country with only €900mln in annual savings relative to market rates. Going lower to 4% - something opposed by Germany – will raise savings to ca €1,350 million per annum – still short of what is needed. Per Gros: the Greek problem is not one of liquidity but of insolvency.

And the IMF is severely constrained in what it can do in Greece by the fact that it can only lend 10-12 times the reserves position that Greece holds with IMF. And this means, at a maximum €15 billion.

So here we go – for all who thought the story is over, the most likely thing is that the actual story is just beginning.

Economics 13/04/2010: As bad as Northern Rock back in 2008?

So we have some more clarity on the state of our credit flows, courtesy of the latest monthly report from the Central Bank. And boy are we sick. At the height of the financial crisis, Northern Rock had 303% loans to deposits ratio. Ireland Inc? 269% absent risk adjustments on short-term deposits, and 323% once short term deposits risk of call-in is set at 10%.

Ouch! Irish financial system doesn’t resemble Quinn Insurance – it resembles Anglo!

Economics 13/04/2010: Retail sales

Retail sales are out today for February – some singing of good news hymns is being heard. And the headlines do appear to be touchy: “The volume of retail sales (i.e. excluding price effects) increased by 3.0% in February 2010 compared to February 2009 and there was a monthly increase of 14.9%.” This was the first monthly increase in the volume in 25 months.

But, “the year on year increase is primarily explained by the 30.5% year on year growth recorded in Motor Trades in February 2010.” Tax breaks still work, folks, even in the economy mired in a recession. So much for all those Lefties who so ardently argued that taxes don’t change behavior. Apparently they do. Here is an interesting point - may be someone can document it later – a rebate of 1,500 on a tax bill is seemingly doing more to Motor trade than the steep price declines passed directly onto the purchase price itself. Why? Perhaps it is a behavioral issue.

The trouble is – motor purchases tend to be one-offs – we don’t exactly shop for a new car a month or a year after we purchased one. So motor trade pick up cannot be expected to continue into the second half of 2010. Once the Motor Trades are excluded “the volume of retail sales decreased by 3.1% in February 2010 compared to February 2009 and the monthly change was +1.2%.” Ok, still a monthly rise, but remember – 12 months to February 2010 things were bad.

And no they are actually even worse. The impact of the yearly drop – indiscernible directly in monthly figures is that:

• the volumes are down;
• the value of sales is down; and
• the retail price inflation is negative.

In other words, actual sales – as translated into revenue of retail sector businesses – are still going down.

There were, however some sectors with yoy volume increases:

• Department Stores up 10.9%
• Pharmaceuticals Medical & Cosmetic Articles up 1.2%
• Clothing, Footwear & Textiles up 1.8%
• Electrical Goods up 3.5%
• Other Retail Sales up 2.8%

But the largest sector Non Specialised stores, inc. supermarkets, shows a year on year decrease of 1.7% and a month on month decline of 1.9%.

Much overlooked, the actual true indicator of health of the retail sector is the value of total sales achieved. In other words, we might book massive increases in the volume of sales, if we were to start giving stuff away for free. But that won’t restore any jobs lost in the sector. It is, really, the value of sales that we are after. And this has fallen (e-Motors) by 7.4% and the monthly change was only +0.1%.

With the exception of the Motors and Fuel sectors (where the Government collects lions share of the final price in taxes and charges) “most sectors continue to show year on year decreases in the value of retail sales however a number of sectors show monthly increases in the value of retail sales in comparison to January 2010.”

Not exactly a sign of a revival that we might be cheerful about.

Economics 13/04/2010: ESRI's latest forecasts for Ireland

ESRI's latest quarterly commentary is coming out today. Here are the core numbers:

• 2010, "expect GNP to be essentially unchanged from its 2009 volume; the corresponding figure for GDP is ½ per cent less than in 2009".
• 2011, "expect GNP to grow by 2¾ per cent and GDP to grow by 2½ per cent. While this return to growth is to be welcomed, it should be seen as a modest pace of growth."

My double take:

• 2910 figures are fine for GDP, a bit optimistic for GNP
• 2011 figures would be above my forecasts of 1.7-1.9% GNP, 2.0-2.2% GDP.

"In spite of the stability in the numbers employed, we expect unemployment to fall between 2010 and 2011, averaging 13¾ per cent in 2010 and 13 per cent in 2011. This expected fall in the rate of unemployment is related in part to expected migratory outflows – 60,000 in the year ending April 2010 and 40,000 in the year ending April 2011. We also expect to see on-going falls in labour force participation."

My view - if we are to have 60K outward migrants in 2010, what would hold the others back in 2011? There will be no prospects for new employment (and ESRI agree) and there will be improved jobs offers abroad (IMF agrees), so why not 80K in 2011 to follow 60K outflowing in 2010?

"In our analysis, we assume that the Government will implement its indicated budgetary package for 2011 where spending cuts and tax increases will amount to €3 billion. When combined with a return to modest growth and the consequent impact on revenues, we expect to see the General Government Deficit falling to 10¾ per cent of GDP in 2011, down from 12 per cent in 2010."

Putting aside the issue of whether this Government has ability to implement planned cuts, 10.75% deficit in 2011 certainly implies that there is no chance of Ireland meeting its obligations to reduce deficit to below 3% of GDP by 2014.

"We note that the recapitalisation needs of the Irish banks are now likely to be at least €33 billion, assuming that the State investment in Anglo Irish Bank ultimately amounts to €22 billion. In terms of net cost to the State, a figure of €25 billion is possible."

Great, folks, €22-27 billion was my estimate of the eventual cost of Nama produced back in the H1 2009. ESRI finally converged to this forecast of mine. Good to note.

Economics 12/04/2010: The next incoming train has left its first station

My current article on the longer term prospects for global economy, published in the current issue of Business & Finance magazine. This is an unedited version.

Forget the circus of the Euro zone Government’s bickering about Greece’s bailout package and the escapist idea of setting up the EU-own EMF. The real crisis in the Euroland is now quietly unfolding behind he scenes.

Finally, after nearly 15 years of denial, courtesy of the severe pain inflicted by the bonds markets, Brussels and the core member states are forced to face the music of their own making. The current crisis affecting Euro area economy is, in the end, the outcome of a severely unbalanced economic development model that rests on the assumption that exports-led economic expansions in some countries can be financed through a continued massive build up in financial liabilities by their importing partners.

Put more simply, the problem for the world going forward is that in order to sustain this economic Ponzi game, net importers must continue to finance their purchases of goods and services from net exporters by issuing new debt. The debt that eventually settles in the accounts of the net exporters.

One does not have to be versed in the fine arts of macroeconomics to see that something is wrong with this picture. And one does not have to be a forecasting genius to understand that after some 40 years of rising debts on the balance sheet of importing nations, the game is finally up. I wrote for years about the sick nature of the EU economy - aggregate and individual countries alike.

Last week, Lombard Street Research's Charles Dumas offered yet another clear x-ray of of the problem.


Source: Lombard Street Research, March 2010

As Dumas' chart shows, core Euro area economies are sick. More importantly, this sickness is structural. With exception of the bubble-driven catch-up kids, like Spain, Ireland and Greece, the Euro area has managed to miss the growth boat since the beginning of the last expansion cycle.

The three global leaders in exports-led growth: Germany, Japan and Italy have been stuck in a quagmire of excessive savings and static growth. Forget about jobs creation – were these economies populations expanding, not shrinking, the last 10 years would have seen the overall wealth of these nations sinking in per capita terms. Only the Malthusian dream of childless households can allow these export engines of the world to stay afloat. And even then, the demographic decline will have to be sustained through disposal of accumulated national assets. So much for the great hope of the exports-led growth pulling us out of a recession. It couldn’t even get us through the last expansion!

Over the last decade, the Sick Man of Europe, Italy has managed to post no growth at all, crushed, as Dumas’ put it, by the weight of the overvalued and mismanaged common currency. The Sick Man of the World, Japan has managed to expand by less than 0.8% annually despite running up massive trade surpluses. Germany’s ‘pathetic advance over eight years’ adds up to a sickly 3½% in total, or just over 0.3% a year. France, and the UK, have managed roughly 0.98% annualized growth over the same time. Comparing this to the US at 1.27% puts the exports-led growth fallacy into a clear perspective.

I wrote in these pages before that the real global divergence over the last 10 years has been driven not by the emerging economies decoupling from the US, but by Europe and Japan decoupling from the rest of the world. The chart above shows this, as the gap between European 'social' economies wealth and income and the US is still growing. But the chart also shows that Europe is having, once again, a much more pronounced recession than the US.

Europe's failure to keep up with the US during the last cycle is made even more spectacular by the political realities of the block. Unlike any other developed democracy in the world, EU has manged to produce numerous centralized plans for growth. Since the late 1990s, aping Nikita Khruschev's 'We will bury you!' address to the US, Brussels has managed to publish weighty tomes of lofty programmes - all explicitly aimed at overtaking the US in economic performance.

These invariably promised some new 'alternative' ways to growth nirvana. The Lisbon Agenda hodge-podge of “exporting out of the long stagnation” ideas was followed by the Social Economy theory that pushed the view that somehow, if Europeans ‘invest’ money they did not have on things that make life nicer and more pleasant for their ageing populations growth will happen. Brussels folks forgot to notice that ageing population doesn’t want more work, it wants more ‘free’ stuff like healthcare, public transport, social benefits, clean streets, museums and theatres. All the nice things that actually work only when the real economy is working to pay for them.

As if driven by the idea that economic development can be totally divorced from real businesses, investors and entrepreneurs, the wise men of Europe replaced the unworkable idea of Social Economy with an artificial construct labelled ‘Knowledge Economy’. This promised an exports-led growth fuelled by sales of goods and services in which we, the Europeans, are supposedly still competitive compared to our younger counterparts elsewhere around the world. No one in Brussels has bothered to check: are we really that good at knowledge to compete globally? We simply assumed that Asians, Americans, Latin Americans and the rest of the world are inferior to us in generating, commercializing, and monetizing knowledge. Exactly where we got this idea, remains unclear to me and to the majority of economists around the world.

The latest instalment in this mad carousel of economic programmes is this year's Agenda 2020 – a mash of all three previous strategies that failed individually and are now being served as an economically noxious cocktail of policy confusion, apathy and sloganeering.

But numbers do not lie. The real source of Euro area's crisis is a deeply rooted structural collapse of growth in real human capital and Total Factor productivities. And this collapse was triggered by decades of high taxation of productive economy to pay for various follies that have left European growth engines nearly completely dependent on exports. No amount of waterboarding of the real economy with cheap ECB cash, state bailouts and public deficits financing will get us out of this corner.

The real problem, of course, is bigger than the Eurozone itself. Exports-led economies can sustain long-run expansions only on the back of a borrowing boom in their trading partners. It is that simple, folks. Every time a Mercedes leaves Germany, somewhere else around the world, someone who intends to buy it will either have to draw down their savings or get a loan against future savings. Up until now, the two were inexorably linked through the global debt markets: as American consumers took out loans to buy German-made goods, Chinese savers bought US debt to gain security of their savings.

This debt-for-imports game is now on the verge of collapse. Not because the credit crunch dried out the supply of debt, but because the global debt mountain has now reached unsustainably high levels. The demand for more debt is no longer holding up. Global economic imbalances remain at unsustainable levels even through this crisis and even with the aggressive deleveraging in the banking systems outside the EU.

Take a look at the global debt situation as highlighted by the latest data on global debt levels. The first chart below shows the ratio of net importing countries’ gross external debt liabilities (combining all debts accumulated in public and private sectors, including financial institutions and monetary authorities) to that of their net exporting counterparts. The sample covers 20 largest importers and the same number of largest exporters.

Source: IMF/BIS/World Bank joint data base and author own calculations

As this figure illustrates, since mid-point of the last bubble at the end of 2005, the total external debt burden carried by the world’s importing countries has remained remarkably stable. In fact, as of Q3 2009, this ratio is just 0.3 percentage points below where it stood in the end of 2005. Compared to the peak of the bubble, the entire process of global deleveraging has cut the relative debt burden of the importing states by just 9.8%.

To put this number into perspective, while assets base of the world’s leading economies has fallen by approximately 35% during the crisis, their liabilities side has declined by less than 10%. If 2007 marked the moment when the world finally caved in under the weight of unsustainable debt piled on during the last credit boom, then at the end of 2009 the global economy looked only sicker in terms of long-run sustainability.

The picture is more mixed for the world’s most indebted economies.
Plotting the same ratio for the US and UK clearly shows that Obamanomics is not working – the US economy, despite massive writedowns of financial assets and spectacular bankruptcies of the last two years remains leveraged to the breaking point. The UK is fairing only marginally better.

Of course, Ireland is in the league of its own, as the country has managed to actually increase its overall share of global financial debt during this crisis courtesy of an out-of-control public expenditure and the lack of private sector deleveraging. Take an alternative look at the same data. Ireland’s gross external debt (liabilities) stood at a whooping USD 2.397 trillion in Q3 2009, up 10.8% on Q3 2007. Of these, roughly 45% accrue to the domestic economy (ex-IFSC), implying that Irish debt mountain stands at around USD 1.1 trillion or more than 6 times the amount of our annual national income.

Chart below shows gross external debt of a number of countries as a share of the world’s total debt mountain.
Source: IMF/BIS/World Bank joint data base and author own calculations

And this brings us to the singularly most unfavourable forecast this column has ever made in its 7 years-long history. Far from showing the signs of abating, the global crisis is now appearing to be at or near a new acceleration point. Given the long-running and deepening imbalances between growth-less net exporting states, like Germany, Japan and Italy and the net importers, like the US, we are now facing a distinct possibility of a worldwide economic depression, triggered by massive debt build up worldwide. No amount of competitive devaluations and cost deflation will get us out of this quagmire. And neither a Social Economy, nor Knowledge Economics are of any help here.

Paraphraisng Cypher in the original Matrix: “It means fasten your seat belt, Dorothy, ‘cause Kansas of debt-financed global trade flows is going bye-bye”.