Economics 1/8/10: Retail Sales data: to spin or not to spin?

The latest retail sales figures for Ireland highlight two interesting issues. One - deeply fundamental, another - deeply disturbing.

The first issue - the fundamental one - relates to the basic philosophy of 'reporting' the data. CSO's publication on RSI was headlined "Retail Sales volume index increases by 1.0%". The first paragraph of the 'analysis' reads (emphases are mine):

"The volume of retail sales (i.e. excluding price effects) increased by 1.0% in June 2010 when compared with June 2009 and there was a monthly decrease of 0.2%. If Motor Trades are excluded the volume of retail sales decreased by 1.3% in June 2010 when compared with June 2009 and the monthly change was -0.5%."

This, to me, as an example of the poor application of economics to what is essentially a purely economic data series. And it is also an example of poor statistical analysis. Here is why:

1. The series reported are monthly and seasonally adjusted. This means these series are first and foremost about monthly, not annual deviations (annual comparisons can be made unadusted for seasonal / monthly variations). Why does the CSO then elects to report an annual deviation headline?
2. The volume series of retail sales are secondary in importance to the value series. What matters to gauging the overall demand in economy is not the physical quantity of stuff traded, but the value of the sales. Imagine a situation whereby an economy is plagued by a recession (like Ireland). Country largest retailer goes out of business and has a firesale of its stocks. Suppose it sells lock stock and barrel in one month, but at a price of zero euros per item, i.e. it gives stuff away for free. What happens? Volume of sales goes up dramatically. Value of sales goes down. CSO records an increase in volume and reports a headline that implies demand is up, sales are up. Yet, economic impact of this transaction is nill. If anything, it shows that economy has no real demand underlying it. Exchequer returns are nill. Value of stuff sold is nill. Value of transactions is nill. Patient is as dead as it can be!
3. Monthly, not annual series show shorter term dynamics. And it is the dynamics of sales, not their absolute levels or longer term changes that should frame short-term policies, that are suited for a recession.
   

Of course, you might object, saying - hey, you should have read the first paragraph, mate. Not just the headline. Alas, our politicos making bullish noises about turnarounds can't be relied upon to do this much. "It's the good news, folks! Retail sales are up year on year".

CSO has more disturbing analysis presented in the latest release. Paragraph two, in fact, is about as manipulative, as the preceding text:

"A number of sectors showed year on year increases in June 2010, with the most
significant being: Motor Trades up 13.9%, Non Specialised stores up 1.4%, Clothing, Footwear and Textiles up 2.6%".

Now, let's take a look at CSO own data to decipher the spin in the above statement:

• Motor Trades up 13.9% yoy in volume, and 1.4% mom - good news (driven, as I've said before by a tax off-set for new cars - aka the scrappage scheme, and to a larger extent - by the vanity plates for 2010), but Motor Trades are up less significant 9.2% yoy in value and 1.3% in mom terms. So one might ask the question then - why is value of overall Motor Trades lagging behind the volume of these. Is it due to (a) rebates by the Government (VRT offset?) or (b) competition in the Motor Trade sector or (c) because people are buying lower quality, cheaper priced cars? CSO doesn't even attempt to provide an answer. My earlier analysis (here and here) suggests that all three might be at play. If so, Motor Trades figures for the entire 2010 are not exactly a shining example of economic turnaround.
• Non Specialised stores volumes up 1.4% yoy, but down 0.9% in mom terms. Values of these sales are down 3.5% yoy and 1.3% mom. Discounts, discounts, discounts. Selling cheaper doesn't really generate more economic activity, though it does benefit consumers. And this 'cheaper selling' in turn drives up not new demand, but induces a movement right along the same, recessionary demand curve. But wait, seasonally adjusted monthly changes are negative in value, which means that deflation is still there and demand for quantity is not exactly booming.
• Clothing, Footwear and Textiles up 2.6% in yoy volume terms. Really? Well, mom the same series are down 4.1%. In terms of value of Clothing, Footwear and Textiles sold in Ireland in June: yoy sales collapsed 8.1% and mom change was 4.1%. In a normal economy that should start ringing the 'Recession Alert' bells. In Ireland, for CSO this is bunched together with the aforementioned 'good news'.

Here is another good look at the CSO own data, not brought up to anyone's attention by CSO:

• All Businesses excl Motor Trades & Bars: Value down -1.3% mom and -3.9% yoy, Volume down -1.1% mom and -0.2% yoy. Some turnaround!
• All Bus. Excl. Motor Trades, Fuel & Bars: Value down -1.9% mom and -5.3% yoy, while Volume is down -1.1% mom and 0.3% yoy. No turnaround here either.
• Non-Food (Excl Motor Trades, Fuel & Bars): Value off -1.2% mom and -7.1% yoy, while Volume is off -1.7% mom and -0.6% yoy.
• Household Equipment (white goods stuff) Value down -3.1% mom and -6.3% yoy, Volume off by -2.6% mom and -0.1% yoy. Now, this category is important as white goods are subject to demand due to depreciation and new demand. We've had at least 2 years of collapsing demand for these goods, implying that things are so bad, people are reluctant to replace depreciated washers, dryers, dishwashers, fridges etc. Forget buying new jeans and coats...

So to do what I usually do on this blog - here are updated charts plotting actual data (no spin):
If you look closely at the last three months in the series, you can see continued deterioration pressures in both. But to highlight this trend - check out the chart below:
Monthly changes are now in the negative territory, and a positive annual volume bounce of the first quarter 2010 is about to be exhausted.

Removing motor trade:

Why wouldn't CSO just report data, plus charts and leave 'commentary' to others? At least they would be purely objective reporters of data, instead of playing the amateurish 'Spin Economics' commentators?

Economics 31/7/10: Credit flows in Ireland

Central Bank quarterly was published yesterday. Here are some updated charts on credit flows (data through May). The main conclusions are:

1. Private sector credit continues to contract and is again accelerating in the annual rate of decline (-10.4% yoy in May as compared to -9.3% declines in April and March).
2. Mortgage credit contractions are steadily declining (-1.8% in May against -1.6% in April & 1.4% in March).
3. Non-mortgage credit is accelerating in the rate of decline (-12.8% in May compared to -11.4% in April)
   
4. Nama - now through 50% of the loans purchases - has had no positive impact on credit supply. If anything, as charts for households lending show blow, it is being accompanied by a dramatic increase in the cost of borrowing for ordinary families.

Charts:
Aggregate private sector credit above. Disastrous trends of the last 2 year continue unabated, despite the already significant contraction in the credit supply. This suggests that we are in a continued downward spiral when it comes to business and household investment (future capacity is under continued pressure down and the only thing that provides some positive support to capital side is, most likely, MNCs own inter-company investments). This goes to explain why one cannot accept earlier DofF projections for 2013-2015 potential rates of growth. We are in a situation very similar to Japan in the mid-1990s, where existent production is being driven at the expense of capital stock.

Mortgages:Clearly, no signs of moderation in the rates of decay anywhere here. But the picture is more sluggish than that for non-mortgages lending:
The reason for the different dynamics is that it is easier for households to cut back on smaller credit demand than on massive mortgages burden. Hence, non-mortgages lending is a leading indicator for what we can expect to follow in the mortgages markets. Not exactly a bright future for the housing markets, then.

Deposits side of our financial system:
Notice that deposits are down, mom, across the board, except for shorter term maturity corporate deposits. But yoy all deposits are down. Combined decline in all deposits in volume since January 2010 is €1,869 mln, or 3.4%. Not a small change. All deposit rates are down year on year - we are being paid less to save, but are charged more to borrow.

Loans stats next.
Loans for house purchases are falling, while mortgages rates are rocketing. The orange line above shows just what is happening with the cost of financing one's own home in Ireland, courtesy of our regulators (keen on talking about 'moral hazard'), all the special 'Working Groups' aiming to address the problems in the housing markets, and Nama. Remember - our Government (by now pretty much every minister in the cabinet) had sworn to us that Nama will restore functional banking. May be this is what they had in mind...

Last year I predicted that the game in the mortgages markets will play as follows:

• Once Nama starts transfers, incentives for the banks to play a Good Fella will diminish - repossessions will remain low, but rates will rise. We now can see this happening around us.
• Once Nama completes transfers, banks will go in earnest at rebuilding their margins & capital, meaning - repossessions will accelerate dramatically and rates will rise to the levels where the burden of financing mortgages will become a driver for more repossessions.
• 3-6 months after the above stage, banks will start hoarding repossessed property on their books. They will be forced to start selling it ca 6-9 months after February 2011 (completion date for Nama purchases).
• Combined effect of massively more expensive mortgages credit and inflow of repossessed properties into the market will drive prices in housing markets even further down.
  

So far, we are through the 1st bullet point and getting closer to the second one.

Meanwhile, in the land of short term loans, rates are more steady and credit supply is falling gently.
Now, let me ask you this question. What should be the priority here? Making sure people are not being skinned to pay for their homes, or making sure that credit cards rates and car loans are being underpinned by more stable interest rates?

Credit to non-financial corporations is continuing to slide. Year on year, shorter term (working capital) credit is now off a massive 19.3%. Longer term credit is off 2.7% yoy. What does this tell me about the economy?

1. Capital investment is going nowhere fast, with any rosy figures on volumes we might hear over the coming weeks being most likely driven by the MNCs own in-house investment flows; and
2. Companies have no capacity to refinance shorter term credit obligations, resulting in a cash flow pressures and lack of operating capital.

Not exactly a success story for our financial system administrators and regulators, then.

Economics 30/7/10: No double dip for the euro area, yet...

New data from eurocoin is out - time to update euro area forecasts. Aptly in line with the US Q2 growth now coming at a slower 2.4% annualized rate, both the leading eurocoin indicator of activity (down to 0.4 in July from 0.46 in June) and my forecast for Q2 and Q3 2010 growth for the euro area are also moderated. Chart below illustrates:
GDP forecast range is for quarterly growth of -0.1% to +0.05% in Q3 2009.

So no double dip for the euro area yet, but things continue to head that way...

Economics 29/7/10: PTSB house prices

PTSB/ESRI house price index is in for Q2 2010. The core result: house prices were down, again, by 1.7% qoq in Q2 2010 - a lower rate of change on Q1 2010 contraction of 4.8% qoq. Thus, prices are now off-peak by 35% to an average of €201,364.

Dublin prices are down 3.5% qoq in Q2 2010 and are off 44% relative to peak. This gap between nation average and Dublin, assuming (as seems to be reasonable) that capital prices appreciation prior to the current crisis were significantly affected by underlying demand, should be erased over the next 12 months plus. Which means we can expect at some point that Dublin will lead the recovery across the country, while other regions continue to contract toward the 45-50% nationwide average off-peak pricing.

NCB stockbrokers gave a good comparison to fundamentals-determined prices. Per their analysis,

• Rental yield model implies house prices equilibrium at between €118,000 and €157,000, or a mid-range house price of €137,500;
• Earnings multiples model implies €170,000;
• Present value model (although not detailed as to the assumptions built in) implies the range of €158,000 to €236,000 for an mid-range of €197,000

You can see where these valuations are heading, don't you? Take a full range of estimates mid-range point of €177,000 - that would be a decline of 43% off the peak prices. Take the simple average price of all mid-range points to get 46% decline.

Now, recall - these are equilibrium prices. In normal price adjustments, there is a relatively pronounced undershooting in prices - in other words, we can expect prices to fall below equilibrium levels before reverting toward longer term values over time.

The depth of this undershooting and its duration depend on some external factors, such as the ease of getting mortgages approvals, mortgage conditions etc - none of which are currently helping the housing markets. So there is a very strong possibility for prices to hit the floor at around -55-60% off the peak.

Lastly, there is a question to be asked as to the validity of PTSB's data - the country largest mortgages holder might no longer be the country largest mortgages issuer. And the sample size globally has shrunk substantially. In other words, if a desperate homeowner in the distant province sells a house for, say, €120,000 while a dozen of his neighbors are not braving the market, does this really tell us anything about the market clearing price? Not really. Imagine what the said homeowner would have got for his dwelling if 12 more identical dwellings in the neighborhood had a 'For Sale' sign.

So a grain of salt is due - the size of an orange...

Economics 27/7/10: Stress tests of Irish banks? Get real!

An excellent comment on AIB and BofI 'stress tests' results from Peter Mathews, worth a direct post (rather than 'just' a comment) on this blog. Read it here.

Economics 26/7/10: Old Capital Investment 'news'?

Updated: per some detailed feedback from the DofF, see updated text below.


The latest announcement of the extended capital investment programme for 2010-2016 is sounding like a PR exercise. Majority of the projects announced in the programme are the left-overs from the previous National Development Plan. So there is no real news on spending volumes / stimulus extent in the Taoiseach's announcement.

This does not imply that the programme is without a merit, but it does imply that the media circus about 'major new investment programme' announcement is seriously overdone.

There are, however, some details worth covering.

First, the level of 'new' investment. At €39 billion over 7 years it is hardly a 'significant' increase on the historic levels. Taken as an average of 2008-2010 gross voted capital spending, the six year plan that would have stuck to the average would imply a capital spending of over €51.8bn through 2016. Well in excess of Mr Cowen's latest 'Great 7-year Leap Forward'.

DofF latest projections submitted to the EU in SPU2010, prepared in December 2009, show expected capital investment of €5,500 per annum in 2011-2014, which, is now exactly matched by today's 'new' announcement.

Chart below illustrates, drawing on data from Department of Finance own projections delivered for the Budget 2010.

The news component of the announcement is in the detailed breakdown of the numbers by department and within departments - by the specific lines and projects. This is a significant improvement on the SPU 2010, where the same €5,500 million in annual investments was just a number. And then there are cuts in some of the really less economically feasible (or I would say 'White elephant') investments envisioned in the original NDP.

These are welcomed changes that are worth the report that DofF did produce to accompany the announcement (links here). Where credit due...


Second, Department of Finance SPU submission to the EU has built in (Table 9: Additional Annual Measures to be delivered in 2011 and 2012) as "Capital already identified and incorporated into the base" the following cuts to capital investment: 2011=1bn, 2012=2bn.

If Taoiseach's announcement relates to the new investment on top of the planned NPRF contributions, then the future (2013-2014) savings will have to come out of some other lines of Exchequer balance sheet. Croke Park deal effectively closed the doors on generating new savings from the non-welfare lines of current spending. This means that our Taoiseach, in making today's announcement will be aiming for clawing at least €3bn in new taxes on top of the at least €2bn already planned in Budget 2010 for the years 2011-2012.

Now, recall that the same SPU - which is now replicated in the 7-year plan for capital investment - had its validity questioned by the IMF as being too optimistic on the assumptions, imprecise on planned savings and at a risk of failing due to the possible Government fatigue to cuts. Are we now seeing the very things that IMF was warning us about unfolding in front of our eyes. The IMF also said that it is likely that the additional (not planned in SPU) adjustments to fiscal balance will require savings and/or tax increases of ca 2.3% of 2014 GDP, or roughly speaking €5bn.

So in the nutshell - either we will be borrowing more to finance that which we already announced years ago, or we will be taxed to death to pay for it. Or both.


Oh, and on a funny note - the Irish Times (here) reported that Government is hoping that the new 'investment' will create some 270,000 new jobs, directly and indirectly.

My original comment was: so we spend ca €6,500 mln to generate 270,000 new jobs? At this rate of 'expected' jobs creation, we should have some 6.5 million workers in Ireland, using 2009 GDP levels. Was someone in the Government buildings smoking something funny coming up with these numbers?

A person close to the report came back to me with their explanation of the numbers. The figures quoted on the aggregate are multi-annual 6-year forward projections that incorporate previously announced jobs targets from IDA and EI. So the direct jobs creation (remember - indirect jobs creation is highly uncertain, while IDA and EI targets are not subject to the announced investment measures) is around 1/2 that number. Now, at 130-140,000 per 7 years and at €39bn total would be in the region of €280-300,000 per job in one-off gross investment.

It still looks to me like something a tad too optimistic is happening here:

• Suppose we spend €5,500 million in year 2011 building stuff. This means we hire builders etc. Suppose we manage to get them at a pittance of €100,000 per job (a very low number). We just increased employment by 55,000.
  
• Suppose in 2012 we spend €5,500 again on building some more stuff, plus spend more funds on running the stuff just completed in 2011 (remember, we cannot use €5,500mln allocation in 2012 to operate the stuff just built in 2011, as it would be a current expenditure item). So we have to hire new and re-hire old, but the same number of 55,000 workers.
  
• Between 2 years, new jobs creation is 55,000. Not 110,000.
  

And this is what worries me here. Despite the explanations I got from DofF, the document numbers on the jobs front still do not add up to me.

Worse than that. Some of the programmes envisioned in the plan will require people to run/operate them in the future, post-construction, and will also require considerable spending of funds on amortization and depreciation, maintenance and operations.

Are there any estimates as to what will be the budgetary impact of these 'new investments' on the current expenditure in the future?

Let me explain here. Suppose I spend €2mln building a school building. Unless I get the existent staff to run the building, I will have to hire new teachers, new service providers, and I will have running and operating costs. For a school, suppose I will need 2 teachers and 1 service personnel (split into part-time admin and part-time maintenance staff). That's ca €150K annually in wages, plus mark ups for pensions etc - roughly speaking €280-300K per annum. Utilities etc, plus scheduled maintenance, say another €50K. So my initial investment of €1mln creates a continuous liability of up to €350K. Of course, I can cut my construction workforce hired in 2011 and divert 'investment' to funding staff operating my new facility. But that makes it a current expenditure. And it means that the rate of jobs creation will be crowded out over time by the newly added infrastructure demands.

Note, these are illustrative figures, but they add up.

• In 2012: projects from 2010 come on-line, implying (using above assumptions) that current spending side swells by €1,100 million (gross side);
• In 2013: projects from 2011 come on-line, yielding another €950mln, adding to 2012 to generate a permanent increase in gross current spending of €2,050mln.
• and so on...

These are crude illustrations, but you get my concerns? Yep - these current costs will have to be paid by us, the taxpayers. And it scares me.

And yes, I still do not believe that 270,000 figure. In fairness to the DofF - they have been stressing since yesterday that the figure is there just because they needed some anchor to the economic impact. It is neither rigorous, nor definitive.


Lastly, I would like to thank DofF for engaging in the debate and providing some very fair clarifications and explanations of their position on the paper.