21/09/2011: Fed's QE3 and why it will fail

Markets catalysts for today (barring unexpected news from the euro area) will be the US Fed statement expected at 19.15. Following the FOMC two-day meeting consensus expectation is for the FED to announce new, but relatively modest - compared against QE1-2, easing measures labeled in the media Operation Twist.

These will attempt to boost consumer and corporate borrowing and spending, as well as ease longer-term debt constraint for the Feds and local authorities (states and municipalities). The Fed is likely to attempt flattening the longer-term yield curve in a hope that restarting borrowing will cut US elevated 9.1% unemployment rate.

To do this, the Fed will probably sell short-term debt (Treasuries) to buy out longer term debt - in effect the cost of borrowing will rise in the short run, while longer term financing costs will decline. Short-term consumer credit will take a hit, as will less liquid financial services providers. Operating capital for businesses is also likely to become more expensive. Just how exactly this is going to help US economy - anyone's guess, but it will provide some breathing space for the US Government, put pressure on the Republican opposition to debt ceiling hikes (pressing the argument forward that short-term financing is getting relatively more expensive) and will encourage banks to load up on maturity mismatch risk via incentivising shorter bonds loading).

Simultaneous selling of short term maturities and buying of longer term debt will in effect sterilize Fed intervention when it comes to its balance sheet, but it will also encourage cutting back the entire maturity profile of banks asset books.

The core problem, of course, is that these measures are likely to fail to deliver anything meaningful to the economy. The cause of stalled consumer and producer demand for credit is not the cost of financing - especially in the short run, since mortgage rates are currently at historically low levels. The real cause is the fact that the US is suffering from debt overhang.

Back in 1980, US Household, Corporate and Government debt as percentage of nominal GDP amounted to 151% - 3rd lowest in G7. By 1990 this rose to 200% - 4th lowest. With Bill Clinton's (or rather Republican Congress) heroic efforts to cut that, 2000 level of debt was 198% - the lowest in G7. In 2010, the US combined public and private non-financial debt was 268% - the second lowest in G7.

Meanwhile, household debt rose from 52% of GDP in 1980 to 95% of GDP in 2010. Thus US households have gone from being 4th most indebted in G7 back in 1980 to being second most indebted in 2010. In the mean time, corporate debt remained relatively low, compared to G7 states - rising from 53% in 1980 (3rd lowest) to 76% of GDP in 2010 (lowest in G7).

Public sector debt rose from 46% of GDP (3rd lowest in G7) in 1980 to 71% of GDP in 1990 (3rd highest in G7), declined to 58% of GDP in 2000 (second lowest) and rose to 97% of GDP in 2010 (3rd lowest in G7).

In a recent paper, presented at Jackson Hole, WY meeting this year, S. G. Cecchetti, M. S. Mohanty and F. Zampolli (paper titled "The real effects of debt") reported that thresholds for debt levels that are damaging to economic growth (under the baseline case that covers presence of the financial crisis) are:

• 96% for Government debt to GDP ratio (US was already at 97% in 2010)
• 73% for Corporate debt to GDP ratio (US was at 76% in 2010) and
• 84% for Household debt to GDP ratio (US was at 95% in 2010)

Spot the problem, folks, for Ben clearly can't see it. (Hint: of all three debt heads, household debt is further out of trigger range).

Thus, the only meaningful stimulus the US Government can put forward is the set of measures to deliver meaningful reductions in household debt. About the only tool for that is a broad-based middle and upper-middle classes income tax cut.

Everything else, including Ben's financial re-engineering of the yield curve, is not much different from what the EU is doing with Greece. Kicking the can down the road is not the proverbial elephant the Fed is ignoring. The can itself - household debt - is.

20/09/2011: EU banks losing corporate deposits & 'stress tests' scam

In a testament that the world continues to lose confidence in Euro area banking system, Europe's largest engineering firm, Siemens reportedly withdrew large amounts of deposits from the commercial banking system and deposited them with the ECB. The details of this transaction were reported in today's FT (link here) and other media outlets.

In the mean time, WSJ reported that documents distributed at the meeting of the euro area finance ministers in Wroclaw last weekend out to question the validity of the European banking stress tests carried out this summer.


Siemens withdrawal amounted, reportedly to €500 million and impacted "a large French bank", motivated by "concerns about the future financial health of the bank and partly to benefit from higher interest rates paid by the ECB". Again, per reports, Siemens now holds €4-6bn at the ECB, mostly in one-week deposits.

Siemens set up a banking arm almost a year ago to insure itself against adverse risks to liquidity flows in the context of the global financial crisis, enabling it "to tap the central bank for liquidity and deposit cash at the ECB"Siemens does not only use the ECB as a haven; it also gets paid a slightly higher interest rate than it would get from a commercial bank.

ECB, currently amidst sterilized bonds purchasing programme, uses deposit facilities to cut down on money supply increases created by it buying PIIGS bonds. To do this, ECB attracts deposits from commercial banks by offering 15bps margin on its deposits over 0.95% average interest rate for overnight deposits with euro are banks.

In effect, Siemens move kills two birds with one stone - the company achieves greater security of deposits (eliminating counter-party risks) and benefits from 0.15% spread on deposits - a nice sum amounting to €6-9mln per annum, which most likely covers its 'banking' operations costs.

In the severely distorted world of euro area banking, thus, smart corporates can have a decent free lunch, courtesy of ECB's continued insistence on protecting failed sovereigns and banks.


Per WSJ report (link here) EU banks stress tests carried out in July 2011 were based on archaic macroeconomic scenarios that did not cover the latest developments in sovereign credit markets. "The tests did not manage to restore market confidence,"reports WSJ based on the document discussed by finance ministers.

One specific macroeconomic assumption criticised relates to the scenario under which stress is applied to sovereign bond holdings of the banks - the core point of the entire exercise - "a scenario which was clearly taken over by events as months passed by."

So here we have it, folks, our ministers have now admitted what most of us knew all along - the stress tests in 2011 were as shambolic as those in 2010 despite being carried out under the watchful eye of EBA - the 'new' authority that is supposed to make the banks more transparent and better managed post-crisis.

I bet folks at Siemens Bank are glad they didn;t put much faith with euro area banks regulators...

20/09/2011: Wholesale Prices - more margins pressure

Wholesale Price Index for Ireland is out today - monthly series (note - these are highly volatile series in general) and the results are not too good for profit margins in Irish manufacturing.

Monthly factory gate prices declined 0.4% in August 2011 against an increase of 0.2% in August 2010, implying annual rate of contraction of 1.0%. In July 2011, annual rate of decrease stood at 0.4%.

Overall price index for manufacturing industries (NACE 10-33) stands at 97.2 in August 2011, down from 97.6 in July and 98.2 in August 2010. We are now in the third monthly decline in a row.

Stripping out effects of food, beverages & tobacco sector, manufacturing price index fell to 92.2 in August 2011, down from 92.5 in July and 94.2 in August 2010. Year on year index is now down 2.1% against annual decline of 1.5% in July.


In the month, the price index for export sales was down 0.5% while the index for
home sales (domestic sales) increased by 0.1%. In the year there was a decrease of 2.2% in the price index for export sales (this can be influenced by currency fluctuations, as CSO correctly points out). In July 2011 annual rate of decline was 1.6%. However, CSO fails to point out that deflation has been affecting severely our largest exporting sectors - pharma and ICT (see below on this). In August 2010, annualized rate of change in export prices was +0.2%.

There was an increase of 4.7% in respect of the price index for home sales (this can be influenced by state-controlled producers ripping-off domestic consumers, but hey, no mention of that in CSO release). In July 2011 there was a 4.9% increase yoy in same prices. And in fact, domestic sales prices have been rising every month since December 2009, implying increasing pressures on retail sector here and domestic consumers.

So the two-tier economy is well supported by price changes as well as production volumes: our exports are getting cheaper (last increases in exports prices yoy were recorded in January 2011), while our domestic sales are getting more expensive and fast. The last time changes in prices in domestic sector fell behind changes in prices (in same direction) in exports sectors was July 2010. And not a peep from either our policymakers or the CSO about these facts.

What CSO does highlight is that: "Contributing to the annual change were increases in Dairy products (+10.1%), Meat and meat products (+8.1%) and Other Manufacturing including Medical and Dental Instruments and Supplies (+3.2%), while there were decreases in Computer, electronic and optical products (-6.4%), Basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations (-3.6%) and Other food products including bread and confectionary (-1.1%)."
Now, recall that pharma accounts for 90% of our trade surplus. Basic pharma sector wholesale prices have now fallen to 87.4 in August 2011, down from 90.7 in August 2010 and from the local peak of 106 attained in November 2008.

CSO does report that "The price of Energy products increased by 3.3% in the year since August
2010, while Petroleum fuels increased by 9.1%. In August 2011, the monthly price index for Energy products decreased by 1.4%, while Petroleum fuels decreased by 3.7%." I would add that electricity remained unchanged at 115.2 year on year and most of price increases in this sector are due to Petrol and Autodiesel (both +9% yoy), Gas oil (+10.3%) and Fuel oil (+8.8%).

Year on year, the price of Capital Goods decreased by 5% in August, to 82.5 and it was down 4.3% in July. The index now stands at 82.5, down from 83 in July 2011 and 86.8 a year ago. Intermediate goods ex-energy price index rose 2% in August (yoy) against yoy rise of 2.7% in July. This index remain in the positive territory since November 2011.

19/09/2011: Highly Leveraged Banks' real impact on economy

An interesting paper from CEPR sheds some (largely theoretical) light on the real side of the current global financial crisis.

CEPR DP8576 titled "Financial-Friction Macroeconomics with Highly Leveraged Financial Institutions" by Sheung Kan Luk and David Vines (September 2011: available here) models the current crisis by adding "a highly-leveraged financial sector to the Ramsey model of economic growth". The paper shows that the presence of high leverage in financial sector "causes the economy to behave in a highly volatile manner" and thus exacerbate the macroeconomic effects of aggregate productivity shocks.

The model is based on the mainstream financial accelerator approach of Bernanke, Gertler and Gilchrist (BGG). The core BGG model assumes leveraged goods-producers are subjected to idiosyncratic productivity shocks, inducing them to borrow from a competitive financial sector.

Luk and Vines, by contrast, assume that "it is the financial institutions which are leveraged and subject to idiosyncratic productivity shocks." As the result of this, leveraged financial institutions "can only obtain their funds by paying an interest rate above the risk-free rate, and this risk premium is anti-cyclical [ in other words the premium is higher at the time of adverse productivity shock, i.e. during the recession], and so augments the effects of shocks."

Luk and Vines parameterise the model to US data under the assumption that "the leverage of the financial sector is two and a half times that of the goods-producers in the BGG model". The assumption is relatively robust for the current environment in the US. It is probably less robust in the case of the EU where financial sector leverage is likely to be higher in a number of countries due to:

1. Traditional over-reliance on debt financing of the banking sector
2. Lower rates of deleveraging in the banking sector than in the US, and
   
3. Greater deposits attrition during the crisis.
   

The study finds that the presence of leveraged financial institutions "causes a much more significant augmentation of aggregate productivity shocks than that which is found in the [traditional] BGG model."

In the nutshell, this provides a plausible explanation as to the channels through which financial sector funding and operational strategy risks (leading to higher leverage) transmit through to real economy. It also links more directly monetary policy to the real economy as well. Ben, keep that printing press running... nothing can possibly go wrong with negative interest rates, mate.

17/09/2011: QNHS 2Q 2011 - public sector v private sector trends

This is the second post on the data from QNHS for 2Q 2011.

Table below summarises data from QNHS results, showing changes for specific sectors of the economy as well as core figures for overall employment, labor force and unemployment.
Using the data from core QNHS we can compute decomposition of employment pool into three broadly defined subsectors, as shown below. The core trends here are the following:
Ratio of private sector employees to those employed in public sector now stands at ca 2.76 private sector workers per 1 public sector employee. Sacred yet? That ratio rose from 2.73 in (an improvement, in fact) qoq between 1Q 2011 and 2Q 2011, but is down from 2.78 in 2Q 2010 and 3.00 in 2Q 2009. In other words, there are fewer private sector employees now per each public sector employee than in either 2010 or 2009 or indeed in 2008 and so on.

The same is true across the specific sectors. There are more people in employment in education per private sector worker now than 2007-2010, there are more people employed in public administration per private sector worker now than in 2007-2010, there are more people employed in healthcare per person employed in private sector today than in any moment since 1Q 2004. This, after the allegedly savage cuts in numbers in public sector employment.

QNHS also now reports EHECS-based public sector employment estimates. Table 1.1 below (reproduced from QNHS release) shows the estimates of public sector employment broken down by the different high level areas within the public sector. I've added the red line below showing proportional allocation of employment - the number of private sector workers per each public sector worker. This only slightly differs from the same metric I derived above based solely on QNHS. Again, there are, broadly speaking, 2.82 persons working in private sector per each 1 person in public sector. A year ago, there were 2.86, 2 years ago, there were 2.85... savage cuts folks? Not exactly. Looks more like continued steady burden on private sector from supporting public sector employment.
That's a tough thing to swallow, folks. Per CSO: "The number of employees in the public sector showed no change over the year to Q2 2011. However, the employment figures for this quarter include 5,300 additional temporary Census field staff who were employed during the periods covering Q1 and Q2 2011. When these staff are excluded there was a fall of 1.3% in employment over the year to Q2 2011." Give it a thought, folks - a fall of 1.3% when unemployment rose 3.93% and underemployment went up 20.89% and employment fell 2.1% and private sector employment declined 2.4%.

"The number of employees in the public sector has continued to fall over the last three years with a total decrease of 24,600 up to Q2 2011 when excluding census field staff." Drama unfolds? Let's check that table above. Since 4Q 2008 through 2Q 2011:

• Private sector employment is down 12.9%
• Civil service employment is down 7.5%
• Semi-states employment is down 8.5%
• Total public sector ex-semi-states employment is down 5.5%
• Total public sector employment is down 5.9%
  

Draw your own conclusions as to whether the Croke Park is delivering or not.

16/09/2011: QNHS 2Q 2011 - things are getting frighteningly worse less rapidly

This is the first of two posts on QNHS 2Q 2011 data released yesterday.

Yesterday's QNHS results for 2Q 2011 confirmed the continuation in the trend weaknesses in Irish labour markets, with some moderation in the rate of deterioration qoq.

Per CSO: "There was an annual decrease in employment of 2.0% or 37,800 in the year to the second quarter of 2011, bringing total employment to 1,821,300. This compares with an annual decrease in employment of 2.9% in the previous quarter and a decrease of 4.1% in the year to the second quarter of 2010."

Other core stats and changes are:

• The annual decrease in employment of 2.0% is the lowest annual decline since 3Q 2008.
• On a seasonally adjusted basis, employment fell by 3,200 (-0.2%) in the quarter. This follows on from a seasonally adjusted fall in employment of 7,200 (-0.4%) in Q1 2011. The 2Q 2011 fall in employment is the lowest quarterly decrease recorded in the seasonally adjusted series since 1Q 2008.
• The largest decrease in employment over the year was recorded for the 25-34 year age group (-27,500 or -5.0%). A reduction of 21,100 was also recorded for the 20-24 age group (-15.0%). Numbers in employment are now down 324,900 on the peak attained in 4Q 2007.
  

The total number of persons in the labour force in 2Q 2011 was 2,125,900, representing a decrease of 26,800 (-1.2%) over the year. This compares with an annual labour force decrease of 50,400 (-2.3%) in Q2 2010. This marks a decrease of 128,500 on the peak reached back in 1Q 2008.

Unemployment rose 10,900 (+3.7%) in the year to 2Q 2011 with 304,500 now unemployed (male unemployment increasing by 5,600 (+2.8%) to 205,700 and female unemployment increasing by 5,200 (+5.6%) to 98,800). The unemployment rate increased from 13.6% to 14.3% yoy in 2Q 2011.

The long-term unemployment rate increased from 5.9% to 7.7% over the year to Q2 2011. Long-term unemployment accounted for 53.9% of total unemployment in Q2 2011 compared with 43.3% a year earlier and 21.7% in the second quarter of 2009.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased from 13.9% to 14.2% over the quarter.
Full-time employment fell by 53,000 (-3.7%) yoy with declines in both male (-33,700) and female (-19,300) full-time employment. Per CSO: "This decline in full-time employment was partially offset by an increase in the number of part-time workers where the numbers increased by 15,200 (+3.7%) over the year. Part-time employment now accounts for 23.4% of total employment. This had been as low as 16.7% in Q3 2006." Full-time employment is now down 367,600 on peak (4Q 2007) and part-time employment is now at its new peak at 426,800 - up 40,800 on 4Q 2007.


Part-time underemployment (a form of unemployment, really) increased by 23,000 (+20.9%) from 110,100 to 133,100 over the year. Part-time underemployment now represents just under one-third (31.3%) of total part-time employment, up from 26.8% a year earlier. Among males, part-time underemployment is close to half of total part-time employment (46.7%), up from approximately 42% a year earlier. For females the comparative proportion is one quarter (25.0%), but as with males this proportion has been increasing over time.

Now to the frightening number: combined unemployed and underemployed part-timers now stand at a frightening 434,700 or 20.5% of the labor force. This number is up from 400,300 a year ago (+8.6%).

So, on the net we have:

• flattening out of the unemployment increases curve, but continued increases, nonetheless
• flattening out of labor force decreases rate, but continued declines in labor force
• increasing share of employment taken up by part-time employed
• increasing share of long-term unemployed and underemployed in the labor force.
  

And LR confirms this diagnosis:
It's not exactly 'turning the corner' moment, is it?