6/2/2012: An interesting (non-scientific) poll

Here's an interesting set of results - note, sample size is small for the duration of this survey to draw any serious conclusions, so don't... but from the top of the results provided, and given this is the official site of the President of the European Parliament, with all the selection biases possible in terms of audience it attracts, the results would be unsettling:

The site for the poll is: http://www.martin-schulz.info/index.php?link=6&bereich=1#

5/2/2012: Irish Consumer Confidence - a bounce in January?

I have noticed that ESRI and KBC Bank are very enthusiastic about the latest reading for their consumer confidence barometer reading for January 2012. Absent the retail sales data for January, we can only speculate as to what the latest increase means. But here's a somewhat scientific method for doing this.

Chart below shows dynamics in Consumer Confidence index and historical and forecast values for two core retail sales indices. The forecasts are based on trend dynamics for each index from January 2008, accounting for the correlation between Consumer Confidence and specific retail sales index and accounting for the latest reading for Consumer Confidence index.

The chart above shows my own Retail Sector Activity Index with the forecast for January 2012 based on the above estimates shown in the first chart.

Here's what is clear from the above exercise. Assuming the Consumer Confidence index reading for January is to be trusted (see below on that), we can expect:

• Index of retail sales value to rise 7.4% qoq and 6.3% mom to the level of 101.8 or 4.1% ahead of where the index reading was 12 months ago. This would put the value index at the levels not seen since July 2009.
• Volume index of retail sales can be expected to rise 5.4% qoq and 3.4% mom. The index reading would reach 104.3 which is 2.6% ahead of where it was 12 months ago and the level not seen since April 2010.
• Of course, Consumer Confidence index now stands at 56.6 up on 49.2 in December 2011.
• My Retail Sector Activity Index, consistent with the current reading in the Consumer Confidence index would be around 110.5 - the level that is 1.6% ahead of where it was 3 months ago, 7.4% ahead of the previous month reading and 6.4% ahead of where the index stood 12 months ago. This reading - were it to materialise - will bring my index to the levels unseen since July 2010.

All of this, of course, is rather academic. The problem with the ESRI Consumer Confidence is that it has only weak relationship with both the Value Index of Retail Sales and the Volume Index of Retail Sales, as the charts below illustrates. Please note: this does not mean in any way that Consumer Confidence Index contains little relevant information, just that it is, in itself, a very weak predictor of the retail sales activity.

I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for a big Retail Sales bounce in January-February this year.

5/2/2012: Irish Labour Productivity - some latest trends

Chart of the Week, folks, comes courtesy of the ECB database on labour productivity. It contains the full set of productivity indices for Ireland by sector, reported on the basis of productivity per person employed. And it speaks volumes of the myths we hear in the media.

So the Chart of the Week is:

Now, what does it tell us? (And please, no protests - I am decomposing the above chart into some interesting trends using as illustrations more charts).

• Irish productivity - overall, across all sectors - has been rising during the crisis 
• Although as I pointed out so many times, much of this rise in Ireland's overall productivity is due to jobs destruction in retail, construction and other sectors, not to some intrinsic rises in real productivity. Jobs destruction concentrated in less productive sector helps overall total productivity. Despite the fact that it causes massive unemployment and other problems. See chart below for evidence on this.

• Another interesting feature of the data is the rapid, continuous decline in productivity in the broadly-defined public sector, arrested around Q3 2010 and now running basically flat. But historically, public sector productivity has contributed negatively to overall productivity performance of the economy.

• Overall, so far, our labour productivity is 5.2% ahead of the EA17 and 4.7% ahead of EU27 in Q3 2011. Year on year, EA 17 labour productivity is up 1.04%, EU27 is up 1.34% and Irish total labour productivity is up 2.28%. This is a strong performance for Ireland, compared to EU and EA averages. As already mentioned above, Construction sector productivity declined in Q3 2011 some 15.2% yoy and productivity in Information & Communication sector fell 8.15% yoy. Productivity grew in Financial and Insurance Activities sector by 3.11%, in Agriculture and associated sub-sectors by a very impressive 24.8% (although this is largely due to higher commodities prices and exchange rates effects, as well as continued robust inflows of CAP money into Ireland). In Public Administration and the rest of the public sector sub-sectors, productivity grew 2.6% year on year in Q3 2011.

And to summarize the emerging new (crisis-period post Q1 2008) trends, here is a chart plotting correlations between productivity index performance for Ireland overall, against EU27, EA17 and specific sectors of the economy:

3/2/2012: De Kaufman Door 2

Another set of interesting survey results from the Kaufman Econ Bloggers Outlook Q1 2012:

John Cochrane asked: should the eurozone become: 1) a currency union without fiscal union, allowing

sovereign default; 2) a currency union with strong fiscal union; or 3) Broken up

(no euro) into national currencies or smaller units?

So let's set aside the political feasibility of each option, in the first-best economics world:

• Euro as a currency union without fiscal union, allowing sovereign default is an option for 22% of the respondents.
• Euro as a currency union with strong fiscal union is preferred by 27% of respondents
• No euro with national currencies returning or smaller sub-blocks emerging is favored by 51% of respondents

There are, really, only 2 surprises in the above:

1. Relatively large number of economists who believe that sovereign defaults can be sustained in a currency union with no automatic transfers specified (I presume that many could have simply thought that transfer systems can be established either under an EU Commission umbrella or via ECB) and
2. Only 51% of the respondents recognize that there is, under current institutional set up, no real chance of managing an economically effective functional monetary union. And that there is no need to do this either.

3/2/2012: De Kaufman Door 1

Kaufman Foundation - a research centre for studying entrepreneurship - runs quarterly reports on the panel of economics bloggers. These reports contain some brilliant insights into the cutting edge policies as well as some reaffirmations of orthodoxies.

Here's the one I liked in the current Q1 2012 issue:

So let's run through these in the context of the latest conceptual reforms ideas floating in the Irish education system:

• Voucher system - 76% of bloggers are in favor and 11% opposing (remember - these responses come from the Left, Right, Libertarian, professional, academic etc economists). In Ireland, of course the idea of parental choice is anathema to the Department of Education and the rest of the crowd that is setting the education agenda.
• Charter schools (characterized by greater independence, more parental engagement in all aspects of schooling etc) - 74% of bloggers agree, 11% disagree. In Ireland - calls to shut down independent schools abound and new non-state schools are having problems getting teachers funds.
• Teacher choice - 59% in favor, 19% opposed - less decisive vote, but the idea would be a total 'No go' for Ireland.
• Flexibility for principals - 9% opposed, 81% in favor. Not the flavor of the month for the DofE or the rest of the education policy pack.
• Higher teacher pay overall gets 10% opposition and 53% support, but merit pay for teachers idea gets 9% opposition and 74% support. Which of course will never ever take hold in Ireland.
• Transparency for value-added gets 8% opposition and 71% support. Do note the emerging clear theme - accountability and independence are valued, merit to be rewarded... oh, no, these are not happening here in Ireland.
• Higher standards - 30% oppose, 33% support because, presumably, it is hard to really define or trust 'standards'. 
• Greater federal involvement gets support from 12% of respondents and is opposed by 59%, while less federal involvement gets support from 57% and opposition from 18%. Well, now, I am not exactly an education specialist, but I did notice as of late that Irish debate about the secondary education has distinctly taken an anti-private schools turn. And there are pretty powerful voices here calling for nationalization of secondary education. Hmmm...

Of course, the above policy options are not exhaustive nor comprehensive. And yes, there are big differences between the US and Irish systems. But it is pretty clear to me that the above preferences expressed by US economics bloggers for more transparency, more accountability, more independence in the education system run diametrically counter to the prevailing ideology surrounding education reforms in Ireland today.

3/2/2012: Big Bad Speculators & Little Red Riding Hoods

That "Gotcha..." moment, you know... speaking last night at a round table discussion on the future of Europe, I was confronted with a question from the audience and a fellow panelist remarks in the same vein that, roughly speaking, attributed the entire current crisis in Europe to the derivatives markets and speculative investment. More than that, the same were blamed for everything from the environmental disasters to increases in commodity prices. Some parts of the Left just love the idea of finding a "capitalist" (even arch-capitalist - aka speculative) root to every problem - the "Gotcha..." thingy of pseudo intellectualist disdain for facts as much as for 'speculators' and 'markets'.

This of course does not mean that financial instrumentation, speculation or other forces of the financial markets did not contribute to the crisis, but it is a distinct claim from the one made by those proposing that they caused the crisis single-handedly.

By sheer accident, looking through some old research papers, I came across this study from the ECB: Lombardi, Marco J. and Van Robays, Ine, Do Financial Investors Destabilize the Oil Price? (May 20, 2011). ECB Working Paper No. 1346. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1847503

The study looks into the large oil price fluctuations that were observed in the recent years. In particular, the study considers the role of financial activities in the determination of oil prices.

Per study (emphasis is mine):

"The oil futures market has indeed become increasingly liquid, and the activity of agents that do not deal with physical oil, the so-called non-commercials, has greatly increased. This led some to hypothesize that inflows of financial investors in the futures market may have pushed oil prices above the level warranted by fundamental forces of supply and demand, whereas others argue that the impact of financial activity on the oil spot market is negligible or non-existent beyond the very short term."

The paper studies "the importance of financial activity in determining the spot price of oil relative to the role of oil market fundamentals", using a sign-restricted structural VAR model. The model allows the study authors to separate financial activities into two types: stabilizing and destabilizing. This is achieved by postulating a model that links "the oil spot market to the futures market through a no-arbitrage condition", so that:

• Destabilizing financial shock is identified as one that creates "a deviation from the no-arbitrage condition, thereby ...driving oil futures prices away from the levels justified by oil market fundamentals. 
• Stabilizing financial activity is defined as "driven by changes in oil supply and demand-side fundamentals". 

In addition, the econometric framework adopted in the study allows to identify four different types of oil shocks:

• an oil supply shock
• an oil demand shock driven by economic activity 
• an oil-specific demand shock which captures changes in oil demand other than those caused by economic activity, and 
• a destabilizing financial shock (such as a spike in speculative activity).

The results suggest that 

• Financial activity in the futures market can significantly affect oil prices in the spot market, although only in the short run. 
• The destabilizing financial shock (speculation) only explains about 10 percent of the total variability in oil prices.
• Shocks to fundamentals "are clearly more important over our sample. Indeed, looking at specific points in time, the gradual run-up in oil prices between 2002 and the summer of 2008 was mainly driven by a series of stronger-than-expected oil demand shocks on the back of booming economic activity, in combination with an increasingly tight oil supply from mid 2004 on. Strong demand-side growth together with stagnating supply were also the main driving factors behind the surge in oil prices in 2007-mid 2008, and the drop in oil prices in the second half of 2008 can be mainly explained by a substantial fallback in economic activity following the financial crisis and the associated decline in global oil demand. Since the beginning of 2009, rising oil demand on the back of a recovering global economy also drove most of the recovery in oil prices."

However, the study did find that financial investors "did cause oil prices to significantly diverge from the level justified by oil supply and demand at specific points in time. In general, inefficient financial activity in the futures market pushed oil prices about 15 percent above the level justified by (current and expected) oil fundamentals over the period 2000-mid 2008, when the volume of crude oil derivatives traded on NYMEX quintupled. Particularly in 2007-2008, destabilizing financial shocks aggravated the volatility present in the oil market and caused oil prices to respectively over- and undershoot their fundamental values by significant amounts, although oil fundamentals clearly remain more important."

So some speculation is harmful to fundamentals-determined pricing, although the study does not consider the potential benefits from speculation-induced greater liquidity in the markets (which was not the core objective of the study to begin with), but largely, 5-fold increase in speculative activity accounts for just 10 percent of prices variability.