Global Economy Matters

Total Eclipse At The Heart Of Dubai's World

2009-11-27T04:19:00.000-08:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Back in the heady days of 2006 some 30,000 cranes, roughly a quarter of total global capacity, were busy whirring away in Dubai. Today most of these devices have either left to find service in other parts of the globe, or lie silent, unused and unloved. In what is only the latest sign of the ongoing property snarl-up affecting the emirate Nakheel, Dubai World’s property developer subsidiary, asked on Wednesday for a delay in their next debt payment. The move was widely seen by investors as a technical default, raising concerns about investment in risky assets right across the globe. So while their company slogan may well be that the sun never sets over Dubai World, the fact is that Dubai World’s sun not only no longer shines, it is suffering from something more like a total eclipse.

According to the last reckoning, government owned Dubai World has some $59 billion in outstanding liabilities, making the company responsible for the lion’s share of the total $80-100 billion in estimated Dubai state debt. Up to now all maturing government-linked debt has been paid off in full, with government funds making up any shortfall in private funds. But the latest announcement suggests that weaknesses in the global property sector and vulnerability of the emirate’s economic model is leading the government to have second thoughts, and the clear impression is that Nakheel could be a very different story given the government's expressed intention of supporting only viable companies.

More than the scale of the issue, the problem this week in Dubai has been the uncertainty created, the underlying lack of transparency about the state of corporate and national finances and about exactly which debt will be honored, and above all about whether or not other countries – both within and outside the region - will be affected via the process known to financial analysts as contagion.

The consequences of the present payment standstill are wide ranging, as would be the impact of any eventual default. The repayment of Dubai World's $4 billion Nakheel bond was seen by investors as a key test for the emirate's ability to deal with the rest of the $80 billion or so owed by the government and its state-controlled companies. Dubai’s ability and willingness to do just this is what is now in doubt, and the way the process has been handled so far is leading to all manner of investor speculation.

The blow caused by the announcement was initially softened by news earlier the same day that the government had raised $5 billion from Abu Dhabi banks, but this optimism was soon dented as it sank in that the figure was considerably less than what the emirate had been hoping to attract from external investors and the sequencing of the two announcements is interpreted as suggesting that the Abu Dhabi money will not be spent on companies like Nakheel and Dubai World.

Indeed Dubai's growing problems had been evident for some time, with the credit rating agencies sharply downgrading Dubai government-owned corporations over the last year as expectations for the extent of likely government support have declined. Earlier this month Moody’s cut the ratings on Dubai Ports World, and Dubai Electricity and Water to Baa2 (junk status) from A3 and downgraded 4 other government linked companies, with the agency noting in its press release that the debt restructuring plan "highlights the government's intention to strictly adhere to its stated policy of supporting only those companies with viable long-term business prospects”

The question is, of course, now that the emirate's lop sided growth model has been shown to be completely dysfunctional, what are the viable long term business prospects in a city with so much excess capacity as far as property goes. According to the Dubai Statistics Center, the total population was 1,422,000 as of 2006, of which 1,073,000 were male and only 349,000 were females. Evidently activity associated with the construction industry can offer some part of the explanation for this massive gender imbalance. Just under 20% of the population are estimated to be UAE nationals. Approximately 85% of the expatriate population (and 71% of the emirate's total population) is thought to be Asian, chiefly Indian (51%), Pakistani (15%), Bangladeshi (10%). This impression of a large construction industry oriented population is reinforced by the economic data. Although Dubai's economy has been built on the back of the oil industry, revenues from oil and natural gas currently account for less than 6% of the emirate's revenues. It is estimated that Dubai produces 240,000 barrels of oil a day and substantial quantities of gas from offshore fields. The emirate's share in UAE's gas revenues is about 2%. But Dubai's oil reserves have diminished significantly and are expected to be exhausted in around 20 years. Real estate and construction account for about 23% of GDP and financial services for another 11%. Assuming many of the builders will now leave, it is hard to see what the future actually holds. Like countries a lot nearer to home - Spain, Ireland, the Baltics - it is hard to know what exactly to do with an economy which has been totally distorted by construction activity, and unsustainable building and price rises. And of course Dubai's problems are a lot larger than anything which is to be found in Europe.

Will We See Contagion?

Aside from the Dubai issue itelf the big worry now is possible contagion to other markets, with Central and Eastern Europe in the forefront of everyone’s mind, given the overlap in bank exposure. The announcement also lead to a sharp a drop in the value of the UK pound (hat-tip to Izabella Kaminska at FT Alphaville - see chart below) on the fear that the Dubai government could be forced into a rapid sale of its international real estate, since the emirate is perceived as having extensive UK property holdings which market participants (rightly or wrongly) think may be in danger of going under the hammer in a move which could clearly have implications for the UK property market, and the banks that have exposure to it.

In total European banks are estimated to have some $40 billion of exposure to Dubai with Standard Chartered leading the group according to research from Credit Suisse. HSBC Holdings, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland Group and Lloyds Banking Group also have some, significantly lower, exposure.

Since the decision to halt payments has raised fears of the largest sovereign default since Argentina 2001, most of the attention has been focused on sovereign debt issues, and these, of course, extend far beyond the Middle East itself. In particular European bond market worries grew over the ability of riskier government borrowers from Russia to Greece and Italy to pay back their debts in the longer run. And it is just here that one of the long term consequences of what happened this week in Dubai can be found, since with government after government pressing the accelerator pedal hard to the floor on the stimulus front, and digging ever deeper into the public purse to plug gaps in the bank balance sheets, the perception that paying back all the accumulated debt may be harder than expected, especially with ageing population problems to think about, is now gaining traction among investors. And once sovereign debt default fears really come up over the investor radar, it is going to be very hard work to remove them.

Greek sovereign debt in particular is attracting a great deal of attention, and this week one historic milestone has been passed, since the cost of insuring Greek debt for the first time equalled that of insuring equivalent Turkish debt. At first sight this is very shocking news, since as recently as 2007, the Turkish CDS spread was trading at about 500 basis points on perceived fiscal risks. The Greek spread, by contrast, was nearer 15bp. The country is, after all, a member of the European Monetary Union, and its euro-denominated bonds were considered effectively protected by other euro states. But over the past year the fiscal position of many emerging markets nations, Turkey among them, has become more favourable, while that of some Eurozone countries, including Ireland and Spain as well as Greece, has steadily deteriorated.

Evidently - as the Financial Times's Gillian Tett points out - such comparisons, apart from constituting a fairly bitter blow to Greek pride, raise a much bigger issue, one which goes straight to the heart of the Dubai saga. Two years ago, global investors generally did not spend much time worrying about the risk that seemingly remote, nasty events might occur. But the financial crisis has changed this perception. Having had their fingers badly burned once, investors are eager not to have it happen a second time, which is why what is happening in Dubai now makes them nervous, and why Europe’s governments would do well to think more about the future, and especially about ensuring that we don’t see Dubai like events starting to happen much nearer to home.

Are Russia's Consumers Getting "Carried Away" With Themselves?

2009-11-26T06:26:00.000-08:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

“Cutting rates by 50 basis points here and there is not going really diminish the appeal of the ruble,” said Manik Narain, an emerging markets strategist at Standard Chartered Bank Plc in London. “In terms of nominal interest rates Russia (at 9% as of 24 November) is still offering the highest yields in the emerging market space and in an environment where oil prices are remaining relatively well supported we think that the ruble will continue to be seen as an attractive way to position for global recovery,”

The world's central banks are having a hard time of it these days, having just gotten through the worst banking and financial crisis in living memory they now face a growing dilema between continuing to give support to the developed economies (which are yet to recover from those early hammer blows) and the danger of creating fresh global asset price bubbles in emerging economies, asset bubbles which could easily be being fuelled by low US interest rates and a weak dollar. The latest warning in this respect comes not from Nouriel Roubini (or even from me, but see this post, and this recent interview I gave on Forex Blog), rather it emmanates from Germany’s new finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble. His comments - which were cited in last Saturday's Financial Times - highlight official concern in Europe that the exceptional steps taken by central banks and governments to combat the crisis carry with them a series of undesireable side effects.

Such openly expressed concerns only add further weight to recent statements made in China, where only a week ago the banking regulator Liu Mingkao explicitly criticised the US Federal Reserve for indirectly fuelling the “dollar carry-trade” – a process whereby investors borrow dollars at ultra-low interest rates in the United States and the invest them in higher-yielding assets abroad.

Wolfgang Schäuble went even further, saying it would be “naive” to assume the next asset price bubble would look just like the last one. “More likely today is a scenario in which excess liquidity globally creates a new [sort of] asset market bubble.” he said, and the fact “ that low interest rate currencies such as the US dollar increasingly being used as a basis for currency carry trades should give pause for thought. If there was a sudden reversal in this business, markets would be threatened with enormous turbulence, including in foreign exchange markets.”

As I argued in my last post on the carry trade, the danger of a short term sudden reversal may be being overstated at this point, since exit from emergency life support will be at best slow and measured in the United States, while ample funding will continue to remain available in Japan, where the central bank has now formally recognised that the economy is once more back in deflation (officially it exited in 2006, and the Bank did manage to summon up a full half percentage point worth of interest rate rise before falling back towards zero again, but in reality, if we strip out the oil price impact, the sad truth is that Japan never really left deflation).

However, regardless of whether or not we are running the danger of having an overly rapid unwind effect, untold damage is in fact being done, with the structural distortions being produced by the massive “wall of liquidity” which is currently sweeping the planet being evident enough, showing up as it is in some unexpected places, like Russia for example.

Ruble Once More On The Rise

On the face of it the idea that investors who were rushing for the Russian door following the Roki tunnel incursion back in August 2008 may now be rushing back in again may seem hard to believe, particularly given the serious economic recession which followed, and in reality it isn’t quite like this, but what is clear is that a steady and significant flow of funds is now most definitely heading in Russia’s direction - even if the immediate objective is not to increase what Russia most definitely needs, namely capital investment. A brief glance at the charts for movements in the ruble vis a vis the US dollar (see below) shows immediately what has been happening. After hitting a low of $31.39 on September 2 the ruble has been steadily rising, and was at $28.65 on November 11, since which time it has been hovering, as investors vacilate waiting to see where policy and the currency go from here.

At the same time, if we look at movements in the ruble-USD over a longer period of time (2 years in the chart below) it is plain the the ruble hit bottom on 4 February 2009 at $36.22 after falling steadily from 17 July 2009 when it touched $23.25.

In fact, as I say, while it is clear that Russia is on the receiving end of a steady inflow of funds, it is far from clear that these funds are of the kind she most needs at this point. Much of the money has been going into stocks, and Russian equity funds drew record amounts at the end of October, according to data provided by EPFR Global. In fact Bloomberg data show that the ruble has been the second-best performer among emerging market currencies after the Chilean peso over the past three months, gaining 8.7 percent in the period. And even foreign currency purchases from the central bank and lowering interest rates systematically to a record low (in Russian terms) has not worked. Indeed Russia's foreign currency reserves have now risen to $441.7 billion (as of Nov. 13) compared with the low of $376.1 billion reached on March 13. Whilethe Micex Stock Index has gained 116 percent this year, making the Index the best-performing benchmark equity measure globally since January (in local currency terms), again according to Bloomberg data.

In comparison Russia’s foreign direct investment plummeted an annual by 48.1 percent, the most on record, to just $10 billion in the first nine months of the year, while overall foreign investment, including credits and flows into securities markets, was $54.7 billion, down 27.8 percent when compared with the same period a year earlier,according to Federal Statistics Service data. Other foreign investments, including loans from foreign banks and Russian companies’ foreign divisions, were down 20.9 percent in the period to $43.7 billion. The consequence of all this is that the decline in investment activity has been - as can be seen in the GDP growth components chart below - perhaps the greatest single drag on the domestic Russian economy over the past twelve months.

But, as I am stressing this earlier overall impression of Russia as a country with problems of net capital flight now no longer gives us a precise up-to-date picture because, in a reversal of the earlier pattern Russia has seen, since mid September, significant capital inflows. In this sense some of the aggregate flow data is misleading, and even while the pressure from foreign lenders to repay sindicated loans continues and Russian borrowers continue to have difficulty rolling over their debt, the aggregate capital flow data to some extent masque a change in the underlying structure of Russian external debt - here, as ever, the devil lies in the details. As Guillaume Tresca, a Paris-based emerging market strategist with Credit Agricole’s Caylon Unit, argues the mounting weight of that huge wall of liquidity sweeping the planet means that something somewhere has to give, with the consequence that the Russian authorities are now under severe pressure to accept the inevitability of short term ruble appreciation since even though they “will try to do what they can to smooth the process, it’s very hard for them to go against the flow” since current “capital inflows are massive.”

In fact a growing consensus seems to be now emerging that Russia’s central bank will find itself forced to accept a stronger ruble next year as the devastating cocktail of rising commodity prices and abundant liquidity simply prove to be too powerful a force for policy makers to counter. So while representatives of the Russian administration have repeatedly asserted that they will do all they can to cap the ruble’s advance, all may well not be enough, despite Vladimir Putin's repeated declarations that his government won’t allow excessive appreciation in a bid to give some support to struggling exporters. The Canute like task of driving back the ocean is hardly an easy one, and, as the IMF itself recently warned, all efforts to fight the ruble’s advance may simply prove to be “unproductive.”

The problem has recently become even more complicated since, in the short term at least, letting the rouble rise also has its attractions for a Russian administration faced with simmering popular frustration with their inability to get the ongoing economic contraction fully under control. A rising ruble means slower inflation and more spending power for domestic consumers, consumers who have yet to get over the record 10.9 percent economic contraction which hit them in the second quarter. Given that the nine interest rate cuts introduced by the central bank since April have manifestly failed to unlock the credit flow to consumers as banks hold back their lending on concern borrowers can’t repay their debt (see chart below) a rising exchange rate certainly seems to be worth a second look as a way forward, since while a higher exchange rate coupled with near double digit inflation may cripple manufacturing competitiveness, it does transfer incomes directly into people’s pockets, something hard pressed politicians might see as quite beneficial.

Lending is still - as can be seen in the above chart prepared by the World Bank for its latest report - a problem, and corporate (or non-financial corporation lending) fell by 0.7 percent in September from August continuing the ongoing decline. Lending to households dropped 1.1 percent making the eighth consecutive monthly decline, with year on year levels now in negative territory, while non performing retail loans rose, climbing to 6.4 percent from 6.2 percent.

And the World Bank expect the many bank balance sheets will continue deteriorating as the share of non-performing loans increases. “In the environment of increasing credit risks, lending activities by the banks have remained limited despite improving liquidity conditions in the economy and continuing monetary loosening.” Bad debts in the banking industry may reach an average of 10 percent by the end of the year according to the Bank.

And when we look at ruble realities, as the IMF point out, efforts to stem the ongoing rise with intervention are far from being able to give the desired result. Bank Rossii bought a net $15.2 billion and 485 million euros in October, their largest foreign currency purchases since May, and went on to buy $6 billion during the first 17 days of November according to press reports citing central bank chairman, Sergey Ignatiev. Yet last week the Russian the ruble ended 0.1 percent higher at 35.0632 against the central bank’s target currency basket, its strongest level since December 23 2008. The ruble appreciated 3.4 percent in October against the dollar (for its second consecutive monthly gain) and has risen more than 1 percent so far in November. Thus the central bank has now moved on to use monetary policy to try and stem the rise, and said on October 29 that it would also use interest rates in an attempt to reduce the “attractiveness of short-term investments in Russian assets and stop the accumulation of risk”.

The recent rise follows ruble a 35 percent slump against the dollar between August last year and January, raising the cost of imports (which make up about 49 percent of the consumer goods sold in Russia) and, in theory, making Russia's domestic industry somewhat more competitive externally. However, without a sound institutional infrastructure, and a coherent monetary policy, short term devaluation gains can easily be turned into medium term inflation, thus defeating the purpose of corrective price devaluation.

The current problems are not of recent making, but are the logical end product of steady and systematic long term mismanagement of Russia's monetary policy, a mismanagement which has now created a veritable Procrustean bed of problems for both Russia's economy and the wider society. Warnings were frequent enough, but went unheaded, and the continuing failure to address the underlying inflation problem between 2005 and 2008 now means that large structural distrortions have been accumulated in the economy, including a massive one of commodity export dependence, a problem which effectively turned the country into a veritable disaster waiting to happen if ever there should be a protracted lull in the secular rise in energy prices. That lull has most definitely now arrived, since while it is obvious that Russia's short term future depends on energy prices, it is far from clear what the future holds for those energy prices themselves.

Weak global demand for oil has led to a sharp rise in excess capacity and OPEC's spare capacity has risen to levels not seen since 2002, when prices averaged USD25/barrel with OPEC’s pricing power staying very low. Up to now oil prices have remained in the USD70/barrel range, supported by OPEC output restraint and its stated desire to have prices reach what it calls "a comfortable level" - ie near USD75/barrel - as well as by expectations of rising demand. At its September 2009 meeting, OPEC left its production quotas unchanged but indicated it would take rapid action if prices dropped sharply. OPEC production, however, continues to edge higher, with compliance to its combined cuts of 4.2 million barrels per day falling to 66 percent in September from 71 percent in August. Thus there is evidence of OPEC strains and there is considerable uncertainty about real levels of 2010 demand, all of which makes for considerable uncertainty about prices. As can be seen in the above chart, World Bank oli price estimates (like their economic growth ones) have fluctuated, and have moved from a price estimate in March of around $62.95 for 2010 to the current (November) expectation of $75.29. While the earlier estimate may certainly be considered to be on the low side, the current one may well be too high, and a level of around $70 may not be an unrealistic forecast. It should be noted however that there are credible dissenters, and in a more or less reasoned analysis Capital Economics suggest that oil prices could well fall back again in 2010 to average somewhere around $50. If this forecast were to prove to be anywhere near correct, the Russian economy is going to be subject to major downside risks, due in particular to the difficulties posed by:

i) financing the fiscal deficit
ii) rising unemployment
iii) growing bad loans in the banking system
iv) refinancing external debt
v) the continuing high level of consumer price inflation and the difficulties this poses for monetary policy at the central bank

Added to all this, the economy will clearly not rebound as easily as many seem to foresee, adding to the risk element on all fronts.

A Return To Growth In The Third Quarter

Following the deep output drop sustained in the first half of the year (10.4% of GDP year on year), the slow recovery in global demand and rise in commodity prices has helped lift Russia’s economy up from its earlier lows. But the recovery has only been a modest one, since preliminary data indicate that the economy still registered a 9.4 percent year-on-year drop in the thrid quarter, indicating only a very small improvement (possibly a seasonally adjusted 0.6%) over the second quarter. More recent data also point towards a rather uneven progression, with the manufacturing sector falling back while rising real incomes means that consumer demand is producing stronger growth in the services sector.

As in other countries, investment (both foreign and domestic) took a severe hit on the back of the credit crunch, and gross capital formation was indeedthe main demand side factor dragging GDP down in the first half of the year (by 14 percentage points), followed at some distance by consumption, which contributed 1.2 and 3.0 percentage points to aggregate output contraction rates respectively in the first and second quarters. Net exports, on the other hand, made a positive contribution (5.1 percentage points in the first quarter and 5.9 percentage points in the second) although as elsewhere the drop in imports was the key factor. When imports are looked at in volume (price adjusted) terms we find that real ruble depreciation (the real effective exchange rate depreciated by 5.9 percent in the first nine months of 2009) meant that the import contraction was more severe than it seemed, especially in the second quarter of 2009 when the drop in imports meant that net exports increased by 66 percent according to World Bank calculations.

Unemployment Falls Back, But Problems Remain

Six million Russians were added to the government’s official poverty count in the first quarter of this year alone, and by the end of 2009, 17.4 percent of the population or 24.6 million people will be living beneath the subsistence level of $185 per month, almost 5 percent more than before crisis, according to World Bank estimates. Unicredit analysts forecast that the number of Russians with disposable incomes of more than $1,000 per month will fall 48 percent this year to about 13.6 million, or roughly 9.6 percent of the population. Thus this recession is likely to have lasting and important results.

On the hand, employment statistics from the Federal Statistics Service indicate that a sharp downward adjustment in the labour market took place up to February this year, before moderating and then reversing. Unemployment seems to have peaked in February at 9.5 percent following the sharp decline in output, and the severity of the blow was especially strong in the industrial sector.

Since the beginning of March 2009, however, with real level of economic activity bottoming out (see above chart), the labor market continued to show moderate improvement: by September the number of those in employment had increased by 2.6 million, and the rate of unemployment fell to 7.6 percent, down significantly but still much higher than in September 2008 (5.8 percent). According to the World Bank this steady improvement is rather misleading as it reflects significant seasonal gains in employment and a shift in labor adjustment towards labor hoarding in the manufacturing sector.

As the World Bank also notes, the long term regional differences in Russian unemployment rates are striking ranging from a low of 1.6 percent in Moscow to a high of 52.1 percent in Ingushetia in August 2009. Traditionally unemployment is largely concentrated in the Southern, Far Eastern and Siberian federal districts. However, the crisis related unemployment shows a different pattern, with the largest increases in unemployment being found in the North Western District (from 4.8 to 7 percent) and the Urals (from 4.9 to 8.1 percent). Regression analysis carried out by the World Bank revealed that unemployment levels were higher in those regions with higher levels of manufacturing, and where industrial production accounted for a larger share of GDP.

And while it is entirely possible that the economy will show a “modest” recovery in the second half of 2009, this is “unlikely to have significant impact on social indicators,” according to the World Bank. Unemployment will increase to 9 percent “as seasonal factors wane” from 7.6 percent in September and it may take three years before the number of Russians living in poverty falls to pre-crisis levels, the World Bank estimates. Indeed, in the short term real incomes are “likely to fall further".

Monetary Policy Mess

The political threat posed by growing unemployment and rising poverty must most certainly be one of the reasons behind Russia’s central bank recent decision to lowered its key interest rates for the eighth time in six months, in a bid to both stimulate lending and to stem the inflow of funds and the rise in the value of the ruble which is making the work of restoring competitiveness to the manufactured sector all the more difficult. Earlier this month Bank Rossii cut the refinancing rate to 9 percent from 9.5 percent and reduced the repurchase rate charged on central bank loans to 8 percent from 8.5 percent. Despite the reductions Russia still has the fourth-highest benchmark interest rate in Europe after Ukraine, Iceland and Serbia.

The best thing that can be said about Russian monetary policy instruments is that they are hopelessly ineffictive. Even October consumer-price growth at 9.7% annually, while well down on the 15.1 percent peak hit in June 2008, is still horribly unacceptable, and it is extremely hard to understand how economic mismanagement and incompetence can have reached such a level that an economy which has been contracting at the rate of nearly 10 per cent a year can still have this kind of price inflation. There is no other word for it, this is a mess.

The bank is caught on the horns of a large dilema, since cutting rates further to stem inflows and the ruble rise may only risk fuelling more inflation, yet First Deputy Central Bank Chairman Alexei Ulyukayev stressed only this week (following the latest in rate decision) that the central bank did not exclude the possibility of further cutting its rates since it sees “no inflationary risks” next year and an inflation rate “much lower” than 9 percent. This follows explicit remarks at the end of October that the Bank was ready and willing to use interest rate policy as required to stem speculative capital flows that "threaten to undermine currency stability".

Inflation Woes

One small consolation at least in this ongoing mess is that pressure on Russia’s producer prices have been easing, and factory gate prices have even been falling. According to the preliminary data from the State Statistics Service, the price of goods leaving factories and mines was in fact down an annual 10.8 percent in August following a record 12.3 percent drop in July. Evidently The with the 2008 spike in oil and energy prices the logic behind this is easy to see. What is not so easy to see is why domestic prices take so long in responding to general capacity utilisation signals and why the Economic Development Ministry still seems comfortable with the expectation that average inflation will range between 12 percent and 12.5 percent in 2009 only marginally down from last year’s 13.3 percent. Stunning!

And while consumer price inflation has been tame in recent months this good behaviour may not last long, since it could rise more than expected in November, according to Deputy Economic Minister Andrei Klepach, who does not seem to completely share Alexei Ulyukayev price optimism. Consumer prices could rise "by about 0.3% to 0.4%" in November, Klepach said in comments recently, and this prediction seems to be near the mark, since according to the latest data we have consumer prices rose 0.1% in the week to 9 November, bringing to an end a period of just over three months without inflation. Looking into the future price growth may be further spurred by an influx of budget spending in the fourth quarter, as well as by a planned 30% increase in pensions which is due to come into effect on 1 December.

In fact, despite the fact that inflationary pressures have been easing in Russia in recent months, chiefly due to collapsing consumer demand and outlfows of capital following the crisis that hit the country a year ago, the official outlook for Russia's inflation in January 2010 is only that it will be "significantly below "the level of January 2009. This kind of argument is hardly reasssuring, since inflation last January was at an annual rate of 13.4%, although the short term outlook is for only a mild acceleration, with consumer prices increasing by between 0.2% and 0.3% in November and by about the same amount in December.

Why Not Devalue?

Well, one way not to solve the problem, according to European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Chief Economist Erik Berglof, would be a ruble devaluation, since despite recognising that the country has a very difficult couple of years in front of it, Berglof argued recently that “this (devaluation) is the wrong way to think about the recovery in Russia”.

As he said, Russia’s failure to wean itself off its reliance on commodity exports has condemned the country struggling to find economic growth in the face of a large drop in demand for its key export products. “If you want to have a flexible exchange rate, you need to get out of this dependence on commodities,” Berglof said. “It’s a major concern that in the last 10 years Russia has become actually more dependent on commodities. Unfortunately, not much progress has been made.”

Well, this is exactly the point, and is why I have been arguing over the last two year about how all those wage increases which the Russian administration seemed to rejoice in (since they bought short term popularity, and fuelled consumption) simply stoked-up the domestic inflation bonfire and in the process did untold damage to domestic competitiveness. However it is evident Russia's industries cannot now simply be transformed overnight, and this is where I find a weakness in Berglofs argument, since some remedy is needed to straighten out the distortions and get of commodity export dependence. But what? If it isn't devaluation, then surely we will need to see very substantial wage deflation in order to attract the now much needed inward foreign investment. The current position whereby prices rise by an annual 10%, and living standards are maintained by a sharp rise in the value of the ruble (making imports cheaper) is quite simply unsustainable, for reasons which should be evident from looking at the chart below. If you look at the green line (which shows the Real trade weighted Effective Exchange Rate) we will see how this has risen sharply since 2003, with the exception of the drop in the value of the ruble in the second half of last year. If we then look at the blue line (which shows the non oil and gas current account balance) we will see how this has been steadily deteriorating (again with the exception of the short sharp shock occassioned by the crisis of last autumn). However, as we can also see, the green (REER) line has now once more resumed its upwards march - the consequence of all those financial inflows, and the associated rise in the ruble - and with the upward march comes the ongoing structural damage to the economy, precisely the can't of structural damage which Erik Berglof would like to avoid, and even unwind.

Of course not everyone agrees with Berglof, and the Russian Association of Regional Banks, whose 450 members include the Russian units of Barclays and Citigroup, has called for a devaluation of as much as 30 percent. Billionaire Vladimir Potanin, realist and owner of 25 percent of OAO GMK Norilsk Nickel, said in recent interview with the Russian Newspaper Vedomosti that the “interests of the economy” will lead the currency to depreciate in the “mid term,” allowing exporters to cut costs and modernize production.

Nonetheless energy, including oil and natural gas, accounted for 69.1 percent of exports to countries outside the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states during the first seven months of this year, according to the Federal Customs Service, while metals were responsible for another 12%. So the commodities dependency is massive, and this situation can't be turned round easily.

Getting Carried Away By Global Liquidity?

Bank Rossi are also not 100% convinced by the merits of Berglof's reasoning, as witnessed by the fact that they facilitated a 35 percent depreciation in the ruble during the second half of last year (see chart below), and as the collapse in raw material prices and the dramatic change in local credit conditions first pushed Russia's economy into recession the ruble’s trading range was widened to between 26 and 41 against the dollar-euro basket.

However, as I keep stressing, the central bank is now locked on the horns of a massive dilemma, since as risk appetite returns, with it comes the enthusiasm for buying the so called "high yield" currencies - like the South African Rand, the Russian ruble and the Hungarian forint. Instruments denominated in all these currencies offer investors substantial returns at the present time thanks to offering some of the highest interest rates among globally traded currencies.

Indeed buying Russian rubles was one of the key recommendations made by Angus Halkett, currency strategist at Deutsche Bank in London, in a research report published back in April, and the market seems to have followed his advice The so-called carry trade works by investors borrowing in currencies with low interest rates and good prospects of continuing depreciation (the USD at the moment, for example) in order to buy higher-yielding assets, in countries with high domestic interest rates and continuing prospects for ongoing appreciation.

In general, engaging in one or other form of the thousand-and-one-varieties carry trade is pretty standard practice during times when returns for real economic activity are low, and central banks hold down rates and supply liquidity. Indeed we may include here the kind of carry practiced by banks in borrowing from the central banks only to then lend - for a small, but very low risk, interest rate commission - to their national government, who at this stage in the business cycle will normally be running a fiscal deficit. So more than funding recovery, the watchword at the moment is very much "carry on carrying".

But for those on the receiving end, the consequences of so much carry are far from innocuous, since the process simply funds all sorts of economic distortions, and far from allowing normal market corrections to occur, it simply amplifies the problem. Things are now becoming very detached from the so called "fundamentals" (whatever those might be in the topsy turvy world in which we now live), since it simply is not plausible that the currency should be rising in this way in a country with nine percent plus consumer price inflation and which badly needs to move away from commodity export dependency. The only conclusion which could be drawn is that the Russian economy now needs massive structural reforms, and on any imaginable scenario in the world in which I live these are simply not going to be implemented.

On the other hand Russia’s central bank may have to accept a stronger ruble next year as rising commodity prices prove too powerful a force for policy makers to counter and as consumer demand plays a bigger role in the bank’s decisions. The authorities “will try to do what they can to smooth the appreciation, but it’s very hard to go against the flow,” said Guillaume Tresca, Paris-based emerging market strategist for Calyon, the investment-banking unit of Credit Agricole. “Capital inflows are massive.”

Policy makers have indicated they will cap the ruble’s gains and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said his government won’t allow an excessive appreciation as exporters struggle to tap into a global trade recovery. Even so, efforts to fight the ruble’s advance may prove “unproductive,” the International Monetary Fund warned on Nov. 12, adding that “underlying factors” justify its strength. There is a growing consensus that Russia’s central bank is now close to accepting the inevitable, and will allow the ruble to continue appreciating to help domestic demand and cap inflation. As Clemens Grafe, chief economist at UBS in Moscow puts it, “A higher exchange rate, because it transfers incomes into people’s pockets, could actually be more beneficial,”

Fiscal Resources Near To Running On Empty?

According to preliminary estimates from the Ministry of Finance, the federal budget deficit totaled 4.0 percent between January and September, slightly below the expected level, in part due to the under execution of budgeted expenditures in the first three quarters of 2009. The federal non-oil deficit (which excludes drawing on oil revenues) amounted to 11.0 percent. This is managable, especially given the comparatively low level of Russian sovereign debt to GDP. However, as the World Bank point out under the likely scenario of a sluggish global recovery and modest growth, Russia will face a tightening budget constraint and need to reduce expenditures and the fiscal deficit over the medium term. Further, funding the planned increase in social expenditures, mainly related to increases in pensions, may well requires spending cuts in other expenditure categories.

The Ministry of Finance baseline federal budget estimates with conservative oil assumptions icorporate plans to reduce the federal budget deficit from 8.3 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3 percent in 2012, but the medium term fiscal outlook also indicates an extensive drawdown of Russia's Reserve Fund to finance the deficit. Given the size of the anticipated deficit, the Reserve Fund is likely to be depleted by the end of 2010 and borrowing will be required to offset the gap. Estimates of the Ministry of Finance indicate that the combined external and internal borrowing to cover the fiscal deficit will amount to 1.0 percent of GDP in 2009, 1.6 percent in 2010, 2.5 percent in 2011, and 1.5 percent in 2012. All of this is manageble, but the depletion of the Reserve Fund does mean that if downside risks materialise, and in particular if there are more writedowns in the banking sector needing government support that there is now little in the way of a cushion between managed adjustement and unstable dynamics.

Outlook – A Hard Road To Travel

If one thing is clear hear it is that attaining a recovery in Russia's economic fortunes at this point is going to be no easy feat, as Trust Investment Bank put it in their latest report, October data for the world’s largest energy exporter suggest “an almost complete absence of clear signs of recovery” since industrial output slumped and capital investment fell. October capital investment was still down 17.9 percent while industrial output dropped an annual 11.2 percent in October worse than the September reading. Even unemplyment was up again, at 7.7%, although as the World Bank pointed out, this is the result of the same seasonal factors which lead to the fall in unemployment over the summer.

On the other hand, this is by no means a one way street, since disposable incomes climbed a monthly 6 percent in October and rose 3.9 percent compared with the same period last year, registering their biggest annual jump since September 2008, according to provisional data from the Federal Statistics Service, while wage declines eased with wages falling an annual 4.5 percent, compared with a 4.9 percent annual decline in September. And retail sales, which had previously fallen for nine consecutive months, the longest period of declines on record, suddenly sprang back to life, with October retail sales rose 3.2 percent from September and declined by 8.5 percent on an annual basis as compared with a 9.9 percent drop the month before.

Other data also show this mixed picture. Monthly GDP Indicator data from VTB Capital, based on the PMI surveys for the Russian manufacturing and service sectors, continued to show economic contraction on an annual basis in October, butthe rate of decline eased for the fifth consecutive month. The Indicator showed a 0.6% annual contraction, the slowest rate seen suring the current eleven-month period of continuous decline.

The seasonally adjusted Total Activity Index remained above the no-change mark of 50.0 for the third month running in October, indicating growth of private sector output. The Index improved fractionally over September, to 54.2, indicating reasonably robust growth (although it remained below its historic trend of 56.6). This was driven by a faster rise in services activity, while the rate of growth in manufacturing production slowed to a weaker pace. On a quarterly basis the indicator showed 0.4% q-o-q growth for the second month running.

Commenting on the survey, Aleksandra Evtifyeva, Senior Economist at VTB Capital, reported:

““The GDP Indicator continued to point to an improvement in economic activity in October. The manufacturing sector’s performance deteriorated slightly while activity in the services sector is approaching pre-crisis levels. This might be one of the consequences of higher oil prices and a stronger rouble as low export orders were the main drag on manufacturing. Another encouraging development highlighted by the October surveys was the deceleration in the pace of job cuts: the employment sub-indices now stand at around 47, which is already higher than last autumn.

The GDP indicator reading was based on manufacturing sector survey findings which confirmed that overall Russian manufacturing business conditions deteriorated in October. Although output, new orders and input purchases all continued to grow, the rates of expansion slowed compared to September. Moreover, manufacturers shed jobs at a faster pace than in September.

The headline seasonally adjusted Russian Manufacturing PMI fell from 52.0 in September to 49.6 in October, signalling an overall deterioration in the business climate at the start of the fourth quarter. It was the first month-on-month fall in the headline index since it plummeted to a record low (33.8) in December 2008, although the latest figure was indicative of only a marginal rate of decline. Of particular note, the new export orders index posted a strongish decline to 47.8, evidently reflecting the recent ruble appreciation. The input price index continued to point to strong rise in costs associated with metals, energy and oil-related items while output prices index pointed to a moderating growth in price charged.

In contrast the rebound in Russian services activity rose continued in October, supported by a record fall in charges, and Russia's services sector, which accounts for about 40 percent of the economy, rose for the third consecutive month, reaching its highest level since September 2008, although the reading of 54.3 still remained significantly below the long-run series average.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

In contrast to the most recent PMI data and the opinions of analysts like Neil Shearing at Capital Economics and Trust Investment Bank , Russia's political leaders are markedly more optimistic. Russia’s economy may expand as much as 4 percent in the last quarter of 2009 following a timid return to growth in the third quarter, according to Deputy Economy Minister Andrei Klepach speaking at a conference in Moscow recently. The economy may show “quite strong growth” of between 3 percent and 4 percent in the fourth quarter over the previous three months, Klepach said. This is an interesting claim, and doubly so given that Klepach has been quite cautious so far this year in his claims. However, as Neil Shearing at Capital Economics points out Klepach’s claim that growth could rise to an annual 4% at some point is perhaps not as wild as it first sounds. Shearing estimates that output fell by over 9% between Q4 2008 and Q1 2009, which means that given the sizeable base effects which will exist the Q1 2010 year on year growth rate might well look look quite impressive.

But this may be a kind of "mirage effect" since if the global recovery slows towards mid-2010 (and with it the level of energy prices) then Russian annual growth could easily fall back sharply over the second half of next year and into 2011. Thus the prospect of a renewed fall in energy prices would imply that the risk a double-dip recession in Russia is quite a real one.

But this is all for the future, while here in the present the rising price of oil and the return of some financial flows into Russia continues to fire-up optimism, as do the numbers for retail sales, so we had better just grit our teeth and hope they don't also fire up the inflation process again, although with lending to households still stuck in gridlock, perhaps the dangers here should not be overstated. More worryingly, inflation may fail to fall significantly from its current high level, even as the central bank reduces interest rates in a bid to stem the ruble rise.

Klepach's optimism is not shared, however, by the World Bank who in their latest report argue Russia’s economy will suffer a deeper contraction than they previously estimated this year even after a series of central bank interest rate cuts which have manifestly failed to ease the “prolonged” credit drought. The World Bank now expect the Russian economy to contract by 8.7 percent this year, compared with their June forecast for a 7.9 percent decline. The government is currently predicting the economy will shrink 8.5 percent this year and grow 1.6 percent next year.

“We expect that the central bank will continue lowering its policy rate in the near future to facilitate credit to the real sector,” the World Bank said. “The impact, however, appears to be limited. The policy rates are mostly indicative, while the cost of credit remains very high.”

The OECD, on the other hand, seems rather more positive, arguing that Russia’s economy will enjoy a stronger commodity-driven rebound than first estimated, although, they hasten to add, authorities should avoid a sudden removal of stimulus measures to ensure the domestic economy keeps up the pace of its advance. They now expect the Russian economy to expand by 4.9 percent in 2010, compared with a June forecast for 3.7 percent growth, although output is still expected to contract 8.7 percent this year (broadly in line with the World Bank), more than the 6.8 percent estimated in June. The 2010 figure seems very optimistic in the light of the problems here identified, and more than adding to our appreciation of the Russian situation such numbers may rather cast doubt on the methodology being applied, and raise questions about some of the numbers being seen for other countries.

“Although recovery is in prospect, the large output gap and subdued inflation suggest that policy stimulus should not be removed too hastily,” the OECD said. “Fiscal policy should be managed to avoid dislocative demand effects from a surge of expenditures in late 2009 followed by a tightening in 2010.”

According to the OECD, Russia’s economy will enjoy a stronger commodity-driven rebound than first estimated and “Fiscal and monetary stimulus and the recovery of global demand should result in a strong rebound of output towards the end of 2009". The basic OECD argument is that “A large part of the policy stimulus will be felt only late in the year, as fiscal expenditure is back-loaded and a series of interest rate cuts began only in the second quarter.”

Long Term Impact On Russian Growth

But let us not underestimate the difficulties. According to the World Bank Russia’s real GDP will likely return to pre-crisis levels only in late 2012. And, the Bank says, without a more productive, diversified, and competitive economic base, its long-term growth is likely to be slower than in the past decade and than the pre-crisis expectation

Russia’s pre-crisis decade of prosperity was built on strong capital inflows, rising consumer and corporate credit, and significant capital investment. The post-crisis world will look very different: Russia will need to implement fiscal adjustment and diversify its economy in the context of sluggish global growth, low capital flows, and more limited access to foreign financing. So it is now time to look towards a new growth model based on increases in productivity and know-how and on more efficient allocation and use of investment, labor, and FDI. Next generation reforms should be geared to make Russia's monetary policy instruments much more effective, the Russian economy much more productive, diversified, and open—and more able to respond to future shocks. The success and duration of the transition from the current model of heavy dependence of natural resources to a more sustainable growth model depends, according to the World Bank on maintaining a competitive exchange rate, sustaining a prudent fiscal stance, improving the investment climate, more mobile capital and labor, making the financial sector deeper and more efficient, investing in infrastructure to eliminate key bottlenecks to growth, and strengthening governance and fighting corruption as part of the overall effort to improve the effectiveness of the public sector.

The OECD more or less agrees: “Laying the foundations for sustained rapid growth will require unwinding some of the distortive consequences of the crisis". And, may I add, unwinding some of the distortive processes which lead the crisis to be such a severe one in the first place might not be such a bad idea either.

The Great Unravelling (Dubai Edition)

2009-11-26T04:00:00.000-08:00

By Claus Vistesen: Copenhagen

[Update: Ok, that was an unduly quick write-up; the worst spelling errors and typos have been corrected accordingly]

Although I certainly would not rank it alongside Macro Man's dreaded vacation indicator or the incipient increase in the USD if and when the Economist finally decides to slot its decline on the front page, I still have the nagging feeling that whenever yours truly sit down at either a dull and difficult econometrics lecture or, as today, camps at school for a lab session in connection with a paper due next month, some event is bound to wreck havoc on markets while your author is busy estimating regressions. I would assume that some US market participants feel the same today as they give thanks before hauling in the Turkey.

In any case, this time around the skeleton that could be kept in the closet no longer is neither Baltic nor Spanish; it is Middle Eastern. At this point, I am of course simply trying to get an overview like the rest of you and not least deciding whether it will have any far reaching repercussions beyond today's theatricals. However, in case you did not turn on your Blackberry today, they story is that the Dubai government has requested investors in the debt of the investment company Dubai world whether they wouldn't be so nice as to accept a wee postponement of the payment of their debt. Especially, a payment due already the 14th of December in the form of $3.52 billion of bonds from property unit Nakheel PJSC looks as if it is near dead in the water.

(quote Bloomberg)

The price of Nakheel’s bonds fell to 70.5 cents on the dollar from 84 yesterday and 110.5 a week ago, according to Citigroup Inc. prices on Bloomberg.“Nakheel is now standing on the brink of failure given the astonishing amount of cash Dubai would have to inject on it in order to see the enterprise survive,” said Luis Costa, emerging-market debt strategist at Commerzbank AG in London.

Obviously, announcements of delay of debt payments smells an awful lot like default and with $59 billion worth of liabilities at Dubai World many a financial institution and investor are exposed here. Naturally, and apart from the internal mess this is likely to cause in the Middle Eastern region, I am looking closely at the notion of European banks being sucked in here too.

(quote Bloomberg)

The biggest creditors are Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and Emirate NBD PJSC. Other lenders include Credit Suisse Group AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, according to a person familiar with the situation. Barclays slumped as much as 6.9 percent, the biggest intraday loss in a month, while RBS sank as much as 8.3 percent. Lloyds and Credit Suisse dropped more than 3 percent.

As ever, it will be most interesting to see which adventures European (and indeed US) financial institutions have been engaged in with the cranes of Dubai and thus how much more junk they will now have on their balance sheet (question: does the ECB by chance have collateral from Dubai World in the tank?!).

Naturally, this may all get a happy ending for the creditors if a) the Dubai government decides to foot the bill through a massive liquidity injection and b) it does not default in the process. Since the government itself, it appears, took part in suggesting the repay delay/restructuring the stakes were raised already from the get go especially as both Moodys and S&P have indicated, initially through massive cuts of companies and funds in the region, that they might consider the move to ask investors for a delay in repayment as a defacto default; a statement which together with the state of play naturally have seen credit default swaps soar for both sovereigns and companies across the region.

Globally, the reaction was equally strong with stocks across the board taking a hit and yields on developed economy government bonds dropping to reflect the knee-jerk move into "safety" assets by part of global investors. In this respect, I agree with the underlying sentiment expressed by Russel Jones from RBC Capital markets

(qoute Bloomberg)

“Dubai isn’t doing risk appetite any favors at all and the markets remain in a vulnerable state of mind,” said Russell Jones, head of fixed-income and currency research in London at RBC Capital Markets. “We’re still in an environment where we’re vulnerable to financial shocks of any sort and this is one of those.”

The key here is exactly whether this merely reflects the fact that markets and risky assets are naturally nervous and thus how it takes only a small (or large?) disruption for risk aversion to decline or whether there is a stronger and more structural theme at play here with respect to the potential real contagion the events in Dubai might have. At this point I am leaning towards the former simply because I have no reason or knowledge to claim the latter. I suspect that minds more informed than me will let us know soon enough as well as any untold stories will surface sooner rather than later.

More importantly (at least for me), it was interesting to see that old habits still linger in the context of FX markets;

(quote Bloomberg)

The yen climbed as high as 86.30 per dollar, the strongest since July 1995, before trading at 86.60. The U.S. currency strengthened against all but the yen among its 16 most-traded counterparts, appreciating 2.6 percent versus the New Zealand dollar and advancing 2.4 percent against the South African rand.

The Swiss franc weakened as much as 0.3 percent per euro, falling from the highest level since June, on speculation the Swiss National Bank sold the currency to curb its gains. The franc dropped 0.9 percent to 1.0057 against the dollar after yesterday reaching parity for the first time in 19 months. The SNB declined to comment.

Now, whether this is a story of unwinding of carry trades and low yielders reacting to risk aversion as I have tended to interpret it (a position which Cassandra, by the way, recently called disingenuous at best and ludicrous absurd puerile) or simply, as would be Cassandra's point, systemic deleveraging and thus a retrenchment of funding liquidity (primarily in USD) is an open question which I intend to deal with in more detail in the future. For now, it will suffice to say that the USD acts as a carry trade funder along side the JPY with the Swissie apparently still supported by the bullying of the SNB. In short, if it walks like one and quacks like one ... well.

For more background on Thursday's Dubai Delights we can thank the job rotation schedule at FT Alphaville for having Izabella Kaminska at the rudder (among others) as she has been relentless digging up background and information on the situation in Dubai throughout the day. Over and above the tragicomic allure of the failed conference call scheduled for bond holders of Nakheel (a guy called Murphy springs to mind), I take notics of the "sterling connection" and specifically the idea that the Pound may suffer from the Dubai rout as the sheiks and the rest of their ilk will be forced to sell UK real estate assets (time to buy a Chelsea pent house then?) in order to kick up the funding needed. Here is Izabella;

In other words, if default is really on the cards, chances are Dubai World will have to start a major fire-sale of assets. Unluckily for the UK, the Middle East and the UAE have for a very long time viewed the British real-estate market as a safe-haven investment.

Whether the inflows from the window shopping of super affluent Middle Eastern investors in the UK real estate market have been a marked driver of the exchange rate is debatable, but Izabella digs up some comments by BNP Paribas who certainly seems to think that this is the case. So we better watch that one too then. Finally, Izabella headbuts Barclays Capital by juxtaposing an old note dated back only this month in which BC recommends a long position in everything debt related to Dubai (Sovereign as well as Corporate) with a more a current note in which this argument is, uhm, relaxed. A cheap shot you might argue ... perhaps, but fun and interesting nonetheless.

Dubai Delights No More?

I have to say that it was not without a bit of the old Schadenfreude that I loaded up Bloomberg and Reuters this afternoon to learn that Dubai seems to be facing a great unravelling. We still need to get to full story of course at this point, and if the Dubai authorities step up, it may all turn out to be a storm in a tea cup. However, on a personal note the "Cranes of Dubai" always represented one of the clearest example of the excess and froth observed in the context of the economic boom that ended abruptly with the current financial crisis. With this in mind I am not the least surprised about this which of course is easy to state ex post, but then you choose whether to believe me or not.

More generally, it need not, naturally, put an end to financial and economic development in the region, but it is one thing to have and collect commodity windfall and quite another to spend it wisely and to productive means. One would hope that this serves as a timely reminder as we move on from here.

Rebalancing in the Baltics - A Preliminary Assessment

2009-11-22T13:03:00.000-08:00

By Claus Vistesen: Copenhagen

"In my view … it is impossible to understand this crisis without reference to the global imbalances in trade and capital flows that began in the latter half of the 1990s." Bernanke (2009)

Executive Summary

Compared with the average quarterly value of GDP in 2007-08, the first two quarters of 2009 are down in nominal terms to the tune of 15.9%, 15.4% and 10.5% in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia respectively.

The average quarterly current account deficit of the Baltics from Q3 2008 to Q2 2009 was mill 500 Euros. This amount to just 18% of the average quarterly current account deficit two years prior to the crisis. Consequently, the Baltics have delevered to the tune of 80% over the course of less than 1 year.

In the two first quarters of 2009 (relative to Q1-2006 to Q4-2008), imports have contracted 16%, 33% and 11.5% more than exports in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia respectively.

In Euro terms, the Baltics have lost external financing to the tune of bn 1.87 Euros in the first half of 2009 compared to the peak of the boom which amounts to 12.6% of the entire region's GDP in the same period.

The quote above from Fed chairman Bernanke is ripped from the introduction of a recent conference paper drafted by international economics icons Kenneth Rogoff and Maurice Obstfeld who suggest that the financial and economic crisis that is currently making its presence felt across the global economy, at least in part, has something to do with the notion of global current account imbalances. Now, and in all modesty, this is something I have argued extensively at this space and in this way I welcome the likes of Messieurs Rogoff and Obstfeld in the fold. I tend to go, of course, for the big prize in my stubborn persistence on the link between global ageing, global imbalances and thus by way of deduction the economic crisis as we have come to know it.

Now, I am not going to treat this link here but merely point to the rather obvious question at this point in time, in the form of whether in fact the crisis itself has been a catalyst of re-balancing? At a first glance this would clearly seem to be the case. In a crisis driven decisively by a violent process of deleveraging, those economies who had hitherto relied on borrowing have now been forced to scale back (and essentially correct either through a debasement of their currency, internal price correction, or a combination of these two) and the nations that had delivered the funding have likewise been forced to accept that their external surpluses have shrunk in a comparative manner.

So far so good then, but what happens when we have to get the patient out of intensive ward; who will run the deficits and surpluses and what size will the imbalances, if any, be. This is a difficult question to answer, but it appears that with the US economy now being effectively forced to correct its external imbalance (be it with Europe, China, Japan et al kicking and screaming or not), we have a situation with a lot of would be exporters and very little importers.

If this is the general set piece, it was with some interest that I read this VOX.eu piece by Mr. Richard Baldwin and Ms Daria Taglioni which dryly submits the thesis that although it may appear that rebalancing is occurring, this is only as a byproduct of the crisis. From ther horse's own mouth;

Global imbalances are shrinking at a fabulous rate. This column argues that these improvements are mostly illusory – the transitory side-effect of the greatest trade collapse the world has ever seen. A global recovery will almost surely return the US, Germany, China and others to their old paths.

Not exactly the prospect we were all hoping for, but in the main I agree with this point except of course the small and important qualifier that the US economy will have to deleverage and reduce the external (and indeed internal) borrowing. Whether Germany, Japan, China will also need to export ... well, this is ultimately a question of finding a customer.

Rebalancing the Baltics?

The obvious question to arise at this point is obviously what all this has to do with the Baltics? Well, in a direct sense not a whole lot since as the Economist so famously put it, the Baltics remain piqsqueaks and whether we observe current account positions, of either negative or positive pedigree, at some 20% of GDP it won't do much to affect the global imbalances. However, in the light of the idea of rebalancing on the back of the economic crisis and whether this is sustainable let alone feasible, the Baltics become very interesting not least since they have chosen (or have been led into) a process of rebalancing through internal price deflation (devaluation) as their currencies, for now, remain fixed to the Euro. In that vein, I thought it interesting to have a look at how the Baltics have faired so far with a specific focus on the external balance.

Beginning however with a general view of the correction so far the picture is definitely one of a hard landing on the back of the economic crisis.

Most of the readers of this space will be well acquainted with travails of the Baltic economies (and in particular, the near collapse observed in Latvia earlier this year). In all three Baltic economies the Euro value of their GDP peaked in 2007-08 and has since fallen back dramatically. Compared with the average quarterly value of GDP in 2007-08, the first two quarters of 2009 are down in nominal terms to the tune of 15.9%, 15.4% and 10.5% in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia respectively. The Baltic economies have lost bn. 2.2 Euros worth of GDP in 2009 from the GDP output observed in 2007-08 which amounts to a loss of some 21% of the average value of the quarterly GDP output for all Baltic economies combined from 1999 to 2009. In short; these economies have taken some blow to the kidneys and even if we can safely say that the levels of nominal GDP observed in 2007-08 were unsustainable the way down is still rough, very rough.

On the price front the correction has indeed begun and the graph above actually underestimates the current bout of price deflation as it smoothes away, as it were, the fact all three Baltic economies are in deflation on a m-o-m basis. Only Estonia registers deflation on my representation with Latvia basically hovering at the 0% line and Lithuania still producing inflation rates at some 2%.

Moving on to the external balance it is worthwhile splitting up the analysis by having a look at first the import/exports picture and then grinding down to the income level and finish off with a look at the financial accounts and thus the inflows used to finance the deficit (or how the surplus is invested abroad).

This is perhaps the best picture of the Baltic correction there is and nicely illustrates the point emphasised by Baldwin and Taglioni that the correction of imbalances, at this point in time, has been very much forced upon the deficit economies. Consider consequently the average quarterly current account deficit of the Baltics from Q3 2008 to Q2 2009 at mill 500 Euros; i.e. at the point when the crisis made its mark decisively.This amount to just 18% (!) of the average quarterly current account deficit two years prior to the crisis. This means that the Baltics have delevered to the tune of 80% relative to the level of the current account deficit observed up to the crisis. Again and with the benefit of hindsight, we know that these levels were unsustainable, but please do remember that it was only back in the H02 2008 that we were discussion whether the Baltics were going to have a hard or a soft landing. It is remarkable to note the example of Latvia here which has gone from a current account deficit of -17.6% of GDP in the period 2007-08 to a current account surplus of 14% of GDP (mill 681.3 Euros) in Q2 2009 due mainly to the fact that imports and GDP have plunged.

This point in particular is important to emphasize since the extent to which we are able to talk to about a sustainable (or benign if you will) process of rebalancing rather than one entirely driven by a sharp correction in internal demand and thus imports. The intuition tells us that Baltics are currently subject to the latter form of rebalancing and thus it remains to be seen whether there is a virtuous circle of increasing competitiveness and rising export shares (and values) on the back of the current vicious circle. But just how vicious is the current circle then?

The graph to the right attempts to answer this question as it plots the equally weighted average of the evolution of exports and imports in the Baltics. The time series corresponds to the value of exports and imports in million of Euros of the three Baltic economies and is indexed with the average quarterly value between Q1-1999 and Q2-2009 of imports and exports as 100.

The graph easily shows how imports have contracted much more than exports and it is consequently here that we must look for the driver of rebalancing in the Baltics. If we take Q1-2006 to Q4-2008 as the peak of the boom (in terms of the external deficits), exports are down 10.8% in the first half of 2009 whereas imports are down a full 33.4% in the same period. This suggests that more than anything that rebalancing in the Baltics are currently driven by a sharp contraction of domestic demand. Splitting up the result on the three economies and looking exclusively at the second quarter of 2009, imports have contracted 16%, 33% and 11.5% more than exports in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia respectively.

Another way to look at this is to approach the external deficit from the financing side and consequently have a look at the inflows used to finance the external deficits. In principle, you would normally and in the perfect world mainly look at portfolio and investment flows, but in the case of the Baltics we cannot neglect credit flows which, through all those Euro denominated loans supplied by Scandinavian banks, have been instrumental in driving the external deficits during the peak of the boom. If we begin with the inflows as a share of GDP we observe the drastic way in which the financing have been withdrawn in the context of the crisis.

Observe in particular the Latvian situation where an external surplus has been forced upon the economy, proxied here by "negative" inflows and thus outflows. In Lithuania, the total sum of important inflows had declined, as a share of GDP, to 60% in Q2-2009 relative to value recorded during the peak of the boom (Q1-2006 to Q4-2008). The corresponding figure for Estonia is 23% whereas for Estonia it has changed signs all together due to the fact that financing here has come to a complete standstill. In Euro terms, the Baltics have lost external financing to the tune of bn 1.87 Euros in the first half of 2009 compared to the peak of the boom which amounts to 12.6% of the entire region's GDP in the same period.

As noted extensively above, this process is natural since we can say with some confidence that whatever the level (and flow) of incoming investment and credit during the peak years it was not sustainable. However, when it happens with such force in the context of the global financial crisis and, moreover, in relation to fixed exchange regimes and thus internal devaluation the obvious question that begs is what the risk is of pushing these economies into a hole from which they cannot emerge. One particularly important point here is what kind of general (and domestic!) credit and financing environment we will see as the external funding is ground down and thus, in some sense, what kind of domestic environment the Baltics will have to stage a recovery in.

This last point is perhaps the most important underlying theme to think about when assessing the situation in the Baltics. We could almost say that the extent and pace to which the Baltics' growth path has crumbled is also the extent to which expectations of convergence, Euro membership, underlying growth potential etc have crumbled. Where we go from here is consequently anybody's guess. A lot of unresolved question still clouds the horizon not least the continuing unravelling in Latvia where the IMF has so stuck with the country despite the increasing dire outlook as long as the currency peg remains. What I can tell you however is that the Baltics are going to rebalance, but the key is the extent to which it happens so as to allow the Baltic economies to enter a virtuous circle somewhere down the road.

So far, a preliminary assessment suggests that while the Baltics are indeed rebalancing, they are only doing so because internal demand has caved in. We are yet to see whether the dose of internal devaluation/deflation will bring back competitiveness in due time to turn a vicious cycle into a virtuous one.

Just How Much Of A Eurozone Rebound Really Was There In Q3?

2009-11-15T15:59:00.000-08:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Sorry, and I apologise in advance: in this post I'm going to be a nit-picker. The question in hand is the Eurozone third quarter growth one, and the story is all about differences (between countries) and these differences in the key cases (France and Germany) are in many ways all about inventories. So maybe I should have titled the post "all about inventories", following Pedro Almodovar's cinematographic lead in cycling and recycling that old "all about Eve" metaphor - necessity is the mother of invention, and movements in inventories are progenitors of both growth, and of that notorious double dip difficulty. So just which one of these is it that we have on our hands here?

Indeed, the fact that the devil, as always, lies in the details should not really surprise us since economics isn't that different from other sciences, and isn't such a difficult subject to work with - even if some journalists and lot of bank analysts are able to make it look like it is by managing so frequently to make a dogs dinner out of what should really been an ever so plain, ordinary, and simple vanilla-flavoured ice cream. Let me explain.

Before getting bogged down in all that horrid detail let's register a very simple plain, evident, and totally undisputed item of fact - the "eurozone sixteen" economy (whatever that rather nebulous concept actually refers to, when you dig down a little below the surface) poked its nose timidly out of recession in the third quarter of this year, with gross domestic product in the 16 countries using the euro rising 0.4 percent from the previous quarter (see chart below). This return to positive headline growth technically brings a recession which lasted five consecutive quarters of shrinking output to a close - even though output was still four percent below that registered in the same period in 2008. So evidently we are out of recession, but are we out of the woods yet?

Well, basically I think we aren't, and to explain why I think we aren't I'm going to pick (yet one more time) on poor old Frank Atkins of the Financial Times. It almost hurts me to do this, since I am not trying to say that Frank is an especially bad example of economic journalism (far from it), even if he is sometimes very badly served by his headline writers, writers who over the weekend managed to switch what was Friday's declamatory "Germany powers eurozone recovery" version (and for those who like twitter here) to Sunday's much more modest "European recession ends with a whimper" one. However since this is now the second time in just over as many months that Frank has wheeled out the German economy "powering" something or other word out, I cannot help concluding that either he really likes the expression, or that he must know something I don't about what is actually going on in Germany, since structurally speaking it would seem to me that such "powering" is now completely impossible, given the economy's evident export dependence.

Thus far from powering up anything, the German economy is always - in some significant and non-trivial sense - going to be "powered" by someone or somewhere else. The thing about Frank is - in Eurozone economic terms at any rate - he is both geographically very close to where the action is (ie in Frankfurt), and communicationally very much in touch with thinking in Brussels and Frankfurt, which is what always makes what he has to say interesting, at the very least. On the other hand, since the journalistic consensus seems to have shifted over the weekend - quite literally from a bang to a whimper - we might really want to ask ourselves the tricky question of whether we still think the rebound is as strong as it was first made out to be.

"Germany’s economy expanded by 0.7 per cent in the third quarter", Frank told us (in Friday's version) "marking a sharp acceleration in the pace of recovery in Europe’s largest economy, but the pick-up in France fell short of expectations."

Well, here we have two facts - the Germany economy did grow by 0.7%, and growth in the French economy was below consensus expectations - and one opinion, that the growth represented a sharp acceleration in the German recovery. In fact, in France output expanded by 0.3% in the third quarter, a very similar pace to that seen in the second quarter, but significantly below consensus expectations which were for a 0.6% growth rate.

But really the issue this raises isn't actually one about the French economy at all, but about how the economists in question managed to talk themselves into having such ludicrous expectations, and about what methodology exactly it was they were using to arrive at them. Certainly I am a leading "bull" on the French economy, but I never came anywhere near the quoted number in my estimations, and indeed in my most recent full analysis of the French economy, published 27 October last on A Fistful Of Euros and elsewhere, I actually said this:

"French GDP surprised positively with a 0.3% quarterly gain in the second quarter. Given the data we are seeing, a forecast of 0.2% quarterly growth for both the third and final quarters would not seem to be an unreasonable expectation at this point, which would mean the French economy would shrink by something under 2.5% in 2009, well below the average Eurozone contraction rate."

So you could say, rather than being disappointed I should have been rather surprised on the upside by the outcome, since growth at 0.3% came in higher than my expectation (0.2%). But truth be told, I really wouldn't want to make this claim very strongly, since I was in fact practicing what we Catalans call the ancient art of "trampa" (astute trickery), sin being intentionally excessively prudent in order to outperform, and also trying to shift attention away from the short term headline number issues about this quarters French GDP number to the longer term issue of what happens to monetary policy in a "Eurozone 16" if France recovers significantly more sharply than everyone else.

Before continuing further, I would also make a second point, one which I think is pretty relevant to the whole debate about where the Eurozone actually stands in the here and now, and that is that my most recent piece was actually written about the OCTOBER PMI data, that is I was already looking ahead and talking about prospects for the fourth quarter, whereas Friday's release was actually backward looking, and taking us back in time, in order to revisit not Brideshead, but economic data from the third quarter in an attempt to get a better picture of what was happening back then, even if, as we are now about to see, since Friday's release was only a "flash" one, we still lack most of the detailed breakdown which would enable us to do just that. So in many ways Friday's news was already history (which makes it even more surprising how consensus interpretations have shifted over the weekend) and what really interests us is what is happening now, and where the current so called "recovery" is actually heading. And just to rub our noses right in it, we could remember that a week on Monday (23 November) we will have the Markit Flash PMIs for November (and this will already give us two thirds of the fourth quarter data to play around with, which should help us come up with quite realistic estimates of what eventual GDP will look like).

Thus, despite my openly professed French "bullishness" I do want to stress that I am only expecting modest growth again from France in the fourth quarter, but the important point we should expect this growth to be sustained going forward, and it is this that makes France so different from much of the rest of the Eurozone, since France has the capacity to generate autonomous (endogenously driven) growth in consumer demand and it is precisely this feature that makes the French economy so special (in the Eurozone context) at this point. Anyone looking for dramatic (sustained) surges in the any of the advanced economies at this point is, basically, living on another planet (possibly, I suspect, the one we are all being expected to send our exports to).

Now, after so much palaver, why do I consider this digging for details to be so important? Well, lets look at this from the German Federal Statistics Office:

"In a quarter-on-quarter comparison, when adjusted for price, seasonal and calendar variations, especially exports as well as capital formation in machinery and equipment and in construction had a positive impact on growth. However, a large quarter-on-quarter increase was also recorded for imports which, among other things, led to a build-up in inventories. Final consumptionexpenditure of households, however, was down and slowed down economic growth."

Now if you look at the chart below, you will see that German growth was in the second quarter was, more than anything, a statistical quirk which resulted from a balancing act between strong swings in inventories and in net trade. In the third quarter, as far as we can see (since we don't have that ever so important detailed breakdown), this position has quite literally been inverted, as the earlier trade bonus has been eaten away by growth in imports (largely to stock up on export oriented inventories, not items destined towards domestic consumption) and this part we more or less know, since we do have all the trade data in for the quarter.

So we need to see the magnitude of the German inventory shift, and then we can get an idea of how much this could unwind in Q4. The current position reminds me very much of Q1 2008, when Germany put in a record annualised growth rate (1.7% q-o-q, 7.2% annually) only then to slouch off into recession and four consecutive quarters of GDP contraction. One reason for this surge in GDP, then, was that the huge growth registered was a by product of a massive inventory pile-up (see chart), a pile up which was precisely the result of an anticipated continuation in demand, demand which, as it happened, never materialised.

Now the current position is not as bad as Q1 2008, since the size of the distortion is not so great, and the general external environment may be more supportive in Q4 2009, but still I think the general structural point holds. Indeed the October PMI suggests inventories are coming down again, with Markit reporting that "companies remained cautious regarding input buying and stock levels" and that the "October data showed that both inventories of purchases and finished goods fell sharply over the month". Finally, we should not let this last point from the German Federal Statistics Office Report escape our notice, since at the end of the day it holds the key:

"Final consumption expenditure of households, however, was down and slowed down economic growth."

So now, by way of comparison, let's turn our attention to France, and see what was actually happening there. Now, according to the quarterly report from analysts at Nomura:

"France is the only country to publish a components breakdown and the details are disappointing, with domestic private demand still very depressed. Most of the growth came from public spending and net trade; private consumption was flat, while fixed investment from firms and even more from households retrenched heavily. Inventories continued to decline."

Well, as Nomura say, France has published a table showing the breakdown, and just for the record, here it is:

Now the Nomura people say "with domestic private demand still very depressed", but, I'm sorry, if you take a look at line three in the table, which shows quarter on quarter household consumption, you will see this is stable, and up. In fact France has not shown one single quarter of quarter over quarter contraction in household spending during the whole crisis. This is what I mean when I say robust. Now you could say that this is all about cash for clunkers, and to some extent you would be right, but other countries have had cash for clunkers programmes, and domestic consumption hasn't held up anything like as well, so the outstanding issue for economic theory, and for eurozone monetary and fiscal policy, is why, why does the French economy and none other exhibit this profile?

Now you might want to argue that French household consumption was stationary in the third quarter (and this is what many of the analysts point to), but I would respond by pointing out it is still well up on consumption in the third quarter of 2008 due to the earlier quarters of growth. OK, so we don't exactly have a consumption boom (yet), but is anyone really expecting one at this point? Even in Norway? All I am saying, and saying almost boorishly, to the point that it irritates, is that French consumption has the potential to rise in the coming quarters, while German consumption doesn't, and this is going to be the key FACT about the Eurozone in the months and quarters ahead. And if you find economic at times a boring and tedious subject, then I'm sorry, sometime things are just like that.

And please, please, note this: "Inventories continued to decline."

Look at the next to last line in the table. French inventories fell by 1.5% quarter over quarter. So, to put things plainly, the real difference between those headline GDP numbers for Germany and France is that Germany increased inventories while France ran them down, and government spending in both cases played a large part in the growth. The thing is, in the fourth quarter it is quite likely that Germany will have to run down some of those inventories, while France may start to increase them. Either way, I repeat, at this point French growth (even if at a tortoise pace) looks a lot more robust and a lot more sustainable than growth in any other Eurozone country, and if things turn out as they appear to be, then we will one more time need to be asking ourselves just what it is that is wrong with "convergence theory", since whatever the actual reason behind the present Eurozone divergences, the plain fact of the matter is that they exist.

Conclusions

Basically if we go back to the weekend version of Frank Atkins article, the real powerhouses of the rebound are not France, but, and would you believe it, Germany AND Italy.

"Powering the rebound were Germany and Italy, which saw GDP rising by 0.7 per cent and 0.6 per cent respectively. France’s recovery, however, proved much weaker than expected, with an increase of just 0.3 per cent, the same as in the previous quarter."

Now Germany I can swallow, there is a real issue there about just how far forward Germany can leap, but Italy? I ask you. Let's have a look at Italy's long term growth chart:

My estimation is that Italy's long term trend growth at this point is not far from zero, and indeed it is quite possible that Italy could have its third consecutive year of negative growth in 2010. Italy's growth problems are well know, structural, and long term, and have little to do with the current crisis, so any argument about Italy powering anything very significant at this point, is bound to be skating on thin ice. And then, of course there is Spain, which isn't getting too much mention, but which is consistently likely to pull the Eurozone 16 aggregate growth number down going forward. FT Alphaville's Tracy Alloway draws attention to a summary of the situation from JP Morgan economist David Mackie which seems pretty much to the point.

"The third quarter GDP data suggest that the region has exited recession, but the move was hardly a decisive one. Despite a 12% annualised rate gain in industrial production across the region, GDP managed to increase by only 1.5% annualised rate. Clearly, there was a lot of weakness in construction and services. These data will reinforce the perceptions of the consensus: that the upswing will be lackluster and bumpy. And, they present a major challenge to our more upbeat forecast of growth over the coming year. Indeed, if GDP can only increase by 1.5% annualised rate when IP grows at a double digit pace, the largest gain since 1984, one can only worry about the future."

And as Tracy points out a number of Eurozone economies are still stuck in recession. Spain and Greece we know about, while Ireland, Slovenia and Finland have yet to report. Even the Slovak case is not entirely clear, since we have no seasonally adjusted data.

So, going back to my original question, is this a whimper recovery, or are we on the verge of a double dip? I think, basically, it is all down to Germany, and those inventories. If external demand weakens in key customer countries then Germany will fall back into negative growth, and with it the whole "eurozone sixteen economy". Since demand in the South and the East of Europe is hardly going to be strong, given the new found need of countries in those regions to run trade surpluses, my inkling is that just this outcome is now a clear possibilty. So while the consensus at the moment seems to be that France disappoints, my view is that it is the German economy we really should be worrying about.

The Dollar As A Funding Currency

2009-11-05T15:13:00.000-08:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Nouriel Robini is not a man who is known for mincing his words. “We have the mother of all carry trades,” he tells us, “Everybody’s playing the same game and this game is becoming dangerous.” There is a “wall of liquidity” sweeping the planet, pushing asset prices ever higher in one country after another. I wholeheartedly agree.

Investors across the globe are taking advantage of the ultra low interest rates on offer at the US Federal Reserve to borrow in dollars in order to buy assets like government debt, equities and commodities, in the process, as Nouriel says, fueling “substantial” booms that if not checked in time may sow the seeds of yet another financial crisis. This is a classic example of the so called “carry trade” in which investors borrow in countries with low interest rates to invest in higher-yielding assets.

The dollar has fallen by about 12 percent (in relation to a basket of six major currencies) in the last year as the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to a record low of around zero in an effort to lift the U.S. economy out of its worst recession since the 1930s. The problem is that this has created what Professor Roubini rightly terms the mother of all carry bets against the US dollar, and lead to all kinds of speculation that we are at the dawn of a new era, one which will have the “death of the dollar” as its defining characteristic, and where in the dollar will no longer serve as the world’s reserve currency of preference.

Well, as someone once said, rumours of my imminent demise are somewhat exaggerated. The greenback is still alive and kicking, and will be for many years to come, although we also need to be realise that structural changes are underway. So while in the short term we should not really be in doubt that the decline in the dollar will eventually “bottom out” as the Euro-USD crossover reaches ever more painful levels for the eurozone’s heavily export dependent economies while the Fed will at some point begin to hint that it is considering raising borrowing costs and start to with draw some of the “quantitative easing type” stimulus measures, including, of course, those large scale purchases of US government debt. But this is not likely to happen rapidly, or in a disorderly fashion, so in many ways investors will have time and space to reorganise their betting card.

This was once more made plain this week, when Federal Reserve decision makers signaled quite clearly that a simple return to economic growth alone won’t justify higher interest rates on their part, stressing that any future increase will depend on the labour market and inflation trends, and indeed the Fed’s rate-setting Open Market Committee resasserted its pledge to keep rates “exceptionally low” for an “extended period.” Following these comments traders began to pare back their bets that an increase in borrowing costs will come in the first half of 2010, the dollar weakened and short-term Treasury yields fell.

The impression that the Fed will not be the first out of the box among the major central banks was only reinforced today as the European Central Bank seems to have hesitatingly taken its first step toward removing emergency stimulus measures by indicating it won’t be continuing to provide commercial banks (and of course the governments whose debt they are buying) with the current 12-month loans as 2010 advances - although no timetable for phasing them out has so far been provided. Nor has it been made plain what structure will replace them. Jean Claude Trichet seems to have contented himself with enigmatically teasing the assembled journalists by stating “Not all our liquidity measures will be needed to the same extent as in the past” and pointing out that since market sentiment didn’t expect the ECB to prolong its offer of 12-month long term funding beyond December he was going to “say nothing to dispel this present sentiment.”

Assessing what exactly is happening here is difficult, since in the world of central bankspeak it would be a mistake to think that expressions mean what they actually normally mean in everyday discourse. So it is not clear whether or not the strategy between the Fed and the ECB is coordinated at this point or not, and if it is, to what extent. Certainly despite Timothy Geithners insistence on the US Treasury's strong dollar policy, it is hard to imagine that anyone (not even the Chinese) actually take him at face value here, and indeed, if you read the reports carefully, Trichet is only complaining about excessive volatility, and not about the level of the Euro in and of itself. This impression, that those taking decisions accept that the dollar needs to stay down to allow the US economy to correct itself is only reiforced further by concerns expressed only today by Kenneth Rogoff, Raghuram Rajan and Simon Johnson (all economists who have previously worked for the IMF) as to whether the IMF and the G20 actually had the wherewithal to address the global imbalances problem. It should not escape our notice that this "concern" was expressed just one day before G-20 finance ministers and central bankers, including U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, are to start two days of talks in St. Andrews, Scotland.

In fact, there is some evidence of progress being made, since the U.S. current account deficit narrowed in the second quarter to its lowest since 2001, and I'm pretty sure a solid majority of Europe's leaders accept the need for the deficit to be allowed to correct further if future growth is to be put on a more solid footing.

This having been said, however, it is not at all clear how the issue of weaning the banks of the one year funding is going to be conducted, especially in a year where most European governments are going to have very large borrowing requirements indeed. Again, Trichet was at pains to stress the need for the Commission to police the Stability and Growth Pact effectively, even allowing himself to go so far as to say that a 0.5% point annual reduction of the structural deficit after 2011 simply wasn't sufficient. But, when push comes to shove, it is hard to see the ECB willingly precipitating a financial crisis in a major eurozone country - like for example Spain. According to the latest EU Commission forecast, Spain will have deficits of 11.2% of GDP this year, 10.1% of GDP in 2010 and 9.3% of GDP in 2011, and even in 2011 they do not expect the Spanish economy to grow by more than 1% (optimistic even this on my view), while they still expect the unemployment rate to be running at 20.5%.

As can be seen in the chart below, a very large part of the recent borrowing by the Spanish government to fund this years deficit has been financed by issuing short term bonds.

And at the same time the dependence of Spain's banks (who have in one way or another acquired many of the short term securities) on the one year funding has been considerable (see chart below).

And so of course in 2010 much of this debt will need to be "rolled over" and next years deficit will need to be financed as well, and it is almost impossible to see how this can be achieved without inflating the spread again (which has been brought down considerably of late) unless the ECB lends a willing hand.

Of course, what Nouriel Roubini is worried about is none of this, since he isprincipally concerned about how a future seismic shift in the perception of the dollar may force investors to reverse the existing carry trades and how this may produce a further mini financial crisis as there is “rush to the exit”. Evidently there are precedents here, since the rapid unwinding of the Japanese carry trade last autumn only added to the general feeling of financial chaos following the collapse of Lehmann Brothers.

So what are the risks of a repeat performance on this occassion? We, the risks are certainly there, but perhaps we have the key to understanding why the Japanese carry trade unwinded so violently is to be found in the last paragraph, since the Yen carry went west so quickly due to a decline in risk sentiment, and the safe-haven surge in both the Yen and the USD was a response to this decline in sentiment, and not its cause. Yet presumeably, and at least in the short term, any move by Ben Bernanke to raise Federal Reserve interest rates would be a signal for a further rise in risk sentiment, and not a response to a decline, and as such it should in theory trigger another surge in carry appetite, and not its dissapearance. Unless, of course, the dollar rise was precipitated not by the Fed's rate tightening programme, but by perceived risk elements in the "other" currency in one of the pairs - that is the euro. Personally, I consider the situation in Spain to be much less of a "side-dish" in the current financial crisis than many seem to feel it is, and indeed I would take Spain as the largest and potentially most dangerous of the loose cannon we have floating about on deck as we try to steer our way forward and away from the storms.

Not that the announcement of a future tightening in monetary policy in the United States (which would presumeably be underwritten by a series of positive and glowing reports that the US economy was finally and without a shadow of double-dip doubt emerging from its deepest recession since WWII, that its to say it won’t be coming soon) would not present technical issues about the future dynamics of carry – closing USD positions only to reopen them in Yen, Swiss Francs, or (why not) even Euros if despite Trichet's optimism today Europe’s economies prove unable to stage an early exit from recession. It would still be carry on up the Khyber time whichever way you look at it.

But lets go through some of this step by step.

The Dollars Fall – Cyclical or Structural?

As noted above, the USD has particularly weak in 2009, falling by 15% on a trade-weighted basis since in had a local peak in March. March it will be remembered is not a coincidental date, since many emerging markets stated to climb precisely in that month (see Brazil MSCI Chart).

But as I am also suggesting the dollar’s recent fall is more cyclical than structural. The massive injection of liquidity by central banks has created an environment which is favourable to equity and commodities markets in some key emerging economies, together with the associated commodity and emerging currencies, and since the depth and accessability of the US markets is evident, then much of the associated trade has been taking place at the expense of the greenback.

The dollar’s recent decline has been accompanied by repeated forecasts of its terminal demise, accompanied by ever louder calls for the creation of an alternative reserve currency. However, I personally believe that the current fall in USD is more temporary than permanent, and that the structural factors often cited as the raison d’être for the dollar’s decline have – so far - played only a limited role. Which is not to say that these factors won’t come into play at some point, and hence we are in the mother of all complex situations – but it is just, as I said, that news of its imminent demise is rather premature and greatly overstated.

Much of the brouhaha from the structural dollar bears has of course been associated with the issue of the sustainability of the US fiscal deficit, and although, of course, the current double-digit U.S. government budget deficit is extraordinarily large in historical terms, it is nonetheless comparable to those being sustained in a number of other major economies (Japan, the UK, Spain, etc). At the same time there is still little significant evidence of foreigners becoming totally disenchanted with buying US debt – in fact on aggregate (including both the private sector and central banks) they are still busy buying Treasury bills and bonds, even if at a rather reduced pace ($287B in the past six months compared to $490B in the second half of 2008). Indeed, the most recently available figures (oh Brad Setser, wherefore art thou?) do point to a fall in the proportion of the world’s FX reserves held in US dollars, but this fall in my view is prudent and cyclical (due to the dynamics of the dollar decline) and fairly likely to reverse as and when the the dollar turns. And it should be remembered US households are now saving at a much faster rate than they were – so the domestic market for US government debt is proportionately greater. In addition gross government debt levels for the overall U.S. public sector are not that different from those to be found in comparable countries like the U.K. and Germany (as a % of GDP), and well below those to be found in countries like Italy and Japan. Which doesn’t mean to say that the US hasn’t got a long term structural debt problem associated with the liabilies entailed by population ageing, it is just if that anyone is going to be the first to go bump in the night, then Japan or Italy are the obvious candidates.

At the same time (and as I already argued here some months ago – see my summary of the Krugman/Ferguson debate here) there is little serious risk of runaway inflation undermining the dollar (or indeed any other major currency) in the short term. We are not all Zimbabwe on toast (yet awhile) – and those who suggested this as an imminent short term possibility got something, somewhere, seriously wrong. And the reason is not hard to fathom, since - as can be seen in the accompanying chart – despite the massive increase in base money, growth in the broader monetary aggregates remains severely constrained. Narrow money growth across the OECD has accelerated significantly in recent months, reaching 12.9% year on year in August (see chart below).

In large part the acceleration in base money reflects the very stimulative monetary and liquidity stance adopted by the major central banks across the globe - the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, etc. In contrast, growth in broader money measures has actually slowed significantly in recent months, to just 6% year on year for the OECD by August 2009. Such broad money aggregates differ from base money in that they reflect not only the actions of central banks, but also those of commercial banks and other financial institutions operating within the broader economy. The fact that broad money growth is slowing even as narrow money measures accelerate suggests that the cash injected by central banks into the banking system and money markets is not circulating around the economy as one might typically expect.

Put another way that so called “high powered” money simply isn’t what it used to be, and certainly isn’t packing either “heat” or sufficient clout.

And again the explanation for this is clear enough, since the global financial shock has left capacity utilization rates at a very low level while rising jobless rates restrain cost pressures, at least in the near-term. So while the issue of the inflation impact of all this over the longer term is still an open question, at least in the short run we are alive, but we are not yet kicking. But one day we will be, and since it is extraordinarliy unlikely the world’s central banks will knowingly allow inflation to become entrenched over the medium to longer-term, all attention know is focused on the exit strategy dynamics.

What has evidently surprised many market participants and observers is just how much of this ‘new’ liquidity appears to be finding its way into emerging market assets. Emerging market government bond spreads vis a vis U.S. Treasuries have now narrowed to around 300bp (from around 865bp at the peak of the crisis), the CRB commodities prices are up 40% from their low, while global equities markets have surged 55% from their low point – a much stronger rebound than might have been considered consistent with current or prospective global GDP growth. Ben Bernanke and his Federal Reserve colleagues have, it seems, been pumping liquidity in through one door, only to seek it “leak out” through another.

And all the tell tale signs are there is we look at which currencies have in fact benefited - at the expense of the U.S. dollar – from the surge in liquidity. The commodity sensitive Australian and New Zealand dollar are both up around 30% year-todate, and have started to close in on pre-crisis peaks. Among the emerging markets, the Brazilian real (34%), and the South African rand (26%) have enjoyed particularly large year-to-date gains. 2009 has also been characterized by an especially prominent correlation between stronger equity markets and a weaker dollar as funds have been diverted towards these asset markets. The MSCI World Index of advanced-nation equities has surged 65 percent from this year’s low on March 9, while the MSCI Emerging Markets Index has jumped 96 percent. The Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 commodities has added 33 percent.

This relationship between global liquidity, global asset markets and the U.S. dollar is likely to remain a key theme for the foreign exchange market during 2010. However, as we move further away from the peak of the global financial crisis and the trough of the global economic recession, central banks (and governments) will start to remove some of the stimulative policy measures put in place over the past couple of years. This policy tightening is not necessarily designed to restrain growth or head-off inflation, but rather to remove ‘emergency’ measures that are no longer appropriate as financial markets show some stabilization, and as economies show a return to growth. The trend towards less policy accommodation has only just begun with a rates hike from Australia earlier this month and from Norway only last week. But the looming question is who, among the G7 central banks will be the first to be able to raise, or threaten to raise, or even start to take off the emergency liquidity and fiscal measures, and in which order will this be done. In any event, despite the suggestive hints from Jean Claude Trichet at the latest ECB rate meeting my expectation is still that the US Fed will be the first to take serious steps, and at that stage we should expect, as I say at the start, the epicentre of the global carry trade to shift yet one more time from New York to Tokyo, but the show will be far from over, and in some ways it may well be only just begining.

Too Much of a Good Thing in Australia?

2009-11-04T14:30:00.001-08:00

By Claus Vistesen: Copenhagen

(click on pictures for better viewing)

It is indeed an old adage that while goods things are to be preferred over bad things it is possible to get too much of the former. Looking at recent comments from the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia it is not difficult to imagine how these, albeit old and worn, pearls of wisdom may well have inspired Mr. Stevens in his effort to tiptoe the thigthrope between signalling the intention to raise rates into an expected economic recovery on the one side and trying to prevent the Aussie shoot of on helium into the sun with wings of wax on the other.

(quote Bloomberg)

Australia’s central bank Governor Glenn Stevens signaled a surge in the nation’s currency to near parity with the U.S. dollar has given him scope to slow the pace of future interest-rate increases.

Stevens, who yesterday became the first central banker in the world to raise borrowing costs twice in 2009, said the 28 percent gain in the currency this year may hurt exports and cool inflation, allowing him to “gradually” raise borrowing costs. Just last month, he warned it may be “imprudent” to keep rates at “emergency levels.” The local currency and bond yields fell as traders slashed bets on another quarter-point boost next month, after Stevens raised the overnight cash rate target to 3.5 percent from 3.25 percent. Investors have been driving the Australian dollar toward parity with the greenback, betting China’s economic growth will boost exports from Australia, the biggest shipper of iron ore used in making steel.

Policy makers “are probably glad for the parity talk as it reduces the amount of work they need to do with monetary policy,” said Matthew Johnson, an interest-rate strategist at UBS AG in Sydney. “A December move is a 50-50 proposition.” Traders are betting there is a 50 percent chance Stevens will increase the key rate by another quarter point on Dec. 1, according to Bloomberg calculations based on interbank futures on the Sydney Futures Exchange at 12:22 p.m. today. Prior to Stevens’s comments, they had a 96 percent bet on such a gain.

Mr. Stevens' comments follows in the heels of the recent push by part of the Aussie towards parity with the US dollar reflected primarily in the fact that the RBA has already raised twice in 2009 (from 3.00 to 3.5%) as well as a growing risk sentiment which is a fundamental prerequistie, in the current market, for observing investors react to (growing) yield differences. In so many words, this is all about carry trade and more specifically about the fact that in a world where the G3 and others are still fiddling with quasi- or outright QE it takes a brave sould to initiate a hiking process since it will mean an immediate reaction in the currency market. This is especially the case when the liquidity anchor effectively constitutes the US and thus; while the US pump priming keeps a floor under risky assets and volatility at low levels it becomes a veritable turkey shoot to gun for those currencies whose central banks are on the hike (see more here).

Following Mr. Stevens' comments, the Aussie did lose a bit of its steam even if many currency punters still see it racing towards parity over the course of the coming year.

For example David Forrester who is currency economist at Barclays Capital expects the Aussie to test the parity level in 2010, a call based on the idea that the RBA will have hiked rates to a full 5.5% by the end of next year. Needless to say, in a world where risky assets continue to fly and risk aversion is kept in check this will provide a juicy interest rate differential vis-a-vis the G3 and thus the carry trade flows (be they actual carry trades or simply spot market piggy backing) will be plentiful.

The question is of course; can you blame the RBA for wanting to raise rates?

As it turns out, not really and particularly not in light of global central banks' new found focus on asset prices in setting the policy rate. You know, it was all Greenspan's fault and all that jazz. Still, for those worried about a too rapid V-shaped recovery, Australian house prices seem to offer plenty of things to worry about.

From Q3-08 to Q1-09 the house price index (weighted for the 8 biggest cities) fell a modest 5.6%, a drop which has been decisively paired in Q2/Q3-09 with the index rising a cumulative 8%. This picture is repeated if we look at a general gauge for consumer spending in the form of a sector break down of retail sales.

Consequently, the annual as well as monthly flow of retail trade turnover never really went decisively into negative in the context of the financial crisis which has no doubt contributed to the fact that the RBA never really contemplated a move into ZIRP and QE.

What happens next then?

Well as I noted recently, the burden of rebalancing may be tough to carry for those economies who have central banks brave enough to raise interest rates. Ironically of course and if it is really asset prices you are worried about, the risk is naturally that you just end up sucking in liquidity as you which in itself defeats the purpose of the hiking campaign (see Edward's recent piece on Norway for a Scandinavian perspective on this). Naturally, you can retort to Brazil like capital controls, but in a world where capital flows freely and where the global economies are largely interdependent, this is like trying to stop a freight train with a VW Polo. Also, allow me to finish with a small quibble of mine in relation to the sudden urge by part of central bankers to target asset prices. I mean, this is fine and all and for those who know a little bit about monetary policy this is not something completely new. The problem is merely that targeting asset prices may not only be counterproductive in a world where asymmetric liquidity conditions and carry flows are the norm, by targeting asset prices also entail targeting a price which is considerable more volatile than traditional prices (because I assume that forecasting long term asset prices is not as easy as many believe). In this way, a steady gaze at asset prices may also conflict with central banks' general propensity to favor incremental and gradual moves.

Whether this is the case in Australia, only time will tell. Yet, from the lovely fjords of Oslo, to the beaches of Rio, and on to the Great Barrier Reef policy makers may soon learn that you can indeed get too much of a good thing.

Norwegian Wood

2009-11-03T14:22:00.000-08:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Well, if John Lennon had still been around today he would undoubtedly have entitled his song Norwegian oil, but whatever way you want to put it Norway is back in the news, and this time not because of adolescents who find themselves with no alternative to sleeping overnight in the bath-tub, but rather because its central bank has been put in a position where it has little alternative but to raise interest rates, even if in fact it would be more comfortable for it not to do so. So, not being in the habit of looking for a quiet life, decision makers over at the Norges Bank decided last week to put themselves in the hot seat by lifting the banks main rate by 25 basis points to 1.5 per cent and in this inauspicious and modest way entered the history books as the first European central bank to raise interest rates since the financial crisis started to ease.

As I say, in doing so the bank put itself straight into the cockpit, since by raising interest rates it became a leading target of interest for that curious but ever growing band of enthusiasts who practice what has come to be known as the “carry trade” whereby investors borrow in countries with low interest rates to invest in higher-yielding assets.

And at this point, with risk sentiment surging there can be little doubt that carry practitioners are simply chafing at the bit to get started. An early warning of what was coming was seen when New Zealand’s dollar climbed to its strongest level in 15 months following a recent report on Radio New Zealand that Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard had said that a strengthening currency wouldn’t deter him from increasing borrowing costs. As Sonja Marten, currency strategist at DZ Bank Frankfurt put it: “Bollard’s comments have led to more intense speculation about when the RBNZ will start hiking rates, and have opened the way for more currency gains”. And it didn’t take long for this “intense speculation” to show up in the forex data as the US dollar slid by as much as 1.8 percent against the New Zealand’s one in the wake of the wave of publicity which surrounded the report.

In fact, both the Australian and New Zealand dollars have gained (4 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively) versus their U.S. counterpart since the 6th of October when the Reserve Bank of Australia lifted its cash target by a quarter-percentage point to 3.25 percent, becoming the first central bank among the Group of 20 nations to raise interest rates since the financial crisis began. Indeed Australia raised its benchmark interest rate for a second time only this week - by a further quarter percentage point to 3.5% - thus becoming the only nation to increase borrowing costs twice this year. However Australia’s dollar and bond yields then fell, as traders pared back their bets on a further increase in December when Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens cautioned that higher rates would only come “gradually.”

Signs of Renewed Growth

Norges bank justified its decision by citing “signs of renewed growth” in the global economy, and signalled more increases lay ahead thus giving an indication of the nervousness which now abounds among central bankers about identifying exit strategies from the exceptional monetary measures which remain in place, even as some parts of the world economy start to rebound. Having been accused of being responsible for allowing the recent asset price to develop, they certainly are not eager to go straight off into a repeat performance.

The decision, which had been widely expected, means three of the world’s leading central banks have now embarked on monetary tightening, following rate increases in Israel in August and Australia earlier in October.

According to the statement from Svein Gjedrem, the Norges Bank governor: “The global economy is in a deep downturn but there are signs of renewed growth. Activity in the Norwegian economy has picked up more rapidly than expected.” Just for good measure, and to try to deter hordes of would be krone investors from jumping on board, the Norges Bank quickly stressed that its main rate will likely now remain between 1.25 and 2.25 per cent until next March and will probably only be “raised gradually” thereafter. Governor Svein Gjedrem is on record as saying that a “natural” key interest rate level is around 5 percent, but the last time the benchmark was at that level was in October 2008.

Norwegian fiscal and monetary policy decisionmakers are evidently now busying themselves looking for exit strategies, since Norway’s finance minister Sigbjorn Johnsen joined the exit strategy debate recently by underlining that the government needs to reduce spending as the economy recovers following having more than the normal recourse to the country’s €306bn oil fund over the year in order to to offer support to the domestic economy in the wake of the shock it received from the global crisis. According to Johnsen: “Monetary and fiscal policy must work together to contribute to a stable development in the Norwegian economy.”

What the authorities seem to have in front of them is a difficult trade-off choice between the need for higher rates to curb the acceleration in home prices and the growing strength of private consumption in the context of a tight labour market versus the effect of a rising krone exchange rate on the manufacturing sector.

Central Bank governor Gjedrem also expressed the opinion in September that asset prices “have risen sharply and probably excessively,” in a context where policy rates are “extremely low.” However the stress and tension he is under is pretty evident, since only a few days earlier he had been saying that the strengthening of the krone “suggests that the key policy rate should be kept low for a period ahead.” He is caught in the proverbial monetary policy bind between the rock and the hard place bviously, with just this type of change of nuance from one speech to the next being the stuff on which investors thrive.

In fact the krone has gained 7.8 percent against the euro since the end of June, making it the second-best performer out a list of 16 major currencies and any further strengthening would evidently hurt exporters including Norsk Hydro, Europe’s third-largest aluminum producer, and Norske Skogindustrier, the world’s second-biggest newsprint maker.

Oil Cushion

The Norwegian government has used quite successfully used the cushion provided by its accumulated oil wealth to shield the country from the worst of the global downturn but the Norwegian economy is now rebounding more strongly than the rest of Europe after its first recession in two decades, and new policy measures are now needed. The sudden (and not oil-driven, although in part oil financed) improvement in the Norwegian economy has revived long-standing concerns about the risks of inflation and currency appreciation that have bedogged other oil and gas-rich nations, a danger that Governor Gjedrem has strongly reiterated.

Norway's government have presented a 'slightly expansive' 2010 draft budget that aims to spend more of oil wealth next year compared to 2009 to help the economy maintain momentum as it emerges from what has been a quite mild recession. The budget is based on an anticipated structural deficit (a measure of how expansionary the budget is) which will increase by 0.5 percentage points in 2010. The government said the budget should be seen as 'slightly expansionary' for the economy, and justified the continuing deficit by citing weaknesses in the labour market, weaknesses which are, frankly, not that easy for the outsider to identify, and hence given the issues involved with raising interest rates, perhaps tighter fiscal policy would be a preferable alternative, but still, who would dare to tell those who are running a country which is doing as well as Norway is to do otherwise.

In fact Norwegian policy is based on what is effectively a large annual fiscal surplus, since in order to avoid excessive overheating, Norway invests all of its oil and gas revenues in an offshore fund. In normal years, it spends only 4 percent of the value of the fund, but this year it has dug deeper to try to avoid the worst of the global downturn.

The budget put forward by the governing coalition estimated the 2010 structural non-oil deficit at 148.5 billion Norwegian crowns ($26.35 billion), an increase of 14.6 billion from 2009. This means spending 44.6 billion crowns extra from the oil fund compared to a 'neutral year' for the economy, when it would spend about 4 percent of the oil revenues. Norway's government - like many commodity producers - runs large surpluses including petroleum revenues, surpluses which turn into deficits when the oil and gas money is excluded. Thus, if we take the cash deposited in the Fund into consideration, the budget of what is the world's number six oil exporter is projected to produce a 2010 surplus of 172 billion Norwegian crowns. Make of that what you will.

Norway has, as I have been saying, suffered a comparatively mild recession, and mainland Norway resumed growth in the second quarter, even if, once you take the oil and gas component into account, total economic activity is still contracting (see chart).

Mainland Norway GDP was up by 0.3 per cent in the second quarter after falling in the previous two quarters, according to seasonally-adjusted figures. According to the statistics office increased household and government consumption expenditure contributed significantly to the growth, while gross fixed capital formation oil and gas extraction had a particularly negative impact on the GDP.

Increased activity in service industries, particularly in business services, wholesale and retail trade, post and telecommunications – as well as in general government – were the principal contributers to the growth in Mainland Norway GDP.

For the fourth quarter in a row, value added in manufacturing fell, and in the second quarter output was down 1.4 per cent, even if, when compared with the two previous quarters, the decrease was less pronounced. Thus the future value of the krone is not a trivial item here, if it leads to a long term secular decline in manufacturing.

Adding in the extraction industries, total GDP was down by 1.3 percent in the second quarter largely as a result of reduced value added in extraction of oil and gas. This is basically an academic item however, since the oil fund exists precisely to protect the economy from such shocks. Household consumption expenditure, on the other hand, was up by 0.6 per cent. Increased consumption of cars accounted for nearly 60 percent of the rise in household consumption of goods. The growth in household consumption of services was up by 0.4 percent. Final consumption expenditure of general government was also up sharply - by 2.0 percent.

Manufacturing Slump

Industrial production fell by 1.1 per cent in the June to August period as compared with the March to May one (seasonally adjusted figures). The decline was, however, below that registered in the two previous three-month periods.

Output in refined petroleum, chemicals and pharmaceutical products were down by 7.0 per cent over the previous quarter. Fabricated metal products and ships, boats and oil platforms were also down, by 3.2 and 2.5 per cent respectively. On the other hand, following a sharp drop in output in the two previous three-month periods, production in basic metals was up by 3.8 per cent in June to August compared with the previous three-month period, while wood and wood products and food products increased by 6.5 and 1.0 per cent respectively.

Month on month output in Norwegian manufacturing increased by 0.8 per cent between July and August 2009 (again seasonally-adjusted figures), so, following a continuing fall since April 2008, industrial output has now risen two months in a row. On the other hand, looked at on a year on year basis, manufacturing output decreased by 7.9 per cent in July 2009 over July 2008 ( working-day adjusted figures).

Housing Boom Coming?

House prices have also rebounded, and have now returned to a peak reached in the summer of 2007, not taking inflation into account, according to Finance Ministry data. House prices rose a quarterly 1.8 percent in the three months ended September, after gaining 5.3 percent in the previous quarter.

Flats in blocks had the largest price increase from the second to the third quarter, rising by 3.9 per cent. The prices of terraced and detached houses were up by 2.5 and 0.8 per cent respectively. Overall, prices increased by 1.8 per cent from the second to the third quarter of 2009, which means that the house prices are now 3.8 per cent higher than in the third quarter last year. While prices of flats in blocks became 6.6 per cent more expensive than in the third quarter of 2008, the prices of terraced houses and detached houses increased by 3.9 and 2.8 per cent in the same period.

Indeed, house prices continued to rise even while the economy was technically in recession since unemployment, which fell to 2.7 percent in September, remained the lowest in Europe throughout the entire credit crisis. Households also received early and rapid benefit from monetary easing earlier this year, since about 90 percent of mortgage holders having mortgages with variable rates. That flexibility boosted demand, with retail sales rising steadily, but also means that rising borrowing costs will bite quite quickly, another reason for preferring fiscal to monetary policy to contain accelerating demand.

Inflation Comes Back To Life

The central bank target for price growth, adjusting for the effect of energy and taxes, is 2.5 percent, and inflation accelerated to 2.4 percent in September from 2.3 percent in Augustt on the banks preferred measure, the CPI-ATE - the consumer price index adjusted for tax changes and excluding energy products - even though year-to-year growth in the standard CPI was just 1.2 per cent, and actually fell 0.7 percentage points from the August annual figure .

Inflation has now exceeded the bank’s target in six out of nine months this year. The bank expects underlying CPI-ATE inflation, adjusted for energy and taxes, to average 2.75 percent this year and 1.75 percent in 2010. They are also forecasting that the mainland economy will shrink 1.25 percent this year and grow 2.75 percent in 2010. The key rate will average 1.75 percent this year and 2.25 percent in 2010, rising to an average 4.25 percent by 2012, according to the bank.

The Krone

Norway's strong growth outlook has helped the krone outperform other regional currencies - like Sweden’s krona - against the euro since the end of March, making the Krone-Krona cross a very attractive one for the carry traders (since Sweden's interest rates are being held at zero). In fact it is precisely this upward pressure on the currency which limits the room for the central bank to hike interest rates going forward, since the non-oil export sector is still struggling and a stronger krone will only weaken make the problem worse. Yet the problem is likely to get worse, since the krone will almost certainly continue to strengthen as the global economy recovers, and especially as risk appetite strengthens

So while the signs of an overly strong recovery may support a rapid reversal of monetary easing, the central bank must balance the needs of the domestic economy against the risks presented since if they don’t respond there will be an overshooting of the inflation target, but if they adjust monetary policy to the fact that fiscal policy is very loose, you will get a stronger krone. As I say, maybe the solution here is to move over to fiscal policy, but still.

Surprise, Surpri-i-se

The problem Norges Bank are going to have can be seen by looking at the chart below, which contrasts an inverted USDNOK with some Citigroup Economic surprise indexes . A surprise index is an instrument which attempts to quantify the extent to which economic indicators in a given country or region surpass or fall-short-of consensus estimates - and this is what really matters, it seems, and is why you get all that additional detail about what "economists" expected to happen in so much of contemporary economic journalism. It is not to help you see whether they were right or wrong, but to help investors and traders see how their peers might respond.

An economic report with better-than-expected data news is assigned, for example, a value of 1, while a report with worse-than-expected data news is assigned, again for example, a value of -1, while a report which just meets economists expectations gets a 0 value. Tally up the values of the reports for any given week, and you have the Surprise Index reading for that week.

Anyway, if you look at USDNOK (inverted, so north on the chart = NOK strengthening), vs the economic surprise indices for US, Eurozone and Norway, you should be able to see - without squinting too hard - how the US and Eurozone indexes show an unsurprisingly good correlation with USDNOK from early this year as the economic data started to turn, and sentiment returned to the markets. Simply put, as US data exceeded expectations, people felt more like borrowing to play around with "risky" (or not so risky really, but then the return isn't too big) assets like debt instruments denominated in Krone. Of course, they were also borrowing to get their teeth stuck in to some more more risky (but attractive) assets like those denominated in Hungarian Forint, or Ruble, or Ukranian Hyrvnia, but I think we can safelyb leave that story for another day. Also what happens to all this the day (which will surely one day arrive) that the indexes start to head south with economic data systematicallty underperforming expectations could also be put to one side for the moment.

The 2009 year to date correlations between inverted USDNOK and the US, Norwegian and Eurozone Eco Surprise indices as 72%, -46%, 77% respectively. Both the US and the Eurozone surprises seem to have been highly correlated to the US and the eurozone data outperformances. But if you look at the chart closely enough, and examine the Norwegian surprise index in particular, you should be able to see that the USDNOK was driven by sentiment derived from upside US and European data, rather than domestic data (so called fundamentals) for most of the year. But now, of course, Norway has been wheeled onto the inflation/interest rate ramp, so it will be interesting to see if the cross starts getting driven more by the domestic side - as investors respond to upside and downside surprises, and their potential impact on central bank monetary policy, and how the consequent decision making process may influence their investor peers. To my largely untrained eye, it looks to me more like things have been moving more this way since Norway started to make central bank headline news at the start of October.

Exports Under Threat

Norwegian exports - like everyone else's - are expected to recover more slowly than consumer demand, according to the main government forecasts, only rising 0.1 percent in 2010 after slumping 6.5 percent this year. In September, goods exports were running at NOK 59.4 billion and imports at NOK 36.8 billion, so the trade balance came in at NOK 22.6. Both exports and imports were up on August, but are still well down on last year.

Imports increased by NOK 3 billion from August, and compared with September 2008 the imports went down by NOK 9.6 billion. Exports increased by NOK 1.4 billion from August, and compared to September last year the exports were down by NOK 13.7 billion. The reduced price of crude oil is the main reason for the decline.

Compared to August, the mean price per barrel of crude oil fell from NOK 445 in August to NOK 402 in September. The exported number of barrels of oil went down 2 million, and crude oil exports declined NOK 3 billion. The price per of a barrel of oil is down NOK 154.6 from September 2008. Although the number of barrels exported rose by 2.1 million or 4.5 per cent compared with the corresponding period last year, the export value of oil decreased by NOK 6.4 billion and ended at NOK 19.8 billion making for a 24.5 per cent reduction.

A similar picture can be observed for the value of natural gas exports which came in at NOK 11.3 billion, or down NOK 594 million from August. The export value of natural gas declined by 1.7 billion compared with September 2008 despite the fact that the quantity of exported natural gas in gaseous state increased by 21.4 per cent. At the same time Norway has a huge current account surplus as a result of the commodity exports and the investments made by the oil and gas fund.

According to preliminary figures, the Norwegian current account surplus was NOK 95 billion in the second quarter of 2009, down NOK 30 billion from the second quarter of 2008. In part this was a result of the drop in the balance of goods and services which at NOK 78 billion was down NOK 54 billion compared to the second quarter last year. There was also a positive net balance of income and current transfers of NOK 18 billion in the second quarter of 2009, compared to a deficit of NOK 6 billion in the same quarter in 2008. The improvement can largely be explained by a rise in net dividends paid from abroad.

Tight Labour Market

One of the Bank's principal areas of concern (and hence one of the key areas of investor interest) is the state of the labour market - “It appears that unemployment over the next few years will remain lower and wage growth somewhat higher than previously projected. This suggests higher inflation, indicating that the key policy rate should be raised somewhat more rapidly than previously projected.”, according to the Norges Bank in its statement. The bank thus projects the key inflation rate will average 4.25 percent in 2012, compared with a June forecast for 3.75 percent.

In fact, despite the use of unemployment as an argument for not withdrawing fiscal stimulus, the government has already lowered its unemplyment forecast for 2010 to 3.7 percent, down from the 4.75 percent seen in May. But such rates are considered high, and are politically sensitive in Norway, since the country has one of the lowest trend unemployment levels in Europe.

Certainly domestic employment has been falling, and from May to August the number of employed persons decreased by 22 000. The unemployment rate was 3.2 per cent of the labour force in August. The reduction in employment is mainly within the age group 16-24. The seasonally-adjusted unemployment increased by 1 000 persons from May (as measured by the average of the three months from April to June) to August (as measured by the average of the three months from July to September).

Favourable Demographics

Noway's underlying demographic dynamics are actually quite favourable - the Total Fertility Rate, for example, stood at 1.78 in 2008, and population momentum is still quite strong, increasing by 13,400 in the second quarter. In part this increase is due to an excess of births over deaths of 6 400, but there is also a net migration component of 7 000. Compared to the same quarter last year, there were 2,400 fewer immigrations and 550 more emigrations. The migration surplus came to 7,000, which was 2,950 less than in the second quarter last year. The largest migrant group is from Poland, and compared with the second quarter last year, 45 per cent (or 1 700) fewer Polish citizens went to Norway. Other large migrant groups come from Germany, Sweden, Lithuania and Eritrea.

During the first six months of the year, 29,700 persons immigrated to Norway, 2,700 fewer than last year. In the same period, 13,150 emigrated from Norway, 3,100 more compared to last year. This adds up to a net migration of 26,300 for the whole country, which is 5,800 lower than the previous year. As can be seen, one way to take some of the pressure off the labour market, is by facilitating inward migration, and the Norwegian authorities seem to be well aware of this. It is also a good way to make the health and pensions system much more sustainable as population ageing takes its toll.

Uneven Global Recovery

As we are seeing, one of the problems Norway faces, as a small open economy, is the very unevenness of the global recovery. I would even go so far as to say that this is going to be one of the defining characteristics of the stage we have now entered, where differences will be more important than similarities between economies. As we have seen in the case of France, and as we are now seeing in the case of Norway, one critical factor is who can generate autonomous domestic demand, since it is this that will offer the key to successful stimulus programmes.

The monetary tightening process is likely to be slower in countries with more fragile recoveries while other central banks become well advanced in thinking about “exit strategies” and how to unwind exceptional measures taken to combat the crisis. Now Carsten Valgreen, Chief Economist at Danske Bank in an important (but rather neglected) paper in 2007 (The Global Financial Accelerator and the role of International Credit Agencies) put some of the problems Norway is facing like this:

The choice major countries have made in the classical trilemma: ie, Free movements of capital and floating exchange rates has left room for independent monetary policy. But will it continue to be so? This is not as obvious as it may seem. Legally central banks have monopolies on the issuance of money in a territory. However, as international capital flows are freed, as assets are becoming easier to use as collateral for creating new money and as money is inherently intangible, monetary transactions with important implications for the real economy in a territory can increasingly take place beyond the control of the central bank. This implies that central banks are losing control over monetary conditions in a broad sense. Historically, this has of course always been happening from time to time. In monetarily unstable economies, hyperinflation has lead to capital flight and the development of hard currency economies based on foreign fiat money or gold. The new thing this paper will argue is that we are increasingly starting to see the loss of monetary control in economies with stable non-inflationary monetary policies. This is especially the case in small open advanced or semi-advanced economies. And it is happening in fixed exchange rate regimes and floating regimes alike.

Valgreen's paper presented two examples to illustrate the issues, and these examples - Iceland and Latvia - are not without their own significance. In both cases local central banks had trouble controlling developments in monetary conditions, as lending from foreign sources in local and/or foreign currency crowded out the efficacy of domestic monetary policy. Despite the differences between the two countries, there was a common story - in both cases monetary policy became increasingly impotent as the central bank money monopoly got to be an increasingly hollow tool. It is no accident that the two examples are small open economies with liberalised financial markets. Being small makes the global financial markets matter more. As we are seeing now a country such as Norway is among the first to notice that the agenda for monetary policy has changed, as both the current and capital accounts are naturally very large and important for the economy.

Clearly, given Norway's very sound fundamentals, and the huge Current Account surplus the country enjoys, there is little likelihood of it becoming an Iceland or a Latvia, but this does not mean there are not monetary policy problems and risks, and it does not mean there is not much to be learnt from studying the Norways of this world, as following them might well show us something of what is in store for larger economies as the global economy recovers. Ignoring the issues which Norway presents would be little better, why not say it, than simply knocking on wood.

Global Manufacturing, France Outperforms, As Spain Continues To Flounder

2009-11-03T06:15:00.000-08:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Well, it is not as if I relish rubbing salt into old wounds, but this quote from the latest piece by Ben Hall in Paris and Ralph Atkins in today's Financial Times is just too good to resist.

French manufacturing output rose at its fastest rate for nine years, according to a survey on Monday, confirming that France has become the economic powerhouse of continental Europe. Purchasing managers’ indices for manufacturing showed France performing significantly better than the continent’s other main economies – thanks to robust domestic demand.

Plenty of food for thought in this paragraph it seems to me. As foreshadowed in this earlier post, it is the French economy - and not the German one - which is rebounding sharply, and this seems to be for essentially three reasons:

i) there is still life in domestic demand, due to the fact that demographics are good, and lending to households (at an average rate of increase of 11%) was a lot less during the last boom than it was in the bubble societies (20% per annum in Spain and Ireland

ii) France's more favourable demography means that the French government has more space for fiscal stimulus (when compared with Germany) which means the "cash for clunkers" can roll on a bit longer.

iii) the combination of these above two factors means that stimulus actually can work, since it can fire up domestic consumption which is not already dead on its feet. That is, the situation is a win-win one in the classic sense (although, as I was arguing at the end of last week, the ECB will now need to do some pretty adroit monetary footwork if it wants to avoid firing up an asset bubble in France, to follow hot on the heels of the one which has just deflated in Spain.

As Jack Kennedy, economist at PMI survey organisers Markit put it:

“The strong recovery in French manufacturing continued in October, with output rising at the fastest pace for nine years. While some of the current strength reflects a rebound from the extreme financial crisis, it nevertheless offers further evidence that the France is towards the front of the pack among developed economies in emerging from the downturn. Domestic demand remains the key driver of growth as confidence continues to recover.”

Climbing The Tourmalet

The current recovery could be conceptualised as a group of Tour de France cyclists set on scaling the slopes of the notorious Tourmalet. One group of riders - mainly emerging economies like China (current PMI 55.4), Brazil (53.7), India (54.5) and Turkey (52.8) are out in front, with just two developed economies having "escaped" from the main group to try and catch them, France (55.6) and Sweden (56.7).

Then comes the main group, who continue to show a modest recovery, howevering around or even (at last) somewhat over the 50 point break even mark (Germany (51), the US (55.7), Japan (54.3), the UK (53.7), the Netherlands (50.5), Austria (51.1), etc). In Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic (49.8) and Poland (48.8) though still weak continue to gain ground, while the Russian team this month unexpectedly had a puncture, and dropped back into contraction territory (49.6), after registering growth in September.

And then come the stragglers lead by Italy (which is peddaling furiously, but - with a PMI of 49.2 - doesn't seem to ever quite make it over that critical 50 mark, oh well, next month perhaps),followed closely by Hungary (48.2), Greece (48), Ireland (48), South Africa (47.8) and of course, in last place, I think the rider is now so weary he is getting off to walk the bike up the hill, comes poor old Spain (46.3), where more or less predictably, the contraction continues. In particular Spain stands out as almost the worst case scenarion now, with a manufacturing sector which continues to bleed jobs in a country where no one seems to have any serious proposals about what to do except wait in the hope that things might get better eventually, and of their own accord. The sky in front with always be clearer mañana, of course.

Italy

Commenting on the Italy Manufacturing PMI survey data, Andrew Self, economist at Markit said:

“Italian manufacturers reported that their recession which has spanned eighteen months finally ended in October, two months behind the Eurozone as a whole. Production rose for the first time since March 2008, driven by a marginal return to growth of new orders. Although the October survey represents a step in the right direction on the road to recovery, weakness persists which suggest that a sustainable upturn is by no means guaranteed."

Hungary

Hungary's manufacturing purchasing manager index dropped 0.8 percentage points to 48.2 points in October, according to the Hungarian Association of Logistics, Purchasing and Inventory Management (HALPIM). The October reading suggest the steady improvement that started in the spring may now have come to a halt.

Greece

The seasonally adjusted Markit Greece Purchasing Managers’ Index fell marginally to 48.0 in October from 48.5 in the previous month. The latest reading signalled another slight deterioration in operating conditions across Greece’s manufacturing economy.

Commenting on the Greece Manufacturing PMI survey data, Gemma Wallace, Economist at Markit said:

“The hope raised in August of an imminent recovery in Greek manufacturing production has dwindled somewhat over the past two months, as the PMI has sunk back into negative territory. Nevertheless, the headline index continued to signal only a slight weakening of the business environment. Additionally, almost all of the surveyed variables are improved on their twelve-month averages – in most cases noticeably so. These are clear signs that progress has been made and therefore show that the sector is on the right path to stabilisation and recovery, even if it has not quite got there yet.”

Ireland

In Ireland the October data indicated that, while operating conditions at Irish manufacturers continued to deteriorate during the month, the sector moved a step closer to recovery. Both output and new orders fell only slightly, and purchasing activity decreased at a markedly slower rate. The seasonally adjusted NCB Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 48.0 in October, from 46.6 in the previous month. This signalled that the rate of deterioration in business conditions eased to the weakest since February 2008.

Commenting on the NCB Republic of Ireland Manufacturing PMI survey data, Brian Devine, economist at NCB Stockbrokers said:

“The output and new orders components very nearly breached the sacred 50 mark in October. New export orders did however fall away marginally after breaching 50 last month. The fall in new export orders reflected sterling weakness which is continuing to squeeze the manufacturing sector. With UK exports under pressure it is a welcome sign that the US economy posted impressive GDP growth in Q3, even when account is taken of their scrappage scheme. With global economic activity gathering momentum we are still hopeful that the Irish economy will begin growing in Q4 of this year and the latest PMI was comforting in this regard.”

South Africa

South Africa’s purchasing managers’ index rose to its highest level in 16 months in October as the country’s first recession in 17 years eased, according to the monthly report from Kagiso Securities. The seasonally adjusted index increased to 47.6 from a revised 45.9 the month before. The index has been below 50, which points to a contraction in output, since May 2008.

Spain

Operating conditions in the Spanish manufacturing sector continued to deteriorate in October. Output fell further over the month, while new orders contracted at the sharpest pace since May. Supplier lead-times lengthened for the first time in nineteen months.

The seasonally adjusted Markit Purchasing Managers’ Indexcontinued to signal a marked decline in overall business conditions, posting 46.3 in October. Operating conditions have worsened in each month since December 2007. Output decreased modestly in October as the wider recession in Spain continued to impact negatively on demand. Production has now contracted in twenty of the past twenty-one months.

Commenting on the Spanish Manufacturing PMI survey data, Andrew Harker, economist at Markit, said:

“Spain's recovery continues to lag the upturn seen across the Eurozone as a whole, and a steeper contraction of manufacturers' order books in October will be of particular concern as it points to a further delay to any prospects of stabilisation.Competition is so intense that firms are being forced to slash prices, despite their raw material prices increasing. The stabilisation of unemployment in the third quarter signalled by official figures is likely to be only temporary with PMI data continuing to show considerable falls in employment in the manufacturing sector as firms seek cost cuts.”

Global Improvement - But Watch Out For The Stragglers, And Those Overly Dependent On Exports

So, as JPMorgan say in their Global Manufacturing report, the Global Manufacturing PMI hit a 39-month high in October, and at 54.4 posted its highest reading since July 2006. The PMI has now remained above the neutral 50.0 mark for four successive months. But while the general picture is one of solid, if modest, growth, the group of stragglers at the back of the pack (to which would could add names like Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Finland, and Ukraine, where PMI surveys do not currently exist) point to potential problems further on down the line in 2010.

Also of concern is the way the index in export dependent countries like Germany and Japan (both suffering the added impact of having a high currency following the ongoing dollar weakness) continue to struggle for air. This is more apparent in the German than the Japanese case at this point, but the survey organisers specifically highlightend the way in which survey respondents in Japan are already reporting a lack of "bounce" in export orders, and this once more serves to highlight the weak spot in the current recovery picture - where are all the customers for all those exports eventually going to come from.

Commenting on the Nomura/JMMA Japan Manufacturing PMI data, Minoru Nogimori, Economist of Financial & Economic Research Centre at Nomura, said:

“October’s Japan Manufacturing PMI fell for the first time in nine months, by 0.2 points to 54.3. It remains above the key dividing line of 50.0, indicating that production activity continues to recover, but suggesting that the pace of improvement is slowing. The New Export Orders Index, a leading indicator of Japanese exports, fell 2.5 points to 51.6. Although this is the fifth consecutive month in which the figure has been higher than 50.0, the October reading suggests that the pace of improvement has obviously slowed. An improvement in export demand was the main factor behind the rebound in Japanese manufacturing output. Therefore, we think that the strong rebound in production activity in Q2 and Q3 now looks likely to run out of steam from 2009 Q4.”

This final point, along with the negative impact that problems among the "stragglers" may present for the main group later on up the hill suggests, to me at least, that while many emerging markets remain strong, we will almost certainly not see anything resembling a "V" shaped global recovery, and especially not in the OECD countries. As far as I am concerned this hypothesis can already be safely discarded.

A New Spectre Is Haunting Europe, A Spanish One

2009-10-31T00:59:00.000-07:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

A spectre is haunting Europe, but this time it is not the spectre of revolt by the popular masses, or even one of yet another wave of bank bailouts. No, the spectre which is currently stalking the corridors of Europe's most prestigous institutions is one of a Spanish economy which stays on a flatline while Europe's other economies, one by one, start to struggle back to life. And the main reason that this particular ghostly image is giving everyone so many sleepless nights is because Europe's current institutional structures, and especially the monetary policy tools available at the ECB are scarcely prepared for such a nighmare eventuality.

France Is Recovering, And The Rebound Is Robust

First it was just a rumour, then it was a possibility, and now it has become a reality - some of Europe’s economies are springing back into life. But only some. It all began quietly, with a barely noticeable 0.3% quarterly growth in French and German GDP in the second three months of this year. France and Germany will have maintained their modest growth into the third quarter , while Italy has now joined them, leaving only Spain among the Eurozone big four, registering yet another quarter contraction, and, more importantly, showing no evident sign that an early return to normal activity is anywhere near to the horizon.

In fact Spanish gross domestic product fell 0.4 percent quarter on quarter in the third quarter following a 1.1 percent drop between April and June , according to the Bank of Spain monthly bulletin. Spain's GDP also contracted 4.1 percent year on year in the quarter, after a contraction of 4.2 percent in the second three months.

'This is the least pronounced contraction since the beginning of the recession ... and this improvement is linked to state-backed measures with a temporary effect,' the bank said.

To this government stimulus effect, I would also add the net trade effect which is being felt as a result of the strong fall in imports, and the consequent closing of the current account deficit. With imports falling faster than exports (on an annual basis) the net impact is positive growth in the headline GDP number, and the Spanish CA deficit was closing very rapidly indeed in the third quarter (see chart below).

The impact of the stimulus package can also be seen in the seasonally adjusted unemployment numbers supplied to Eurostat by the Spanish Statistics Office (INE). Unemployment (which hit 19.3% in September - see chart below) has been rising continuously since mid 2007, but the sharpest increases were registered during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.

It is very hard to see any real difference in the trend rate of increase between the second and third quarters of 2009, and we should expect this trend job attrition rate to continue until it once more accelerates under the impact of either the government being unable to continue funding the stimulus, or the banking sector having a financial crisis (possibly induced by someone being forced into trying to sell some of the housing units they are accumulating only to discover that there are no buyers, since the market is effectively dead).

Life, Unfortunately For Spain, Is Elsewhere

But for all our preoccupations growth in 2009 is now no longer the issue. All eyes are gradually moving towards the outlook for 2010, and it is here that those little red lights have suddenly started flashing over at the European Central Bank.

And the problem is a real and growing one, since according to a series of reports which have been published during the last week, while activity in the export dependent German economy remained very fragile, the French one has really starting to hum. The first sign of this came on Tuesday, with the initial reading for the October Purchasing Manager Index which showed that while the Eurozone economy in general entered the fourth quarter on a strong note, with growth accelerating in both manufacturing and services sectors, the private sector in France started to earn alpha grades by clocking up a third successive month of accelerating growth, leaving us with the impression that France is now seeing its steepest output expansion in nearly three years.

Then on Wednesday the ECB presented its monthly bank lending data, which showed that lending to the euro area private sector shrank by an annualised 0.3 percent in September, the first such contraction since the series began in 1992. But looking a little more closely at a lending activity on a country by country basis, we find that while lending continues to contract in Spain, in France the credit cycle has turned, and indeed lending to households is now once more rising steadily (see chart below), indeed it never fell below an annual 4% rate of increase and the annualised quarterly growth rate in lending has been rising since the end of the first quarter.

That is to say, credit is once more starting to flow freely round the French economy, while here in Spain banks continue to accumulate reserves, lending generously to the government, while money for struggling small companies and for young people looking to buy homes is hard to find. What is more, if we look at the chart below (which was prepared by Dominique Barbet and Martine Borde for PNB Paribas) we will see that the stock of unsold new homes – which was in any event never very high in France, maybe 100,000 in the spring – is down by 20% as sales steadily pick up again, while here in Spain we continue to play a guessing game to decide just how many (more than a million surely) such properties there are here, and the number is growing, not declining, since real new sales to private individuals (as opposed to newly completed properties contracted two years or so ago, or exchanges between developers and banks) are almost non existent at this point. Everyone knows prices will fall further, and are waiting for them to go down.

Then on Friday we had the key piece of information, which confirmed what many of us already suspected, since Markit PMI data for October retail sales made plain the presence of very divergent trends across the Eurozone, with ever more robust growth in France contrasting with falling sales in Germany and Italy. As Jack Kennedy, economist at survey organisers Markit Economics said “While the sense of growing optimism should be treated with some caution – it appears the increase in sales was also supported by widespread discounting and the continuation of the government’s car scrappage scheme – the outperformance of France relative to Germany and Italy offers further evidence that it is France that is leading the Eurozone recovery.”

And here, with this very outperformance comes the problem, since the ECB policy rate will be set to target average eurozone inflation, which will certainly be lower than inflation in France, and possibly significantly lower. Which means the ECB policy rate will be below the one which the French economy will, in reality, need.
Between 2000 and 2008 the structural dynamics of the Eurosystem were different from now. Spain was the "exceptional student", with above-average growth, and inflation which was consistently over the Eurozone average, and for long periods above the ECB policy rate. This had the consequence, of course, that French inflation was nearly always below the average. Now things have changed. We are coming out of recession with a eurozone divided into three groups. French growth is becoming robust, while Germany and Italy are dependent on exports and just keeping their head above water. Spain, on the other hand, fails to recover and continues to contract. This is what makes the current situation critical, since starting in 2010 France will have an inflation rate over the EU average, and in all probability over the ECB interest rate. Which means that if something isn't done, and soon, to force the situation in Spain, and produce a recovery, France will have negative interest real rates during a sharp economic rebound, with all the risks that that implies.

Only last Wednesday Norway became the first western European country to raise interest rates since the start of the financial crisis after its central bank reported finding “signs of renewed growth” in the global economy. Central bankers from across the global, from Washington, to Sydney, to Delhi and to Oslo are all now busily telling us they are going to take increasing account of future accelerations in asset prices in an attempt to avoid repeating policy mistakes that are presumed to have inflated two speculative bubbles in a decade – and left the entire Spanish economy in a lamentable state. If France had its own monetary policy I have no doubt La Banque de France would be itching to follow the Norges Bank and raise rates, but there is one small problem, La Banque de France has no capacity to decide on monetary policy in this way, and herein lies the heart of what is now Europe and the ECB’s greatest dilemma.

What Exactly Is Going On In Finland?

2009-10-29T16:06:00.000-07:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Finland, we have recently been told, is the world's most prosperous nation, and it is deemed to be prosperous not only in monetary and financial terms, but also in terms of the implicit wealth of its democracy and governance. This striking assessment is to be found in the latest edition of what is known as the "Prosperity Index", an initiative launched by the Legatum Institute, a London-based think-tank. In fact Finland took first prize - up from third last year - and was closely followed by Switzerland and the other Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark and Norway - also see Doug Muir's "debunk" of all this brouhaha here).

Finland was also notable for its recent second-place showing in the latest edition of the Tech-competitiveness index released by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Index, which is commissioned by the Business Software Alliance, analyzes data on 66 countries around the world in an attempt to determine which of them have the most competitive information technology sectors. The study, now in its third year, examines variables like the overall business climate, the pervasiveness of the tech infrastructure, the strength and transparency of its legal system,and the availability of a well-educated and technologically literate workforce. As I say, Finland came in second to the United States, displacing last year's runner-up, Taiwan.

And if these accolades weren't enough already enough Finland this year took 6th place in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report (having been number one on earlier occasions). The Global Competitiveness Report purports to identify the world’s most competitive economies in terms of their prospects for economic growth.

Given all of this, you would really expect Finland to be doing pretty well during the current global recession, wouldn't you, what with all that fabulous prosperity and those stupendous growth prospects? So is it? Well unfortunately it isn't, indeed during the second quarter of 2009 Finland (which was way out in front of Ireland, another of those previous ECB "poster boys", which only managed to clock up a 7.4% annual contraction ) had the worst recession in the entire Eurozone, well behind the so called "PIGS" who everyone suspected previously suspected would be the ones to drag the common currency area to its downfall and ruin.

So in order to find out what is actually happening in Finland, and to take an inside look at the harsh reality that lies behind all those gleaming reports, let's take a leap across to the Finnish Statistics Office, just to see what is really going on right now in what some consider to be the world's most prosperous nation.

On our arrival we will calmly be told that, according to their latest revised data, the office found that GDP output (as measured by their ongoing working day adjusted index) fell in June by 8.9 per cent from June 2008. An 8.9% drop eh, that sounds pretty substantial, even to a hardened GDP watcher like me, accustomed to having my stomach turned by the latest releases to come from Ukraine and Latvia. So even if our Finnish were feeling pretty prosperous earlier this year, they would evidently seem to be feeling rather less so now. So why is this, and just what the hell is going on in Finland?

Sharp Drop In GDP Due To Export Dependence Vulnerability

Finland has in fact had the misfortune to fall into what is currently one of the deepest recessions to be found anywhere in the eurozone, a fact which I guess must strike some people as at least odd, given all the attention which people like me have been lavishing on those all too evident problems you can find in Spain or Southern Europe, or even Austria. But Finland, why is it that the deepest of deep recessions is to be found in Finland? This is the question I will try to answer in this brief report.

Steady Loss Of Competitiveness

To anticipate my findings rather, the culprit does seem to be, yet one more time, the poor old euro, since the availability of cheap finance and relatively easy and accessible growth markets during the years from 2000 to 2008 did see the country's industry steadily lose competitiveness and thus its quite large trade surplus, while membership of the monetary union today does mean there is no home currency left to devalue (and this is an important difference with Sweden) and this, of course, means that not only Ireland and Spain but even Finland will problably need a period of (in this case mildish) internal devaluation - rather similar perhaps to the one Germany went through from 1998 to 2005 - if it is to bring the ship right-side-up again. In the meantime, an early return to the country's former prosperity is not to be expected.

Sharp Fall In GDP In The First Half Of 2009

According to data from Eurostat, the Finnish economy shrank by a record 9.5 per cent in the second quarter when compared with the second quarter of 2008.

The drop represents the country's largest year on year decline in any single quarter since comparable figures first started to be compiled in 1990 and the fall is significantly worse than the 7.6 per cent year-on-year drop registered in the first three months of this year. Finland's economy contracted 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2009 compared to the first quarter, when the economy shrank by a revised 3.0 percent over the last quarter of 2008.

Finland's economy is heavily export dependent and the country's key export markets - Russia and Germany in particular - have evidently been badly hit by the sharp reduction in the volume of world trade. In the second quarter, the volume of private consumption declined 3.4% on an annual basis, while investments decreased 11.7%. Exports fell by more than 30 percent and imports by some 28 percent on the year.

Seasonally adjusted GDP peaked during the first half of 2008, and has since fallen very sharply. In the first half of 2009, Finland’s economy contracted as strongly as it did at the start of the 1990s recession. At that time the biggest single drop occurred in the first quarter of 1991 (minus 2.7 per cent quarter on quarter). The biggest year-on-year drop in the 1990s was minus 8.0 per cent during the last quarter of 1991. So this is now more severe than the very severe early 1990s recession. In addition, as I have been suggesting, Finland’s economy is currently also contracting much faster than EU average. According to preliminary data compiled by Eurostat, in the second quarter of 2009 GDP in the EU area contracted by ony 0.2 per cent from the previous quarter and by 5.6% year on year.

Quarterly Contraction Slightly Slower in Q2

The economy shrank by a seasonally adjusted 2.6 percent in the second quarter over the first, compared with a revised figure of minus 3.0 for the equivalent first quarter drop, indicating the force of the recession only eased very slightly. Among European Union members, only the economies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania saw deeper negative growth than Finland in the second quarter.

Explaining the decline in Finland, Pentti Forsman, an economist at Bank of Finland, said that exports now account for around 35 per cent of the Finnish economy from around half last year and the percentage will continue to fall into 2010. The problem is, it is very hard for Finnish domestic demand to take up the slack, given the age structure of the population.

Betweem April and June exports fell 30.2 per cent over the year earlier period, while investments dropped 11.7 per cent. Falling exports mean companies have been forced to cut jobs to adapt to their new output levels. In turn, rising unemployment means consumers are cutting back on spending - household consumption was down an annual 3.4 per cent in the second quarter.

Russia, Finlands top trading partner has also seen strong negative growth - around 10 per cent year-on-year in the second quarter.

Nokia has seen a quarter of its revenues wiped out, while paper producers Stora Enso and UPM-Kymmene are sharply cutting back production and jobs owing to the decline in worldwide newspaper sales and advertising revenue. Rautaruukki Oyj, Finland’s biggest producer of carbon steel, and Cargotec Oyj, the world’s biggest maker of container-lifting gear, have both suffered export-led losses. Cargotec said it expects sales to plunge 25 percent this year. And Konecranes Oyj, the world’s largest supplier of industrial cranes, is cutting production by as much as 30 percent and may close factories as miners, ports and manufacturers reduce spending on new material-handling gear.

Raw materials and capital goods account for about 80 percent of Finland’s exports while consumer goods and durables account for 12 percent of sales abroad.

Finland's finance ministry now expect the economy to shrink 6.0 percent this year before rebounding in 2010 with a 0.3 percent expansion - according to the latest forecast issued last week. Unemployment, could reach 9.0 percent this year and 10.5 percent in 2010 the forecast said.

The ministry said it expected the economy to pick up in conjunction with those of its biggest trading partners - Sweden, Germany and Russia - that is they do not anticipate an autonomous domestic recovery. But what will happen if the economies of those three countries are not on the road to recovery in quite the way the Finnish government expects?

"There are good grounds to expect that Finnish exports will strengthen in the latter half of the year," the government statement said.

And what if demand does not strengthen sufficiently to pull the national economic cart out of the mud tip which it is mired in?

Exports accounted for 47 percent of gross domestic product last year. They have currently dropped back to around 35 percent. And indeed the Finance Ministry now expects exports to sink to around 22 percent of GDP this year, downgrading a forecast of 18 percent from June, but grow again by 1.8 percent next year.

Not surprisingly the finance ministry warned that the much needed stimulus spending would weigh heavily on government finances - with the general government deficit-to-GDP ratio next year to breach the 3 percent EU stability and growth pact limit for the first time.

Finland has enjoyed public finance surpluses seen since 1998 but these will turn into a sizeable deficit this year (4.6% well over the 3% of GDP which is theoretically permitted) and we will more than likely see an even bigger one - 6.1 % according to forecasts - in 2010 As a result Finland’s gross government debt will be up by almost 50 percent next year, hitting 43.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2010 from 29.4 percent last year. While debt to GDP will still be comparatively low, the rapidly rising costs associated the very rapid ageing which Finland's population will now undergo means that the room for manouevre is less than it seems.

Sharp Output Falls All Round

The economic decline has been noted in all sectors, although manufacturing and investment have seen much sharper declines that private consumption. The drop in construction activity has been sharp, and output fell by 19.2 per cent in the second quarter of 2009 when compared with the corresponding quarter in 2008. The situation has improved somewhat and by July construction output was only down by 13.1 per cent from the previous year. The contraction was largest in the construction of buildings where turnover fell by an annual 16.8 per cent in July.

New building permits are also down, and in August were 25% below the level of a year earlier. And this is not the complete extent of the fall, since as can be seen in the chart these peaked towards the end of 2007. Indeed the level of new building activity would seem destined to fall quite substantially yet awhile.

House prices are down, but not massively to date. In the second quarter of 2009, the prices of dwellings in new blocks of flats and terraced houses fell by 1.0 per cent from the previous quarter across the whole country. In Greater Helsinki prices went up by 1.6 per cent, meanwhile in the rest of Finland prices went down by 2.4 per cent. The average price per square metre of new dwellings was EUR 2,738 in the whole country, EUR 3,525 in Greater Helsinki and EUR 2,454 in the rest of Finland.

From previous year the prices in new blocks of flats and terraced houses went down by 4.5 per cent. In Greater Helsinki the prices went down by 0.7 per cent and in the rest of country 6.5 per cent. According to the statistics office the data are based on the price information from the largest building contractors and estate agents, and as we have seen in Spain these are not always the most reliable sources for such information. Certainly the earlier rise in prices has been impressive.

And it is not only the construction industry, since manufacturing is also sharply down, and was 30.1 per cent lower in the second quarter of the year than in the corresponding quarter of the year before. Domestic sales contracted by 27.8 per cent and export turnover by 32.0 per cent from one year earlier. The decline was steepest in the chemical (-36.4%) and metal (-33.4%) industries.

Services have also taken a big hit, and total turnover in service industries fell by 7.4 per cent in the April to June period of 2009 when compared with the respective three-month period of the year before. Turnover in transport and storage fell by 17.7 per cent, reflecting to some extent the impact of the decline in Russian economic activity.

Retail sales are also down, but only moderately so. In retail trade, sales in January-August diminished by 2.5 per cent. Over the same time period, motor vehicle sales were 32.9 per cent and wholesale trade sales 19.8 per cent down on the year before. In total trade sales fell by 17.2 per cent in January-August. However, the deterioration does seem to be accelerating, since according to Statistics Finland, for August alone retail trade sales fell by 3.4 per cent from August 2008. Wholesale trade sales fell by 21.3 per cent and motor vehicle sales by 40.6 per cent.

Exports Are The Big Drag On The Economy

But it is the export sector that the pain is really being felt. Between April and June, the volume of exports shrank by 30.2 per cent when compared with the same period in 2008, although they only fell by 0.7 per cent compared with the previous quarter. Exports of goods decreased by 31.7 per cent and those of services by 24.7 per cent year-on-year. The volume of imports fell by an annual 27.7 per cent and by 6 per cent from the previous quarter. Imports of goods were down 31.9 per cent and those of services by 14.3 per cent year-on-year in the second quarter.

Unemployment has risen, but not drastically so. So the government stimulus programme is working to this extent. According the the latest labour force survey employment was down by 75,000 in September over September 2008. There were 192,000 unemployed persons in September 2009, i.e. 34,000 more than in September 2008. This meant that at the end of the third quarter the unemployment was 7.5 per cent, up 2.0 percentage points from the same time last year, but down slightly from the level in June and July.

But uncertainty over the pace of economic turnaround has increased, and the government expects unemployment to rise to 10.5 percent next year.

Deflation Not Inflation The Issue

The year-on-year change in consumer prices as calculated by the Statistics Finland methodology fell to -1 per cent in September. In August it was -0.7 per cent. In September, consumer prices were largely brought into negative territory by ongoing reductions in interest rates - the Finnish donestic CPI uses a different methodology from the EU Harmonised one, and captures changes in housing costs to some extent, a feature which arguably means it better captures the ongoing impact of the global financial crisis on living standards and household expenditure . Falling prices of liquid fuels, telephone calls, owner-occupied dwellings and real estate, and used passenger cars also lowered inflation. In contrast, consumer prices were pushed up most by year-on-year increases in rents, restaurant and café prices, food prices, retail prices of alcoholic beverages and tobacco.

In fact the deflationary trend is still not clear, since between August and September, consumer prices went up by 0.2 per cent, primarily due to increases in the prices of clothing. And indeed, using the EU Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices, the rate of inflation for Finland was still running at an annual 1.1 per cent in September.

Producer prices and naturally falling, and those for manufactured products fell by an annual 8.6 per cent in August. Export prices were down by 9.6 per cent and import prices by 10.7 per cent from August 2008 . The basic price index for domestic supply fell by 8.7 per cent over the year. The year-on-year change in the wholesale price index was -9.5 per cent.

The main reasons for the drop in producer prices was obviously the reduction in the price of oil products and metals, but again between July and August producer prices for manufactured products rose by 0.7 per cent. The rise in the prices came especially from increased prices of oil products, with the monthly rise in prices restrained somewhat by reductions in the price of paper and paper board. But all of this begs one important question - would price deflation in Finland be a good or a bad thing? Evidently Europe's monetary authorities are divided on just this question. For output to recover from the global financial shock mild inflation is certainly much better than mild deflation, but what about Finland's competitiveness issue? Finland needs some sort of price correction, to get back onto a positive export path, even if not of the order of the one which is needed in Spain and Ireland. This is the big disadvantage of sharing a common currency and not having one of your own to devalue. But clearly ongoing deflation will only weaken domestic consumption (as people put off purchase decisions into the future) and will compound any indebtedness problems there may be in the private sector.

It's The Difference That Matters

This post really needs to be taken in comparison with my recent piece on Sweden, since for some time now I have been scratching my head trying to see just what could be learnt from making a comparison between Finland and Sweden. Some of the differences are obvious - one is in the euro, and the other isn’t, once can adjust monetary policy and currency values, and the other can’t. Others are less so. Finland’s goods trade surplus has been declining steadily since joining EMU while Sweden’s has remained relatively constant. And Swedish males live on average three years longer than their Finnish counterparts. So what is important here, and why? And if convergence theory has anything positive to be said for it, shouldn’t we be able to observe so sort of convergence going on here.

First, and just to remind ourselves, here is the chart from Claus Vistesen which shows what the relation between population ageing and current account balance might look like. The key point is that as populations age beyond a certain point, a tendency to run a current account surplus emerges, as domestic demand steadily weakens, and becomes insufficient to drive growth. Evidence for this phenomenon can be found in Germany, Japan and Sweden.

The idea is that as median population age rises the current account dynamics of a country change. The last ageing phase shown to the right of the diagram is purely speculative at this point, although theory suggests that if the underlying momentum of ageing is left unaddressed it may well be what happens. But it is a development which is to be strongly avoided since although we do not yet know what happens when a society starts to dis-save at an advanced median age, the longer we can put off finding out, the better.

Which is why looking at Finland is important, since unlike the three aforementioned “ideal type” agers, Finland has in fact seen a deterioration in its external position over the last decade, and even though it has, up to now, remained a surplus country, the trend is certainly towards deficit, and this trend needs to be halted and reversed. Indeed this is the most pressing policy problem facing the Finnish authorities during the current recession.

Now let’s look at Finland. Once more the mid 1990s “transition” is clear. Finland moves from deficit to surplus. But unlike the Swedish case the surplus peaks around the turn of the century, and since then has been steadily weakening.

There can be a number of explanations for this. The pattern of ageing could, for example, be different in Finland. Or the euro might be a factor, with the loss of control over monetary policy leading to a steady deterioration in the level of international competitiveness. As we will see below, some part of the explanation may be provided by each of these, but first, lets take a look as some of the empirical aspects of Finland’s present recession, since it is evident that Finland, like many other countries, has entered a strong recession on the current back the global crisis.

According to the Bank of Finland, the current account balance stood at 444 million euros in July, slightly up from the June surplus of 442 million euros. This compares with a surplus of 585 million euros in July 2008. The July current account surplus was driven by the service trade balance, which converted a June deficit of 43 million euros into a surplus of 48 million euros in July. The income surplus stood at 258 million euros in July, up from 145 million euros in June.The goods trade surplus, on the other hand, contracted to 260 million euros in July from 429 million euros in the previous month, while the deficit in current transfers widened to 122 million euros from 89 million euros in June.

As mentioned previously, the goods trade balance has been deteriorating, and the earlier positive balance now needs to be restored.

Finland’s economy faces important challanges in both the short and long terms. Finland’s state debt is low at the present time, which gives the capacity for short term stimulus and bank bailouts. But it is rising, and reached a record high of 70.6 billion euros by the end of the first quarter of 2009. General government debt, calculated according to Eurostat methodology, grew by 7.5 billion euros in January-March, and reached 38 percent of 2008 gross domestic product (GDP). Still, there is plenty of stimulus ammunition left, the important thing is to use it wisely, and try to engineer an economic transition.

Overall, the government has pledged about €60 billion in guarantees, loans and investments, and is expecting a boost of €45 billion in corporate financing. Prime Minister Vanhanen described the decisions as ‘massive, even gigantic’. The largest sums of money are in the bank support package, which aims to secure the continuity of corporate credit. In fact, the Finnish parliament has already approved guarantees of €40 billion to help banks to raise capital.

But in the longer term the issues raised in the course of this post need to be addressed. Competitiveness needs to be restored to the Finnish economy, and exports boosted, as illustrated by the REER chart below. In particular the situation pre 2007 needs to be restored. The change is not massive (maybe only 5% or so), so it is doable, and it needs to be done, especially since the Swedish Krona has been significantly devalued.

One of the things that stands out is Finland’s differential preformance vis a vis Sweden. Using data prepared by Eurostat which shows the volume indexes of GDP per capita as expressed in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) (with the European Union - EU-27 - average set at 100) it is apparent that a gap exists (see below) and that it is not being closed. In fact, after 1998 the two lines move tantalisingly in tandem, but with Finnish per capital GDP stuck just short of the Swedish level. Any reading on these indexes of over 100 implies that the country’s level of GDP per head is higher than the EU average and vice versa, and relative movements in the indexes imply that the rates of change in GDP per capita are either improving more or less rapidly than the EU average. The basic data behind the charts is expressed in PPS which effectively become a common currency eliminating differences in price levels between countries making possible meaningful volume comparisons of relative GDP per capita. Since the index is calculated using PPS figures and expressed with respect to EU27 = 100, it is only valid for cross-country comparison purposes and not for individual country inter-temporal comparisons, nonetheless charts based on such data are extraordinarily revealing.

And what of all those prosperity and competitiveness indexes we started with. Clearly they have been missing something here. A focus on institutional quality is fine, and I have nothing against it, but there is surely more to economic growth processes than simply having sound and effective institutions. Other forces are at work, and one of these is our demography, and as we can see in the Finnish case, simply leaving these out of our analysis won't help us avoid the problems that excessively rapid ageing presents for our economic system. I wish it would.

Beyond The Consensus On European Bank Credit

2009-10-27T08:06:00.000-07:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Well, I never thought I would have to wait very long to get some confirmation of my last post on things that could go bump in the night in France, but even I wasn't expecting confirmation of what I was trying to get at so quickly. Now, according to Frank Atkins in The Financial Times this morning:

The eurozone has reported the first year-on-year fall in bank lending to the private sector, strengthening the case for the European Central Bank to maintain its ultra-loose interest rate policy. The latest eurozone credit statistics indicated lending had been scaled back at an unprecedented pace, even though signs have become stronger that the 16-country region’s economy has stabilised.

What are we talking about here?

Basically bank lending to the euro area private sector shrank by an annualised 0.3 percent in September, according to the European Central Bank's monthly report, making for the first contraction in lending since the series began in 1992. In fact, as Frank Atkins points out, there is some positive gleem in the data, since month-on-month there was €14bn pick-up in lending to households in September. Nevertheless lending to households was still 0.3 per cent lower than a year before. That compared with a year-on-year contraction of 0.2 per cent in August. However, before we start talking about whether to put a positive spin on the tealeaves we should make ourselves awar that this entire way of reading things is deeply problematic, since it ignores two vital points (which is why I head this post "beyond the consensus", since from time to time you can read things here on this blog that you normally won't even find in the analyst surveys):

i) when you get near turning points inter-annual data becomes increasingly inadequate, and hence we now need to follow quarterly and even monthly data, or we will miss the turn.

ii) aggregate data masque the big differences we have between the different euro area economies, and this is how Spain and Ireland got into the mess they are in. The big news of the moment, I would argue, is that the credit cycle has clearly TURNED in France, as I will show in the accompanying charts below indicating quarterly annualised movements. In other countries (and particular Spain) the downward drift continues. So basically relying on the average number hides a multitude of sins, as it did last time round when Spain got into the mess it is now in, and this is one of the things I think we should be learning this time round, since if not,..................

The French Credit Cycle Turns

The chart below (which comes from the Bank of France, based on data to September) shows total credit to the private non financial sector. As we can see, on a year on year basis, the rate of credit increase continues to fall (thick blue line). But if we look at the three month annualised rate, we will see that this rebounded after June (narrow black line). What I interpret this to mean is that the credit cycle in France has now turned, and looking at the interannual data you miss the bottom. This finding is pretty important I would say.

Corporate borrowing (SNF) has also bottomed, although even on a quarterly annualised basis it is still negative. Even corportate borrowing should turn positive in the next quarter, and it will be this that should allow the government to take the hand of the "G" button and start to rein-in the fiscal deficit, as win-win growth and inflation dynamics start to set in. But what this also will mean is that the ECB, at least in the case of France, now need to start take off the ultra-loose monetary policy. What a dilemma!

Household credit growth never even reached negative in France, and is now clearly on the rebound too, and with it the French housing market. (Menages in French is households).

For fuller explanation of the deep significance of having the credit cycle turning in France significantly ahead of the rest of the euro area see The French Rebound Continues In October While Germany Moves Sideways.

The French Rebound Continues In October While Germany Moves Sideways

2009-10-27T05:13:00.000-07:00

By Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Whoever would have thought that some people once called economics the most dismal of sciences? Certainly, as the current crisis goes on and on, those of us who consider ourselves to be economists scarcely are able to find the time to squeeze in a dull moment, even here and there. But even at a broader level, interest in that most dismal of dismal topics - the theory and practice of central banking - seems now to fire up levels of enthusiasm here in Spain that make even the appetising prospect of a forthcoming Real Madrid-Barça football match pale in intensity. Even if it is the case, I have to admit, that the everyday Johnny (or Jill) come lately sitting in the bar still - truth be told - prefers the sports columns of the daily newspapers, or the lacivious details of the latest romantic adventure of one of the rich and famous to a careful perusal of the detailed minutes of the last policy rate setting meeting over at the central bank.

The reason for the sudden and unexpected upsurge in interest should, I would have thought, be obvious - since with 85% of Spanish mortgages being variable (and thus determined by the ECB policy rate), and Spain's economy sinking into an ever deeper pit, the impact of the coming decisions (or even the hints at possible future decisions) have entered peoples lives like never before. And this is doubly the case in an environment where - as Bloomberg inform us this morning - central bankers from across the global, from Washington, to Sydney, to Oslo are likely to take increasing account of future accelerations in asset prices in an attempt to avoid repeating policy mistakes that are presumed to have inflated two speculative bubbles in a decade, culminating in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

By way of illustration for their feature story the Blomberg reporters single out the prime example cases of Norway and Australia, countries whose recent stronger than average inflation and growth performance is now so well known to regular investors for the mention of their name in such reports to have become a mere commonplace, with the respective currencies being eagery purchased to the sound of hearty lipsmaking at the thought of all the juicy carry which lies ahead. Personally though, had I been doing the writing, I would have chosen a rather different example, one much nearer to the heart of Europe (and thus a little closer to my own) - France.

And why France you may ask? Well quite simply because the French economy is now plainly and evidently on the mend. That is the big, big news which can be gleaned from last Friday's Flash Markit PMI readings (see detailed breakdown below). Now those who regularly follow this blog will know that this seemingly unexpected leap into poll position hardly comes as a surprise to me, since I have long been arguing that the French economy would emerge as the strongest among the EU economies from the present deep recession, and some of the theoretical justification for this view can be found in this post here, while an earlier piece from Claus Vistesen in 2006 also gives an illustration of how we might conceptualise the problem.

So one epoch ends, and another begins, inauspicious as the beginnings may be. To summarise briefly the argument which will be presented below, there is both good and bad news here, since this early and isolated recovery in France is bound to create difficulties of the "exit thinking" kind for policymakers over at the ECB. The most pressing of the problems will concern what to do about containing French inflation if exit dependency in Germany means that a full recovery there remains out of reach, while Italy languishes where it has always languished and Spain's seemingly intractable difficulties only increase. In other words, what will happen if - as seems obvious - the eurozone economies are in fact diverging, and not converging, and the divergence far from reducing is in fact increasing.

As we will see in the charts which follow the long term decline in the GDP share of French manufacturing, which is closely associated with the steady opening of a trade deficit there, poses special threats and problems for ECB monetary policy. This long term manufacturing decline and growing external deficit are, in my opinion, the tell tale first signs of larger structural problems to come should inappropriate monetary policy be applied too hard for too long. That is to say France is well positioned to get a distortionary bubble next time round (of the exactly the kind the newly vigilant central banks should be at pains to avoid, and indeed precisely the bubble they successfully avoided last time round) unless the ECB and the French government are very clever and very agile indeed.

Above-par Inflation Looming Just Over The Horizon

In essence the return of growth in France will be welcomed with open arms across the euro area, since with it comes the prospect of opening up a larger French current account deficit and this will, of course, clearly help soak up all that newly found need to export which exists elsewhere in Europ (and especially in the South and the East). But if this should be the fate which befalls an unsuspecting French citizenry, and living in a Spain which has already been processed along this very same pipeline, then all I can say is "heaven help them" for what will then follow.

Again, all the early warning signs are there, including the prospect that France will begin to sustain above eurozone average inflation starting next year, and this will be the first time - as can be seen in the chart below - this has really happened on any sustained basis since the euro was introduced.

In fact, if we look at the second chart, which is only the above one with the reverse overlay, we can see that French inflation really only peaked its head above the average in late 2003/early 2004, and the overshoot was not that substantial.

This time things could well be very, very different, and the big change here is of course a direct result of what has just happened to Spain. Since given that Spain has now been catapulted from a high to a low growth (or even negative growth) mode, France has been ramped up the euro league table, moving from Mr Average to Monsieur Outperform, and this will have the consequence that the ECB policy rate - which will, remember, target eurozone average inflation -will be below the one which the French economy will, in reality, need. What this will mean in practice is that there is a real danger the French inflation rate will be above the policy rate - that is that negative interest rates will be applied. As we can see in the chart below, negative interest rates were applied to the Spanish economy between early 2002 and late 2006, and we all know what happened afterwards. With the return to growth French inflation is likely to rebound, and an annual rate of headline consumer price inflation of between 1.3% and 1.5% seems not unrealistic, which means, should the ECB not start to raise its refi rate early next year then France will be rebounding strongly under the twin tailwind effect of significant fiscal stimulus AND negative interest rates.

So France is about to become the ECB's stellar pupil, but looking at what actually happened to the previous prize students (Ireland and Spain) somehow I doubt that those responsible for running things at La Banque de France and the Elysee Palace will be jumping up and down with joy at the prospect. The bottom line then is that lots of difficult decisions are now looming for European policymakers - assuming they are sharp enough to spot them at this point.

Note - the next section is essentially a detailed breakdown of this month's Flash PMI data (the flash historically bears a reasonably good resemblance to the final data). If you are not especially interested in such detail you may be well advised to glance at the charts and skip to the section - France, Not Spain, Is Different!.

Eurozone Composite PMI

Summary:

Flash Eurozone Composite Output Index(1) at 53.0 (51.1 in September). 22-month high.

Flash Eurozone Services Business Activity Index(2) at 52.3 (50.9 in September). 20-month high.

Flash Eurozone Manufacturing PMI(3) at 50.7 (49.3 in September). 18-month high.

Flash Eurozone Manufacturing Output Index(4) at 54.1 (51.7 in September). 23-month high.

The Markit Flash Eurozone Composite Output Index, based on around 85% of normal monthly survey replies, rose from 51.1 in September to 53.0 in October, registering an increase in private sector output for the third successive month and the strongest monthly gain since December 2007.

Commenting on the flash PMI data, Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at Markit said:

“The flash PMIs indicate that the Eurozone economy has entered Q4 on a strong note, with growth accelerating in both manufacturing and services. The data are consistent with GDP rising at a quarterly rate of around 0.4% in October. Reassuringly, job losses also slowed, and forward-looking indicators such as service sector confidence and manufacturing order-to-inventory ratios suggest that the labour market could stabilise early next year.”

Employment in the Eurozone fell for the sixteenth successive month, even if the rate of job loss eased compared to September. The rate of decline is much slower than that seen in the spring but remains high by historical standards. Both manufacturing and services saw reduced rates of job losses, though the former continued to see the sharper rate of job shedding, despite seeing the smallest cut in headcounts for a year.

Growth was driven primarily by manufacturing, where output rose for the third month running and new orders showed the strongest gain since August 2007. Despite the recent strength of the euro, new export orders showed the largest rise since January 2008, but the rate of growth remained very subdued.

Activity in the Eurozone services sector meanwhile rose for the second month, expanding at the sharpest rate since February of last year, though the rate of increase remained modest and continued to trail that of manufacturing.

German PMIs Dissapoint

Key points:

Flash Germany Composite Output Index(1) at 52.6 (52.4 in September), 2-month high.

Flash Germany Services Activity Index(2) at 50.9 (52.1 in September), 3-month low.

Flash Germany Manufacturing PMI(3) at 51.1 (49.6 in September), 16-month high.

Flash Germany Manufacturing Output Index(4) at 54.9 (52.8 in September), 17-month high.

Output levels in the German private sector economy continued to expand in October, led by the strongest rise in manufacturing production for seventeen months. Service sector business activity also increased again, but at the slowest rate in the current three-month period of growth. The seasonally adjusted Markit Flash Germany Composite Output Index, which is based on around 85% of normal monthly survey replies, rose fractionally from 52.4 in September to 52.6. The index has now registered above the 50.0 no-change mark for three consecutive months, yet the rate of expansion has remained extremely modest.

Commenting on the Markit Flash Germany PMI survey data, Tim Moore, economist at Markit said:

“The German economy started the final quarter of the year in growth territory, with the manufacturing sector the main driver of expansion. Manufacturing firms posted the fastest rise in new orders since August 2007 while employment fell more slowly, contributing to an above-50 Manufacturing PMI reading for the first time in 15 months. Meanwhile, service providers saw only a modest improvement in activity as demand continued to recover only gradually in the sector.”

Signs of excess capacity in the German economy persisted in October, despite solid rises in output and new business. Latest data indicated a further drop in backlogs of work and continued job shedding among private sector companies. Reduced staffing numbers were recorded in both the manufacturing and service sectors, primarily reflecting workforce restructuring following sharp declines in new work at the start of the year. Some firms also commented on the need to cut costs as margins remained under pressure in October.

Average prices charged by private sector firms in Germany were reduced for a twelfth month running and again at a faster pace than input costs. Manufactures and service providers both signalled marked declines in average output charges. Panellists generally attributed this to strong market competition and a resultant lack of pricing power. Meanwhile, input costs dropped only marginally in October and at the slowest rate in the current twelve-month period of decline. Data indicated that lower costs were largely confined to the manufacturing sector. Those reporting a reduction in purchasing costs frequently commented that subdued demand for raw materials had contributed to successful price negotiations with suppliers.

In the manufacturing sector, higher levels of private sector business activity were driven by a further solid expansion of incoming new work. The latest increase in new business was the strongest for a year-and-a-half. The manufacturing sector continued to lead the way, as new order volumes rose at the fastest pace since August 2007. This was supported by a robust increase in new export orders, with a number of firms pointing to stronger demand from China and Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, service providers recorded only a modest improvement in new business levels in October. Anecdotal evidence suggested that clients remained hesitant to commit to new expenditure, leading to only a gradual recovery in demand. Nonetheless, service sector companies were confident regarding the twelve-month outlook for activity at their units, with 32% expecting a rise against just 18% thatforecast a decline.

French PMI - Robust Growth Registered

What stands out in this months data, however, is the performance of the French economy. The output Index, which is based on around 85% of normal monthly survey replies, indicated that growth of the French private sector was sustained into a third successive month – and at an accelerated rate. Climbing to 58.4, from 54.8 in September, the headline index indicated that growth accelerated markedly to reach its steepest in nearly three years.

Commenting on the Markit/CDAF Flash France PMI data, Paul Smith, Senior Economist at Markit, said:

“Expansion of the French private sector continued to gather pace in October, reaching its highest in just shy of three years. Output was sustained through higher gains in new business, particularly from the domestic market, although in part this was driven by continued discounting amid strong competitive pressures. While employment continues to fall, emerging signs of capacity pressures and optimism in the strength of the upturn raise hopes that job losses will dwindle over the coming months.”

Higher output was again broad-based, with both manufacturing and service sectors registering strong growth. Manufacturing output increased for a fourth successive month and at the steepest pace since May 2006. Outstanding business in the French private sector rose in October for a second successive month. In a sign of emerging capacity pressures – particularly in manufacturing – overall growth was the steepest in 19 months.

Despite rising backlogs, French private sector companies continued to reduce employment in October. The rate of contraction remained historically marked, with job losses most acute in services (job losses in manufacturing were the slowest for 14 months). Cost cutting and restructuring were noted by panellists. Input prices continued to fall in October, extending the current period of deflation to 12 months.

However, the rate at which costs declined was only modest, with manufacturing registering a net rise in their purchase prices. Inflation here was linked to higher steel and oil-related product prices. Strong competitive pressures led to another reduction in output prices during October, with the rate of decline remaining sharp. Output charges have now fallen throughout the past year.

Services activity rose at a slower pace than manufacturing output, but still - at a level of 57.8 - registered a strong gain, indeed the rate of expansion was the best since February 2008.

This Time France, Not Spain, Is Different, But Is It Really A Case Of Vive La Difference?

So French industrial production has been steadily recovering in recent months and the latest business surveys show this should continue, even if activity is still significantly (12%, much less than many other euro area countries) below its pre-crisis level. Consumer confidence has been steadily rising for over a year - even if, again, it continues to be weak by historic standards. Household consumption has also been rising, and in fact remained positive on an annual basis throughout the crisis (see chart below), and even if the potential for substantial further acceleration seems limited, this is still the key difference between France - where there is sufficient autonomous domestic demand left for the stimulus package to work - and the other euro area economies.

Why should this resilience be? Well in the first place I would single out France's rather favouralable demographics. But this alone cannot explain the situation. In addition I would add France also probably has had:

i) much better lending regulation than some of the bubble economies in the key years.
ii) no housing BUBBLE (as opposed to boom)
iii) a large population on fixed as opposed to variable interest rates for mortgages

France was also the only eurozone country who really had a more or less approriate interest rate applied by the ECB during the critical years from 2001 to 2007, so there are less structural distortions in the economy (not NONE, but less). On the other hand, as far as France's fiscal budget trajectory goes there are both long term structural and short term fine-tuning deficit issues to think about. The deficit has nearly doubled during the first eight months of this year (widening from EUR 67.6bn in 2008 to EUR 127.6bn in 2009), and although the French budget normally has a surplus in the last four months of the year, this is unlikely to be the case this year, so the deficit will undoubtedly widen further possibly reaching 7.3% of GDP (or 8.2% including social security).

The main reason for the increasing deficit is evident - the collapse on the revenue side. VAT income, for example, fell by EUR 10.4bn, or 12.0%, over the first eight months of the year. Overall total income fell 23.1% during the first eight months of the fiscal year, and although the pace of decline may slow over the whole year the government still expect the 2009 deficit to reach EUR 141bn for the central government and EUR 158bn (or 8.2% of GDP) for the government spending in general (including social security).

Since the various French stimulus packages only amount to an estimated 1.2% of GDP this means that the so called automatic stabilisers (i.e. the “natural” drift of the deficit on a no policy change assumption) account for 3.6 percentage points of the 4.8% of GDP increase in the general government deficit from 2008.

Looking forward, France's 2010 budget is based on a reasonably cautious economic forecast of 0.75% growth, following something like a 2.5% - 2.25% contraction in 2009. Despite this cautious approach there is still a considerable degree of uncertainty about the behaviour of tax income in the wake of the recession, and this is why the budget deficit is also expected to grow. On the inflation side the government forecasts an inflation rate of 1.2% in 2010, following 0.4% in 2009, but since the growth forecast is conservative the inflation outlook will be subject to upside risk, which is why I think 1.3% to 1.5% is a much more likely band.

Part of the deficit will naturally disappear as tax revenues recover. However, due to structural biases in the cost components of the budget there is still plenty of upside potential in debt to GDP moving forward - the latest forecast is for around 91% in 2013/14 - and substantial action will still be needed to lower the deficit in the years ahead. The public deficit is currently expected to fall in 2011 (from 8.5% in 2010 to 7.0%), but the numbers involved are still very large, and France is one of the best case scenarios, so this really begin to give us a picture of the severity of the downturn we have just been through. And of course we are by no means out of the woods yet.

French GDP On The Rebound, And Looking Onwards And Upwards

French GDP surprised positively with a 0.3% quarterly gain in the second quarter. Given the data we are seeing, a forecast of 0.2% quarterly growth for both the third and final quarters would not seem to be an unreasonable expectation at this point, which would mean the French economy would shrink by something under 2.5% in 2009, well below the average Eurozone contraction rate.

All the data we have seen for August and September confirm the view that the French economic environment is improving considerably, although the presence of continuing weak spots (especially on the employment front) mean real GDP growth will probably remain modest during the rest of this year.
The monthly survey of business sentiment was up sharply in September (at 92 against 89 in July). This indicator has moved even further away from its all-time low (68 in February and March), while remaining far below its long-run average.

Order books are also picking up -59 showing in September versus -68 in July. Export order books are also looking better too at -65 versus -66 in July. The consumer goods component in industrial goods orders improved markedly in September (-32 versus -37 for total orders, and -39 versus -33 for export orders), which indicates that domestic consumption spending is likely to be less depressed than it was in July and August. Likewise "capital goods" orders showed a slight improvement in September ( -68 for total and -70 for export orders versus -69 and -73 in July). If this improvement continues in October the ongoing deterioration in investment spending (see chart below) might be drawing to a close.

This improvement is also corroborated by the surge in the October manufacturing PMI. Activity in services also picked up again sharply in October as did activity in the construction sector - hence the interannual drop in GDP should be significantly under the Q2 level of 2.6% by the time we reach the end of the year.

It is also worth remembering that long term growth in French GDP has really been remarkably constant in recent times (see ten year moving everage chart below), at just a little over 2%. Previously this might have been considered rather low by many commentators, but in the light of what we have just seen happen to the "out-performers" the French result looks reasonably solid and sustainable, which means we could expect a pretty solid "V" shaped rebound in 2010 (especially during the second half) and the big danger is that excessively loose monetary conditions for the Eurozone as a whole and ongoing fiscal stimulus could send the French economy shooting upwards above its long term sustainable trend.

Industrial Output

French industrial output rose more than expected in August, rising 1.8 per cent from the previous month on the back of a surge in car production, according to new data. The monthly rise contrasted with a forecast rise of 0.5 per cent from economists and was fuelled by an 11 per cent rise in production of transport equipment, including an 18.2 per cent rise in the car component. Nonetheless French industrial output remains down around 12% in comparison with a year earlier, even though - as I keep stressing - this is considerably less than the drop in most other Eurozone economies.

Although the industrial output collapse has been a little less dramatic than in other eurozone countries, the rebound in France seems to remain largely in line with its peers. Industrial production in fact outpaced the GDP collapse in late 2008, so that it may now also be overstating the rebound.

French retail sales have been falling, but not to anything like the extent we have seen elsewhere in Europe. They were down 3.75% year on year in July.

France's construction sector also seems to be on the long road to recovery, thanks to a correction in the housing sector. A combination of lower prices and very low interest rates have boosted new home sales. Housing investment dropped over the last five quarters, losing an annual 8.7%, making for the worst recession in the sector in the last thirty years. Housing affordability has now rebounded sharply thanks to the interest rate component and a sharp fall in existing home prices (down about 10% year on year) which has allowed a rebound in new home sales and a decline in the stock of new homes for sale. To get some sort of comparison France had approximately 100,000 unsold new housing units at the end of 2008, compared with over a million in Spain. This inventory has now fallen to around 80,000.

According to the latest provisional INSEE data French household spending decreased slightly in Q3 (-0.2% q/q), despite the end of quarter rebound recorded in September (up a monthly 2.3%). Real spending was up a monthly 2.3% in September, after following a 1.1% fall in July and a 1.0% drop in August - so the long march upwards in consumption is not yet that robust. In fact the stats office data show that this September rise was mainly due to a surge in car sales. In line with a sharp rebound of new vehicles registrations (up 7.3% on the month), car sales were up by 10.2% in September over August, offsetting the falls recorded from the beginning of the quarter. Consequently, car sales were roughly flat in Q3 (down 0.1% over Q2), following a 5.7% quarterly rise in Q2.

On the other hand, general sales were down by a quarterly 2.5% in Q3, while "other manufactured products" sales, that represent more than 40% of the consumption, remain sluggish, rising by a quarterly 0.1% in Q3 following a drop of 0.1% in Q2. So at the end of the day the data tend to confirm the idea that the evolution of total spending has been largely dependant on car sales and government incentive scheme since the beginning of the year. Despite the rebound recorded in September, the stabilisation of car sales in Q3 resulted in a slight decrease of overall spending, that was down by 0.2% in Q3 when compared with Q2, following a 0.7% rise in Q2. As can be seen in the chart below (which was prepared by Dominique Barbet and Martine Borde for PNB Paribas) even while headline GDP shot down at the end of 2008 Private Consumption Expenditure (PCE) recovered rapidly due to the impact of the stimulus programme.

And as we can see in the following chart, while consumption in France has proved quite robust over the years, the manufacturing share in GDP has been declining steadily. This is, of course, quite a worrying trend. We can also see quite a clear indication of why France doesn't have the kind of problems Ireland and Spain have when we look at the construction share, since while this rose slightly between 2004 and 2007, at around 6% of GDP it was a far cry from the Irish and Spanish levels (which were twice as big at around 12%), and hence the French economy now has far less difficulty sweating down the capacity and inventory overhang.

And lastly (in this set of charts) we can see that while the trade share in French GDP has been growing steadily since the early 1990s, this increase in trade openness has also been accompanied by an increase in import penetration, and a steady widening of the trade deficit. It is this problem which could well turn critical during the next upturn if corrective measures are not taken in time.

Evidently French exports remain weak, and can in no way explain the recent recovery in industrial pooduction. The export rebound which took place in July was short-lived, and the narrowing of the deficit we have seen between 2008 and 2009 has primarily been due to lower crude oil prices. On the other hand euro appreciation is not the main reason for the poor export performance, as the deficit is wider with eurozone trading partners than with others. The drop in imports is adequately explained by the fall in domestic demand, and is not a sign of improved domestic competitiveness. At the same time the non-goods surplus has narrowed significantly, because of smaller surplus on services and the decline of the surplus on the income account. Thus while the current account deficit has narrowed somewhat, and is expected to stay contained over the next twelve months, the risk of a sharp widening in the years to come is clear enough.

A Tale Of Two Population Pyramids

Basically, a large part of the differential performance between France and Germany can be explained by comparing the two population pyramids. France has an annual population growth rate of around 0.5% while Germany has a population SHRINKAGE rate of around 0.1%. France has a total fertility rate of around 2.0, while the German one is around 1.35.

Thus the French population pyramid (above) is evidently far more stable than the German one (following), and this means that:

a) French domestic consumption is far more stable and dynamic (I would say that this by now should have attained the status of being a "self evident truth").

b) the French government debt to GDP problem, while being important, can be corrected over a longer period than the German one, since France is not ageing so rapidly. This does NOT mean that France should not be doing anything to put its house in order, clearly the underlying structural problems in the public deficit situation - health and pensions - need addressing, but France has more margin of manoeuvre to do this. The important thing is that the French administration do not put this off and off until they reach the same state of mess that the Germans are now in. France should, nonetheless be given credit for having done her homework on fertility.

Basically one look at the unstable shape of this pyramid should give us plenty of course for concern about Germany's future.

Frankly this differential situation, and its implications, has still failed to sink in in many quarers. The Economist Intelligence Unit, for example, in their recent piece - France Easy Does It (20th October 2009) - says the following:

"However, after several years of budgetary vigour Germany's public finances are now in far better shape than those of France, while the German government has secured approval of a law establishing the principle of a balanced budget in the German constitution. A persistent, large-scale asymmetry in the fiscal policies of the euro area's two largest member states could become a significant source of tension in the period ahead."

This is simply nonesense. German finances (despite the sacrifices which ordinary Germans have evidently made) are NOT in better longer term shape than French finances, and this for the reason that:

a) German trend growth (under 1%) is now significantly below French trend growth (around 2%).

b) German structural deficits related to ageing are going to be much more serious in the coming decade.

And signs of the problems this is creating are to be found all over the place. Only last week the two parties in the new German government coalition were toying with the idea of setting up a €60bn fund whose explicit objective was to cover expected welfare-system deficits over the next four years. That would have raised new government borrowing for 2009 from just under €50bn to over €90bn – but would have had the advantage that it would have made it easier for the government to fulfil a constitutional amendment passed this year, which obliges the federal and state governments to reduce their deficits year by year starting in 2011. Basically, what is the value of having a constitutional ammendment to limit the deficit, if the very next minute you start to look for ways to get around it in order to meet the needs of short term expediency?

Clemens Fuest, head of the finance ministry’s council of economic advisers, accused the incoming government of “false labelling” in claiming the special fund was just to cover welfare cost overruns. “The real reason is tax cuts,” he told the Financial Times. “The coalition has manoeuvred itself into a kind of cul-de-sac by saying on the one hand we’re going to have broad income-tax cuts, but on the other, we won’t do that by borrowing more. Of course that’s impossible.”

Rainer Brüderle, one of the FDP’s economics experts, on the other hand denied the plan was mere "trickery” and noted that special funds had been used before to finance the extraordinary burdens of German unification and the recent bank bail-out fund. The point here is not to get bogged down in the ins and outs of fiscal rectitude, but to see the stark and evident fact that the German government far from having, as the EIU puts it, secured a law which means their fiscal position is in better shape than that of French faces stark and difficult choices in carrying through what will remain a knife edged balancing act over the years to come.

The background here is that in June 2009, Germany introduced ammended its constitution by passing a law that will only allow federal deficits of up to 0.35% of GDP during normal times starting in 2016. After 2020, regional state deficits are to be abolished, while parliament can only suspend the rule in the event of “natural catastrophes or other unusual emergency situations."

The very presence of this law should give us an indication of just how critical German public finances may become. In order to comply with the law, Germany will have to implement spending cuts or raise taxes starting in 2011 regardless of whether they have weaker tax revenue, rising welfare bills, or need more stimulus measures and spending for bank bailouts.

On October 8, 2009, the German newspaper Handelsblatt reported that till 2013 Germany will have to raise taxes or cut spending equivalent to 34.3 billion euros in order to comply with the debt brake. Even if growth should be a full percentage point above the current forecasts the hole in German government finances will still stand at 29 billion euros. Therefore even if the economy improves more than expected the coalition will not enjoy ample scope with regards to public finances. (Handelsblatt; October 8, 2009)

In the end the proposal to borrow extra money this year was ditched even though a 24 billion- euro tax cut programme aimed at low and mid-level earners was adopted. Basically the "creative accounting" proposal might well have satisfied the needs of the new constitutional law, but they would not have helped with the excess deficit criteria applied by Eurostat and the EU Commission, since when the German social security system (which - remember - forms part of the government sector according to the Eurostat rules) spent the money and actually ran the deficits in 2011 or 2012, this would have been recorded as a deficit for the German public sector according to the Eurostat rules no matter when the money was borrowed. So the new government now adding tax cuts to the earlier deficits is very likely to put it in breach of the EU's Stability and Growth Pact concept of a 3-percent limit and will in all likelihood put Berlin in conflict with Brussels.

According to the most recent government forecast Germany GDP will now contract by 5% in 2009 (as compared to around minus 2.5% in France) and will the grow by about 1.2% next year. As a result net new borrowing is forecast by the latest government budget calculations to almost double next year to 86.1 billion euros from a record 47.6 billion euros this year. In an interview with Financial Times Deutschland, Jurgen von Hagen from the Institute for International Economics put it like this "Germany’s fiscal policy has been totally misguided, as it persistently ignored the inter-relationship between deficits and growth. Debt ceilings, such as the recently agreed constitutional change, do not work as they are too mechanistic, and lead to policy mistakes."

Germany's debt to GDP is estimated at 79% for 2009 and 87% for 2010, up from 67% in 2008, according to the IMF (World Economic Outlook) and on October 7, 2009, the European Commission issued a formal warning about Germany's large deficit - normally the initial step before opening an excessive deficit procedure.

To return German public debt to a sustainable path, UniCredit have calculated that the primary balance (budget balance minus debt interest payments on debt) would have to be increased by close to a full percentage point. This is equivalent to savings or additional revenues of almost EUR25 billion. To bring the debt ratio back below 60% in the next 20 years, the primary balance would have to be increased by 2 percentage points, and of course stay there (Unicredit research note, 25 June 2009)

Keeping Credit Growth In France Under Control

In this post we have covered a lot of ground. We have:

a) suggested that the whole covergence idea (that all eurozone economies where converging to a common profile) did not offer an adequate description of the actually economic processes we can see on the ground, and that, in fact, the economic profile varies widely from one country to another. It is more a question of "vive la difference"

b) examined how, in terms of the Eurozone's two largest economies - France and Germany - the paths are very divergent. Germany has an export dependent economy, which has been severely savaged by the present deep recession, and recovery is fragile (Axel Weber's expression) and will remain so until other economies recover and export growth can resume.

c) seen that while both countries suffer from important structural problems in the public finances, with debt to GDP in both cases being around 90% of GDP in 2011, in fact the country which is likely to face the more extreme difficulties over the coming decade is likely to be Germany due to the more rapid population ageing which is taking place there and the excessive dependency on exports which this produces.

d) spelt out how the ECB may well now be facing its "finest hour", as it has to rise to the challenge of adapting a one size fits all interest rate policy to a world where one size evidently doesn't fit all, and where the danger of fuelling an excessive consumer boom in one country (France) will have to be set against the risk of sending the banking system of into meltdown in another (Spain). This is clearly the banking equivalent of being stuck between a rock and a hard place new tools and new thinking will need to be developed if we are to finally steer that path between the insatiable appetite of Scylla and the never ending thirst of Charybdis.

Finally, just to make all of this very concrete, lets take a look at the different rates of new credit creation as between French and Spanish households - courtesy again of one of those very useful charts prepared by Dominique Barbet and Martine Borde for PNB Paribas). As we can see in the following chart, annual growth in total household credit in France never went about around 11% to 12% during the boom, and has now not fallen much below 3% during the slump.

In Spain in contrast, the annual rate of new household credit creation was more like 20% during the boom years, and this has steadily dropped since the start of 2007, and finally went negative in August (latest data). It is of course still falling. And this is the danger, that consumer borrowing in Spain remains weak (even as exports are lacklustre), while in France the excessively loose monetary conditions send consumers off to the banks to borrow and then on to the shops to spend.

Spain's Manufacturing Contraction Accelerates in September

2009-10-02T01:03:00.000-07:00

By Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Well here's the first BIG news from yesterday's global manufacting PMI reports - Spain's manufacturing contraction accelerated in September. Of course, how could it be otherwise. But I do wish all those people who are still in denial on what is now an all too evident reality would finally come out of the woodwork and do something. If Spain really goes down, it will drag the rest of the Eurozone with it, like Moby Dick, taking Ahab Trichet and his crew careering down to the murky bottom with him. Brussels, Frankfurt, you need to react. Zapatero has to go, and he has to go now. Spain needs a set of rational policies to deal with the crisis, before things really get out of hand.

Spain's September PMI

Key points:
- The Rate of output contraction accelerated.
- First reduction of new orders in three months.
- Job shedding intensified.

September data pointed to another deterioration of operating conditions in the Spanish manufacturing sector. Both output and employment fell at faster rates, while new business decreased for the first time in three months. The seasonally adjusted Markit Purchasing Managers’ Index® (PMI®) – a composite indicator designed to measure the performance of the manufacturing economy – dropped to 45.8 in September, representing a marked deterioration of business conditions. Moreover, the pace of decline accelerated to the fastest since June. Output contracted solidly in September, and at a sharper rate than in the previous month as demand in the sector decreased. Production has now fallen in nineteen of the past twenty months.

Falling demand was also a key factor in the twenty-fifth consecutive fall in employment as firms adjusted their staffing levels accordingly. Moreover, the rate of job cuts accelerated to its fastest since June. The lack of demand within the sector led to a further shortening of supplier lead times as pressures on vendors continued to ease.

Commenting on the Spanish Manufacturing survey data, Andrew Harker, economist at Markit, said:

“The latest Spanish manufacturing PMI data make sorry reading as the sector took a turn for the worse. With firms unable to pass on rising raw material costs to clients due to a lack of demand, manufacturers’ profit margins are likely to come under increased pressure in the coming months. The labour market shows little sign of recovery as firms continue to cut jobs at a sharp pace.”

Demand Deficiency in Spain

Spain is now suffering from an acute deficiency in internal demand. The latest retail sales figures (July) continue to confirm the ongoing decline, with sales down 1.2% month on month over June, and 6.47% over July 2008. Sales are now down 10.11% over their November 2007 peak. Spanish construction fell again between May and June, despite the omnipresent plan E, falling 0.2% on the month. Year on year figures are now virtually meaningless for an industry which had been contracting for three years as of last July, but from the peak activity is now down by around 30 - that is it is the industry is now roughly 70% of what it used to be, and there is still a lot further to go. Industrial output continued to fall in July, and was down 17.4% year on year, which means it has now fallen nearly 35% % from the June 2007 peak.

With the collapse in internal demand Spain's government has been compelled to come in to support the economy. Such intervention is entirely justified, since without it Spanish living standards would be falling dramatically, but behind the spending there should be a plan, and this is really what is missing in the Spanish case. Spain's economy has become demand deficient because all the main groups of domestic economic agents are steadily trying to cut back on spending and debt, and the export oriented sector, after years of neglect and internal price inflation, is now just not competitive enough to make up for the gap. Worse, given this, investors are not exactly queueing up to put money into new export capacity, which would be about the only other source of growth the Spanish could look for at this point.

The Unemployment Just Climbs And Climbs

Spain's unemployment hit 18.9% in August - the highest in the whole EU - according to the latest Eurostat data. According to Eurostat there were 4.348 million unemployed in Spain in August. This means the country should pass the 20% on the wy up around November, and of course it will simply keep on heading up and up until someone finally does something. I guess we could pass 5 million around February perhaps, if there aren't any accidents on the way, that is.

Europe Must React

Decision making in modern Europe stands on two legs. On the one hand, as far as fiscal decisions go we have the European Commission whose powers are shortly due to be extended by the all important Lisbon Treaty. Even this rather modest step forward, however, remains bogged down in dispute. On the other hand when it comes to monetary policy the powers of the central bank (the ECB) are severely restrained (at least in theory) by the terms of the Maastricht Treaty which as well as creating the bank also established the EU itself as a legal entity. The present Spanish government is - like all EU governments - being given a wide margin of manoeuvre in how it handles the crisis by both the long suffering EU Commission and by the ECB - there is scarcely an option given the degree of sovereignty the member states still retain - but this degree of tolerance cannot last for ever, and the present increase in the Spanish debt will surely not be allowed to survive unchecked into 2010 and beyond. So push is steadily coming to shove. Yet meanwhile, from their ivory Towers in Brussels and Frankfurt those who are really responsible for Europe's decision taking are relegated to the frustrating position of being mere spectators, forced to come in after the horse has bolted and extinguish the fire but without real access to the direct policy levers which would have enabled them to put the blaze out before it got out of hand. Would somebody please like to do something here, before we pass the point of no return. Hello-o, anyone there?

Spain's Current Account Deficit Folds In On Itself

2009-10-02T01:01:00.000-07:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Spain's current account deficit fell to 2.064 billion euros in July from 7.752 billion euros a year earlier as imports tumbled, according to the latest Bank of Spain data. This is a very sharp and dramatic fall, and my guess is that at this rate the gap will close in six months or so, which will be a very strong correction, and potentially very painful for Spanish living standards.

In fact the Spanish current account deficit ballooned in the "good years" - from around 3% of GDP at the turn of the century, to around 10% in 2008 on the back of large external borrowing to acquire housing units and land, and the inevitable imports which were sucked in to fuel the consumption boom.

The main reason for the fall was the reduction in the trade deficit, as imports plummeted an annual 29.5 percent amid weak domestic demand, while exports fell a lesser 15.8 percent. As Dominic Bryant, Chief European Economist at PNB Paribas puts it - "The 4.2% fall in GDP tells only half the story. Final domestic demand has dropped by about 7.5% – the only reason GDP held up was because the collapse in domestic demand led to a 22.3% fall in imports" (Quarterly data from Q2) . That is, the drop in living standrads is actually much sharper than headline GDP numbers actually show. And this is with a government running a fiscal deficit of 10% of GDP plus this year. Heaven knows what the fall would have been without this.

The figure compared with a 4.2 billion euro current account deficit as recently as May.

Also included in this series is one of the key charts of the present spanish crisis, gross external debt - now at roughly 158% of GDP, and of course rising as GDP falls.

But the really important data point is net external debt which is currently around 83% of GDP, and again rising.

The net debt chart illustrates quite clearly why the ability to issue debt denominated in your own currency is one of the most treasured possesions of any sovereign state. Basically Spain's debt is in euros, and since the Spanish treasury and central bank have no capacity to create euros, or to devalue the currency, the only way to correct Spain's distortions is via and long slow and hard process of ideflation (also known by the more politically correct title of internal devaluation, which doesn't make it any easier or less painful as we can see now in Latvia).

But this is just the problem, since with deflation the external debt to GDP ratio will rise - that is Spain will become MORE indebted, and this is just one of the unfortunate consequences of having gotten to where Spain has now arrived.

I estimate this internal devaluation can be in the order of 20% (see Real Effective Exchange Rate chart and the comparison with Germany).

Basically, as the trade deficit has persisted and the current account deficit has grown so the financing to square the account, which was basically the funds needed to fuel the mortgages, also grew. Of course, now that Spanish people are saving rather than borrowing, there is no accounting item to offset the negative CA balance, the external position becomes unsustainable, and the whole Spanish economy folds in on itself, valiantly as the government may try to keep the bicycle moving by borrowing and borrowing.

Also of note here is the way the deficit on the income account has simply grown. This is the outflow of interest on all the borrowing, and now runs at nearly 3 billion euros a month, although it has been falling slightly as interest rates have come down. This item is the first thing that will need covering once Spain has a trade surplus. And of course the cost of servicing the debt will go up, as interest rates rise, which is one of the reasons that the greatest threat to the Spanish economy comes at the moment from a recovery elsewhere which leads to a sharp rise in interest rates. Remember also that over 85% of Spanish mortgages are variable, so the cost of servicing these will rise, even as salaries and the capital values of the homes which go with them fall.

What a total, complete, utter and absolute mess!

Chief IMF Economist Oliver Blanchard said yesterday that the Fund now expect Spain to return to growth in 2011. I'd like to know where he thinks the growth is going to come from, quite frankly I really would. I don't see any sustainable return to growth till Spain's export industries become competitive again. In the best of cases we will simply sink to the bottom, and stay there in an "L" shaped recovery, while the banks steadily blow up one after another under the weight of the mounting pile of non performing loans.

And of course, we may not get the best of cases, since the worst thing about a financial crisis, is that when a country enters one the cost of servicing the debt (interest payments) also rises, as credit downgrades come, and investors demand more risk premium. This is what normally sends a country spiralling out of control once a critical threshold has been triggered. Spain, of course, can't be that far from this threshold at this point, which is why it would be better that those in Brussels and Frankfurt who can see this should be doing something now to grab Spain's administration firmly by the scruff of the neck in order to move things in another direction before the inevitable happens. Or does the ECB plan to keep vitual quantitative easing - Japan style - running as far ahead as the eye can see?

Germany - The Bitter-Sweet Tears Of Angela von Merkel

2009-09-30T14:26:00.000-07:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

German voters gave Chancellor Angela Merkel the green light for a second term on Sunday, along with a clear mandate to form a new government with the liberal Free Democrat Party (FDP). But just what exactly is the new government likely to do? Merlek has been quick to pour cold water on any idea of early tax cuts, “I expect we’ll agree very quickly on tax policy, especially when you look at the leeway we have with the budget," she is quoted as saying.

Angela Merkel's room for maneuver is limited by the fact that Germany has been steadily racking up debt to tackle the crisis. Only today the Federal Statistical Office have said that the deficit in the overall public budget increased to euro 57.2 billion in the first six months of this year from euro 6.9 billion a year earlier as spending rose sharply (8.1%) and revenue declined (1.7%). No figure was given as a proportion of gross domestic product, but it seems to be around 4.89% of the GDP registered in the first six months (unadjusted GDP was reported by the Federal Statistics Office as €1,168 billion over the same period).

So, while the mood in Merkel's Berlin headquarters was naturally jubilant, the euphoria will not last too long, especially since things are not going to be anything like as simple as they may seem at first sight. The problem, of course, is an economic and not a political one. Simply put, Germany’s apparent recovery from recession may have come "just in time" to see Angela re- elected, but the good economic news may not last much longer than today.

Europe's Economies Buoyant But Not Ebullient?

While talk of a Eurozone recovery continues unabated following a recent heavy slew of data, including the business surveys for September and the summer consumer spending numbers from France, which tend to suggest upside momentum. The data continue to support the idea of continuing recovery in the third quarter of 2009 but a more careful examination suggests that the German economy is not building up as much underlying momentum as was prviously hoped, and that sustaining this timid growth into 2010, especially as government stimulus programmes are pulled back, may prove to be hard work.

In France, the latest household consumer data pointed to 1% monthly falls in spending in both July and August as a rebound in inflation and further job losses continued to weigh on consumption. The untick in French inflation while price index numbers remain lodged in negative territory in Spain, Ireland, Finland and even Germany, constitutes just one of the rapidly looming headaches for the ECB.

The weaker French consumption trend was, however, offset by a fairly solid performance in both the industrial and service sectors, with the PMIs powering above the critical 50 level. Similar improvements were not, however, matched in Germany, where both the IFO survey, the Retail PMI and the Manufacruring and Serivices PMIs came in below expectations. So France, far from being a harbinger of things to come, may well turn out to be an exception in a region characterised by stagnation (at best) or continuing sharp contraction (Ireland, Finland, Spain).

Just this cautiousness about the fagility of the recent stabilisation in the Eurozone was underlined by Bundesbank President, Axel Weber in an interview with Market News. Mr Weber was at pains to stress that he still considers the current level of interest rates to be appropriate and that it is still far too early “to exit the currently extremely loose monetary policy.” He also warned that the recovery will be “very sluggish”. Mr Weber placed considerable emphaisis on the behaviour of bank credit, stating he did not expect any turnround in the present decline before mid-2010. Clearly this is likely to be the decisive indicator for the ECB to begin withdrawing liquidity. “As we come out of this crisis and as the economy recovers and as the credit cycle turns, I think we do have an obligation to decisively counter long term inflation risks,” he said.

Germans Get Ready To Tighten Your Seatbelts

If we come to examine the German situation in more detail, then we can see that M. Merkel's room for manoeuvre is going to be extremely limited indeed. Economic growth managed to scrape together a 0.3% increase in the second quarter, but this was driven by exceptional measures of 85 billion euros to lift spending and subsidize jobs, measures which surely helped keep unemployment below levels in many other OECD economies, even while the economy suffered the hammer blows of its worst post-World War II recession. However, the positive feedback impact from so much government spending can't continue like this, and Angela Merkel knows it, and she she also knows that it is either pain now or pain later, then my bet is she will use the political capital accruing from the first post election year to put the German house in order, in the hope of being able to offer some tax-cut based upside in the second half of her mandate.

That is to say, if you are hoping for some more German consumer expansion tow to help pull your own local economy out of the mire, then I suggest you forget about it right now.

Q2 GDP Growth A Statistical Quirk?

First off, the 0.3% growth obtained in the second quarter was actually the outcome of quite a complicated statistical balancing act. As is illustrated in the chart below the small final balance is actually obtained after cancelling out two much larger elements, the inventory run down (which subtracted 1.9 percentage points from the final total) and net exports which (which added 1.6 percentage points, where the positive balance was produced by a much larger drop in imports than the drop in exports).

So while it may not be absolutely correct to talk about a statistical "quirk", and while it is obviously true that there was some real growth, there was so much noise going on in the background that it is hard to know what importance to put on the headline numbers. As should be obvious it is very hard to attach too much importance to the ideat that houshold consumption added 0.4 percentage points when there are such large percentage swings impacting other items, and the fact that the trade impact was achieved by having exports down 1.2% on the quarter while imports were down 5.1% only adds to the lack of conviction which can be attached to the idea that "Germany has now returned to growth", even though this headline perhaps has sold more papers in recent weeks than virtually any other.

In fact as should also be abundantly clear from the two charts below, the sharp fall in exports was largely halted in the second quarter, while the fall in imports continued, but again, it really is stretching the point a bit to call this a solid return to growth.

So with the stimulus programme now steadily set to come off from this point on, and unemployment looking certain to jump and consumer spending to drop as we enter 2010, and with many companies continuing to warn of a credit crunch, while debt remains at very high levels, policy makers would seem to be left with few options to counter any eventual double dip should there be no sharp upturn in world trade. In fact the German economy will never recover on the back of domestic demand, which is weak, and tends to lag behind movements in exports and in GDP. So really a full fledged German recovery must await recovery elsewhere, and in the meantime we are left with simply marking time.

Germany's Economy "Returns To Growth" in the Second Quarter

German second-quarter real gross domestic product rose 0.3% from the first quarter, when it fell back 3.5% from the previous one.

Year on year the economy was down 5.9% in the second quarter. Exceptional stimulus measures amounting to some 85 billion euros have so far helped spending hold up and made it possible to keep people on short time working, but this situation obviously cannot continue much longer and even Germany’s 5 billion-euro “cash-for- clunkers” program has now come to an end. The premium led to a 23 percent increase on spending on vehicles during the first six months of 2009, spending which evidently had a lot to do with the second-quarter rebound. The unemployment rate is set to jump to 10.3 percent in 2010 from 8.1 percent this year, according to the latest IWH institute forecast. The also predict that consumer spending will drop 0.7 percent in 2010 after growing 0.5 percent this year.

And the most recent data results are only likely to add to policymakers’ concerns about the sustainability of Germany’s recovery. The country’s economy is still expected to shrink by about 5 per cent this year, with the under-utilisation of capacity bound to feed through into higher unemployment – which in turn will act as a further constraint on growth.

And as if to offer yet more evidence that the crisis is far over, the VDMA industry group said this week that orders for German machinery and factory equipment were down 43 percent on the year in August.

Export Dependent For Growth

Domestic demand is congenitally weak, and lags behind export and headline GDP gowth. As a result it is not especially surprising to find that retail sales fell for a the third consecutive month in July. Sales, adjusted for inflation and seasonal factors, decreased 0.8 percent from June when they fell 1.8 percent from May. From a year earlier, sales fell 0.7 percent, but this number is not especially significant, since, as can be seen in the chart, German retail sales have now been in decline since 2006.

Spain's retail sales fell again in September, according to the Markit Retail PMI which came in at 47.9, disappointingly weaker that the 49.5 reading registered in August. The index has been below the neutral 50.0 value during every month since June 2008, and the latest reading pointed to the sharpest rate of contraction for three months. Anecdotal evidence attributed the drop in like-for-like sales to weak economic conditions and subdued willingness to spend among consumers. There were also a number of reports in the autos sector that the end of the government’s ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme had contributed to lower sales compared with the previous month.

Despite some slight uptick in houshold consumption, overall domestic demand, which includes both final consumption expenditure and gross capital formation (including changes in inventories), was down by 2.5% in Q2 over the same period in 2008. A large part of this decrease was due to the performance of gross capital formation, which was down by 16.0% year on year. The massive slump in real capital formation in machinery and equipment therefore continued and even accelerated in Q2, with German enterprises reducing their capital formation in machinery, equipment and vehicles by 23.4% compared with the second quarter of 2008. And the trend looks set to continue, if the latest report from the Frankfurt-based VDMA machine makers associationis anything to go by. VDMA said German plant and machinery orders declined 43 percent in August from a year earlier. Export orders slumped 41 percent and domestic orders dropped 45 percent.

Looking into the third quarter German exports rose for a third month in July as global trade picked up generally. German sales abroad, adjusted for working days and seasonal changes, increased 2.3 percent from June, when they jumped 6.1 percent. Exports were still down 18.7 percent from a year earlier.

Imports remained unchanged from June, when they increased 5.9 percent. As a result the trade surplus increased to 13.9 billion euros from 12.1 billion euros in June. The surplus in the current account, the measure of all trade including services, was 11 billion euros, down from 13.5 billion euros in June. But all in all, the balance during the first moth of the third quarter was positive, even if only marginally so.

On the other hand, industrial production output numbers for Junly tempered hopes for a further rebound, since they fell back a seasonally asjusted 0.76 per cent compared with June’s figures, according to Eurostat. According to the German Technology Ministry the strongest performing sectors in recent months have been those producing investment goods and “intermediate” products, shipped for completion elsewhere.

PMIs Suggest Germany Pulled Back In September

Eurozone Flash PMIs generally showed a continued improvement in operating conditions in September, although the rate of improvement slowed somewhat, and indeed the German private sector slipped back even if it continue to maintain a general expansion. France did generally rather better. However, this does start to suggest that the easy part - stopping the slide - may now be over. We have stopped the fall, but restoring growth may well prove to be a very tough nut to crack indeed.

The Markit Flash Eurozone Composite Output Index - based on a sample of around 85% of the normal monthly survey - edged up from 50.4 in August to 50.8 in September, signalling a marginal increase in private sector output for the second successive month. The flash German Composite Output Index stood at 52.2 ( following 54.0 in August), a 2-month low.

Manufacturing new export orders weakened slightly in September, but growth on average in the third was the most pronounced since the first quarter of 2008. Anecdotal evidence suggested that overall demand had improved as a result of more favourable economic conditions and a corresponding rise in confidence among clients. Moreover, a number of investment goods producers pointed to increased exports to emerging markets in Asia.

The German flash Manufacturing PMI came in at 49.6 (49.2 in August), a 13-month high, but still just shy of the critical frontier separating overall expansion from contraction.

Commenting on the Markit Flash Germany PMI survey data, Tim Moore, economist at Markit said:

“The German economy ended the third quarter with output levels still moving in the right direction, supported by the fastest rise in new business since June 2008 and a rebound in business sentiment. PMI data suggest that the economy continued to expand in Q3, but the latest figures point to below-trend growth and only a gradual recovery. Job shedding and cost cutting measures were prevalent in September, while firms were forced to reduce their charges further, suggesting that the outlook for private sector demand remains subdued.”

The German Flash Services Activity Index came in at 52.2 (53.8 in August), again a 2-month low. And the weakening in German activity seems to have been concentrated in the services sector. Service providers were again upbeat about the outlook for the next twelve months. The balance of firms expecting a rise in business activity was the highest since January 2006, largely reflecting optimism that economic conditions will gradually improve in the year ahead.

Nonetheless, private sector companies remained cautious in their staff hiring decisions in September. Overall employment levels fell for the twelfth successive month, largely reflecting a marked decline in the manufacturing sector. Job cuts were linked to output and demand remaining at relatively low levels, with the recent change of direction not yet sufficient to prevent staff restructuring. Furthermore, backlogs of work decreased for the seventeenth month running, suggesting that firms had adequate staffing levels for existing workloads.

Plenty Of Confidence Around Though

German investor confidence jumped again in September,to hit yet another three year high as stocks surged and election day approached. The ZEW Center for European Economic Research said its index of investor and analyst expectations rose to 57.7 from 56.1 in August. The benchmark DAX index has now rebounded 52 percent from its March trough and reached the highest level in almost a year last week. At roughly the same moment the survey result was released the European Commission forecast that the German economy woul barely grow in the fourth quarter after expanding an anticipated 0.7 percent in the third one. My feeling is the Q3 estimate is too high, but the fourth quarter prognosis seems very realistic.

German consumer confidence rose to a 16-month high as the economic recovery boosted households’ income expectations and willingness to spend. GfK AG’s sentiment index for October, based on a survey of about 2,000 people, increased to 4.3 from a revised 3.8 in September, the Nuremberg-based market-research company said in a statement today. That’s the highest reading since June 2008. GfK’s measure of economic expectations turned positive for the first time since June 2008 and jumped to 3.4 from minus 7.5. A gauge of income expectations rose to 16 from 8.8 and an index of consumers’ propensity to spend increased to 36.5 from 31.1.

However it is possible to detect signals thatGermany’s economic recovery is losing momentum to some extent since business confidence rose less than expected in September, and this on the back of the weaker than expected PMI readings certainly serves to highlight the fragility of the growth recovery in Europe’s largest economy.

The Munich-based Ifo institute reported its business climate index rose from 90.5 in August to 91.3 in September. That was the highest reading since September last year, when Lehman Brothers collapsed in the US. But it fell short of many economists’ expectations, suggesting that at least some of the recent optimism about Europe’s largest economy may have been overdone.

The rate of increase in the Ifo index certainly slowed markedly in September. Hans Werner Sinn, Ifo president, pointed out that most companies still regarded current business conditions as poor, and that the rise in the index had been driven largely by the component covering businesses’ expectations for the next six months – which has risen for nine consecutive months to the highest level since May 2008.

Employment Falling As Unemployment Slowly Ticks Up

German unemployment declined in September, but the fall was due to a seasonal upturn and statistical effects rather than any fundamental economic improvement.

The unadjusted jobless rate was 8 percent, down from 8.3 percent in August.

A total of 3.346 million people were registered as unemployed — 125,000 fewer than the previous month but 266,000 more than in September 2008.

In seasonally adjusted terms, the unemployment rate dipped to 8.2 percent from 8.3 percent, with 12,000 fewer people out of work than in August. Economists had forecast an increase of 20,000. The labor agency drew attention to the fact that the number would have risen by 10,000 but for a change made earlier this year under which those being trained by private job agencies were removed from the jobless figures.

At the same time the number of those employed is falling, and there were 40.01 million people in employment in Germany in August 2009. Compared with the previous year, this was a decrease of 216,000, or 0.5%. In fact the German job machine ran out of steam last autumn, and since that time has been adding jobs at an ever slower pace. Now it has turned negative, and less Germans are employed every month than they were a year earlier.

Jobs have been subsidized by the Federal Labor Agency, which pays 60 percent of the net wage that’s lost due to reduced working hours. The program, extended to 24 months in May from 18 months, supported about 1.4 million employees at some 50,000 companies as of June.

As compared with July 2009, there was hardly any change, with the number in employment even rising slightly - by 11,000 (0.0%). But after seasonal adjustment the number in employment dropped by 57,000 (–0.1%) from July to August 2009. In July 2009, the seasonally adjusted number of persons in employment declined by 30,000 (–0.1%) on June.

Given the scale of the current economic crisis, the decline in the employment observed in Germany over the last year has been quite moderate. As the statistics office point out the fact that many employees were placed on short-time working significantly reduced the negative effects of the fall in output on employment.

So far, unemployment has been kept in check because many employers have used government-supported short-time working arrangements - Kurzarbeit - rather than laying off workers. However, this is now widely expected to be gradually wound down and hence the number of unemployed will rise significantly over the next year.

So How Long Can Kurzarbeit Continue To Run?

Well the good news, at least according to analysts at Societe Generale is a good deal longer than many seem to think. The analysts examined the working of the German employment protection programme, and show clearly that while official unemployment in Germany has in fact only risen moderately in the current recession the underlying real effective rate is much higher. The unemployment rate (using the ILO measure) has risen by just 0.6ppt - to 7.7% from its 7.1% low in Q4 2008, while in the euro area as a whole, the rate is up by 2.4ppt to 9.6% from its March 2008 low of 7.2%. As they say, it is also quite clear that this relative stability owes much to the widely-used practice of so called short-time working (Kurzarbeit).

As the SocGen analysts point out, this relatively benign situation could easily turn nasty if company employment intentions deteriorate significantly and growth expectations get revised down. However they are not that convinced by this line of argument, since they think that since German legislation has already extended the period for which companies can run short-time working from 18 to 24 months the programme is pretty firmly supported.

Examining in detail the evolution of the numbers on short-time working they find that the vast majority of companies only resorted to the programme in the spring, so that the 24 month limit will not bite until late-2010. Until the turn of the year 2008/09, the recourse to short-time working was very small indeed. Aside from the seasonal increases in the first quarters of 2007 and 2008, the numbers were small at around 50,000. To put the number in context, they point out that this represents 0.1% of the labour force and is equivalent to the monthly gains in unemployment that were recorded this year. Since then, the numbers resorting to the programme have indeed exploded and by March of this year (the latest available data), there were 1.3 million workers with shortened hours, and this number has probably now risen to around 1.4 million. These are clearly big numbers, amounting to about 3% of the labour force. If they were added to unemployment figures, total unemployment would rise to the previous historic peaks of around 5 million.

Deflationary Winds Blowing?

The German consumer price index declined by 0.4% in September 2009 over september 2008, maintaining pressure on existing deflation concerns. Germany as a whole has never seen such a low inflation rate since German reunification.

The harmonised consumer price index for Germany, which is calculated for European purposes, is expected to decrease by 0.4% in September 2009 on September 2008 (August 2009 on August 2008: –0.1%). Compared with the Augus the index is expected to be down by 0.4% in September.

And producer prices are also falling, with the index of producer prices for industrial products falling by 6.9% in August from August 2008. In July 2009, the annual rate of change was –7.8%. Compared with the preceding month, the index rose by 0.5% (as compared with –1.5% in July 2009).

Meantime the ECB continues to try to offer abundant liquidity to get credit and economic activity moving again, though there seem to be few takers.

The European Central Bank is lending banks less money than economists forecast in its second 12-month auction of unlimited funds, held on September 30, suggesting banks’ need for cash has eased for now.

Banks bid for 75.2 billion euros at the current benchmark interest rate of 1 percent. The ECB loaned a record 442 billion euros at the first auction in June and economists had forecast demand for 137.5 billion euros this month.

The ECB, which will offer banks 12-month loans for a third time on Dec. 15, is trying to flood the system with money in the hope it will be lent on to companies and households. Liquidity, liquidity everywhere, but not a drop of inflation in sight.

In A Tight, And Embarassing Corner?

Angela Merkel did not mince words at last weekends G20, warning fellow world leaders not to make the fight against global imbalances the central issue of the meeting. With Sunday's election looming she came close to accusing the US and Britain of backtracking on the issues of financial market regulation and global limits on bonuses for bankers by shining the spotlight on the export-oriented economic policies of Germany and China.

“We should not start looking for ersatz issues and forget the topic of financial market regulation,” she said in one of her speeches, “We cannot afford to neglect this issue now....Imbalances are an issue, but we must look at all the factors . . . We must talk about imbalances and name the reasons why they came into being.”

“We should also look at imbalances between currency regions and not pick on specific countries within the eurozone,” she added, referring to criticism from the US that Germany is not doing enough to support its domestic demand.”

"In terms of handling the aftermath effects of the financial crisis, the biggest problems and the deepest pitfalls are yet to materialize," according to Munich-based Unicredit economists Alexander Koch and Andreas Rees "It is very likely that typical lagging indicators like the labor market and the public deficit will still deteriorate markedly next year," and "big question marks" remain over the sustainability of the recent upswing.

A fiscal "exit strategy" is needed to avoid ballooning public debt, set to pass 5% of GDP this year, and even more during 2010. At the same time Merkel want to create a growth-friendly environment for consumers and companies by lowering the tax and social security burden. This balancing act is going to be hard, very hard, in a worl dwhich may just not allow Germany to run up the sort of trade surpluses she has been living from.

The German deficit is forecast to rise to 6% of gross domestic product next year, double the amount allowed under normal circumstances under European Union rules. Germany is still expected to see full-year gross domestic product shrink by around 5% in 2009.

One of the main acts of the outgoing government was the introduction of a debt ceiling, under which the German constitution now limits federal government borrowing to 0.35% of GDP by the time we reach 2016. What this means is that the new government will really have its work cut out if it wants to reduce the budget deficit and cut taxes at the same time. The only way will likely be via serious spending cuts. Some of these cuts may well come in the area of social benefits, possibly in health care, where the FDP is proposing a basic private insurance, with subsidies for those who cannot meet the costs. On the other hand, the CDU/CSU is essentially committed to maintaining the status quo, having already abandoned its more radical health care reform ideas. This more or less guarantess that a sizeable chunk in savings will have to come in the area of pension benefits, where the CDU/CSU is committed to the planned gradual increase in the pension age to 67.

Angela Merkel faces no easy task. She has to manage the exit from the massive fiscal stimulus and financial rescue packages,she has to ensure that the post-crisis economy is a more resilient and more balanced one, she has to address the long-standing issue of an ageing German society where generational inequality is on the rise and where younger generations are now burdened with an even higher debt level. And she has to do all this while keeping alive a coalition with a Free Democrat Party whose proposals on pension reform while certainly far reaching, still raise serious doubts about whether they will be sufficient to address the pension time bomb that is ticking away under an elderly export dependent society whose generous entitlements to pension benefits, healthcare and long-term care are becoming harder and harder to square with the long run growth performance of the German economy.

Is Germany Dependent on Exports to Grow?

2009-09-30T13:05:00.000-07:00

By Claus Vistesen: Copenhagen

The analysis that follows accompanies Manuel's political overview, over at GEM, of the recent events in Germany as well as Edward's economic survey of the current state of play in the German economy (forthcoming). Essentially we are going to have a look at, arguably, one of the more salient features of the German economy in the recent period, namely that of her dependence on exports to grow. What we are going to ask here is then furthermore whether this presence of export dependency is related to the fact that Germany is one of the oldest economies in the world measured on median age (currently running at approximately 44 years)[1]. This is a bold claim and if it is unlikely that we will be able to provide decisive evidence for our claims that Germany; 1) is dependent on exports to grow and 2) that this can be traced back the economy’s ageing population, we hope that at least we will provide some perspective. As an editorial note, the arguments presented follows closely Vistesen (2010) which is essentially a working paper under preparation at this point in time.

In the first instance, it is worthwhile to point out that while export dependency in the form it will be presented here enjoys very little, if any, backing in the academic literature it remains one of the more popular ways to narrate the German situation in the context of its recent economic performance, not least in a financial crisis context (see e.g. Martin Wolf Martin Wolf (2008) – Global Imbalances Threatens the Survival of Free Trade). The main question which arises is thus how the global economy will, or indeed can, emerge in a situation where hitherto external deficit nations (the US, Spain, etc) now have to live less off of foreign borrowing while those surplus nations supporting these deficits cannot arrive at stimulating domestic demand. This question which ties together a lot of the contemporary discourses on the global economy is important to keep in my as we move along into a more static world of academic theory.

What is Export Dependency?

We define export dependency as a high and increasing connection between the variation of total output and the variation of the external balance, the latter which will be proxied by the trade surplus in the analysis that follows. Consider consequently the following very simple empirical relationship for an open economy;

Where Y(t) is national income modeled as a simple function of its components; consumption expenditures, government spending, investments, and the current account. All partial derivatives are naturally positive and if we focus strictly on the partial derivative for national income with respect to the current account, we get;

In this simple framework, export dependency may arise as function of the increasing importance of this derivative in explaining the variation of total output which simply means that the extent to which we observe the trade surplus as an increasingly strong driver of economic growth we are moving closer to a state of de-facto export dependency.

Now, this still does not answer the question of exactly what export dependency is the present context since while it is certainly one thing to be export oriented or perhaps even export reliant, the term dependency implies a much strong and potentially malignant situation as it translates into a situation where domestic economic activity becomes overtly reliant on matters elsewhere and external to the economy.

In this sense, export dependency arises in the distinction between an economy where external demand may simply be an extra boost to growth beyond a vibrant domestic economy and an economy where domestic activity is not sufficiently able to spur growth to an acceptable degree and where the positive contribution from extra demand become a prerequisite to maintain growth. It is exactly in this context that the demographic perspective becomes interesting since one obvious and intuitive consequence of the prolonged process of ageing as a result of lingering below replacement fertility as seen in Germany is that domestic demand proxied by consumption and investment demand will decline to reflect the decline in the labor force relative to the total population. This would then be a natural consequence of a standard life cycle analysis set in a closed economy where savings have to equal investment in every period.

Of course, the rub which arises as a result of this quite natural and logical process is that the need to keep and maintain economic growth does not dissipate with ageing. If anything, in a society such as the German this need will remain, or even increase, as an ever growing headache in the context of how to maintain (or viably reform) key institutional structures such as pension and health care systems whose continuing existence, whether one likes this or not, is contingent on headline economic growth. In this sense, the open economy opens up a window of opportunity to fight this situation and essentially to make up for an increasingly lackluster domestic economic environment by exporting excess capital and capital goods abroad to earn a return either in the form interest income of a pure addition to growth in the form export revenues.

Demographics and Open Economy Macroeconomics

If the introductory section above should convince you what export dependency is and why it may be related to ageing the fundamental question here is whether and how demographics may ultimately act as a driver of open economy macroeconomics and international capital flows. The empirical and theoretical contributions here are extensive, so we won’t deal with them in detail but merely point out that the idea that demographics may affect capital flows is not an original postulate and has been investigated in seminal contributions such as Summers et al. (1990), Higgins (1998), Feroli (2003), Bryant (2006), Supan et al. (2007) and Ferrero (2007) to mention just a few.

Despite considerable uncertainty surrounding the exact effects, these studies jointly find that demographics indeed do form strong drivers of open economy dynamics and that, by a applying a standard life cycle framework, come reasonably close at providing some interesting results even if for example the hypothesis of rapid dissaving is still highly contested. But what is a standard life cycle framework then in the context of the effect of demographics on the current account? Well, life cycle theory as postulated by Franco Modigliani and Richard Brumberg (see Deaton (2005)) simply states that a consumer’s saving pattern will be hump-shaped to reflect the fact that she will need to spend her working years saving for retirement where she, by definition, will not be receiving labor income. This also indicates that the current account should follow a similar pattern if modeled entirely as a function of the age structure of society

This figure is essentially drawn free hand on the basis of the empirical estimations of Higgins (1998) and comes with an important interpretation. According to Higgins (1998), and in a general life cycle perspective, we need to distinguish between two centers of gravity as economy moves through the demographic transition: One is when the demand for investment is largest as a function of age and thus when, one could argue, the capacity to absorb external investment is largest (e.g. the demographic dividend). Such periods are traditionally thought to be associated with a current account deficit since whereas investment demand may be large, domestic savings are not likely to be adequate to cover this thus implying a current account deficit to the extent that foreign savings stand ready and able to move. The second period occurs later as the total labour force begins to decline relative to the total population. This has the effect of depressing investment demand, but since this is also the period in which savings are maximized (really not counterintuitive when you think about it), it should, all things equal, be associated with a current account surplus.

The green line is a pure hypothecial construct and has no empirical counterpart (yet). It essentially represents a constraint in the form of the economy's need to rely on external demand to provide economic growth. In this sense, the constraint is non-binding up until the economy moves into old age (say a median age of >42 years) after which the expected result from ageing based on the life cycle theory stands in stark contrast with the fundamentals of an ageing economy where external demand becomes one of the only real sources of continuous growth in headline GDP. Remember here, as a rather important point aside, that economies such as Germany need this growth if they want to maintain the continuity of their welfare societies.

Within the typology of Malmberg, Germany would clearly be in the ageing phase, but since the threshold here is very unclear as a general rule, we could say that it is placed somewhere in the maturity phase inching over to the ageing phase and thus the period in which we should hypothetically observe dissaving as the savings supply will decline faster than investment demand. The first thing to observe here is then that the fact that Germany is running a surplus is not surprising given this model framework since, but the crucial and all encompassing question becomes whether this becomes a de-facto state of dependency with respect to economic growth since the decline in domestic demand will continue to depress the potential growth rate of the economy. In the jargon of the typology above, thesis of export dependency attacks the assumption of dissaving and postulates instead that keeping domestic savings above domestic investment demand and thus running an external surplus is one of the only ways in which an economy such as Germany may hope to achieve the desired growth rates as she, inevitably, moves into the unknown with an increasingly skewed old age structure.

An Empirical Perspective

In order to get a hold of the argument in the specific context of Germany it is worthwhile to start out with the following charts which depicts the ratio of consumption to GDP, the ratio of the trade surplus to GDP, the ratio of government spending to GDP as well as the ratio of total savings (including the trade surplus) to GDP. The data is taken from OECD in current prices (seasonally adjusted) and covers the period Q1-1960 to Q3-2008. All manipulations are based on own calculations.

The first thing to notice is that up until the very end of the 1990s the trade surplus did not represent a substantial part of total income in Germany. If we take the large perspective we can say that up until the latter part of the 1980s Germany was running consistent trade deficit, a deficit which narrowed substantially throughout the 1990s and moved into a substantial surplus at the entry to the 21^st century. Moving on to consumption it is possible to observe a slight negative trend in the share of consumption to GDP and especially in recent 10 years, the negative trend has been strong and thus we could say that decline in consumption has been substituted for an increase in the trade surplus, at least; it would appear so from just eyeballing the graph. It is also interesting to observe that the point in time where consumption to GDP peaked from somewhere around 1975 to 1985 coincides quite nicely with the peak of the trade deficit in a historical context.

Moving on to the share of government spending to GDP the trend is, contrary to the corresponding figure for consumption and investment, is upwards. However, there is a certain sense of optical deceit here since if you disregard the sharp increase in government spending as a share of GDP from the 1960 to the middle of 1970s, the trend has been very much like the one for consumption with the interesting detail that the share of government spending to GDP has not declined to the same extent as consumption.

If we finally look at the graph which plots the share of investment of GDP in combination with the trade surplus to GDP, it is obvious that while domestic investment has steadily declined as a share of GDP total savings have been more stable thanks to the addition from the trade surplus. In fact, we look at the total savings to GDP in 2008 it resides at the same level seen in 1970. What is crucial here of course is the composition of this saving base in the sense that the external surplus takes up a substantial part (around a quarter).

This last point is interesting with respect to the framework above since while the life cycle framework would definitely predict that Germany would be running a current surplus at the given juncture, it also predicts that, at some point, domestic savings will decline so as to make the external balance a negative contribution to output in GDP. The question we must ask ourselves is whether this is an optimal response to the increase in ageing since this process is also driven by a secular decline in the ability of consumption and domestic investment (not to mention government spending) to spur economic growth.

Specifically, it would be interesting here to check whether Germany may have reached a point in terms of its age structure (proxied by median age) where the contribution from external demand to output growth has been important. To that end, let us have a look at the following graph;

Notwithstanding the fact that this graph can hardly be seen as decisive evidence either way, it is worthwhile just observing the trend of the two series. The first thing we should note is that throughout the median age bracket 33-38 years the external balance has been deficit with a moderate trend towards balance as we move closer to a median age of 38 years. This is an interesting observation in so far as goes the life cycle framework sketched above where we can say that all things equal, this period was when Germany was moving towards its maturity phase in which it now finds itself slowly but surely moving into the horizon where we may only speculate to effects of further ageing. If we relax the typology a bit we can add that if a given economy may have a propensity to run a surplus as a function of its age structure it may only grow to be dependent on the continuing accumulation of this surplus as it enters a later stage of the age transition and it is this point that we are interested in here. Looking at the graph, we can superficially infer that the trade surplus to GDP increased sharply from the point where Germany moved above and beyond a median age of 39 (roughly the beginning of the 2000s).

This point in time is interesting since the sharp increase in the trade surplus’ share of GDP has occurred at the same time as a sharp decline in investment and consumption and thus a substitution in growth derived from internal domestic demand and towards one derived from external demand. The key to which this signifies export dependency is the extent to which this substitution in some sense is involuntary in the sense that it is a natural and necessary (and optimal?) way to compensate for the fact that the ability of domestic demand to generate growth declines as an economy enters the latter part of the age transition.

One issues which is worth stressing here towards the end is that the prediction of an entry into some form or the other of rapid dissaving as a function of age seems very difficult to reconcile with the economic realities of an ageing society such as Germany’s. This is not to say that it won’t ultimately occur, but it is important to emphasize that the extent to which we will see this, it is going to be a very serious issue for the structure of the Germany economy since one would assume that with an external deficit at the same time as an inability to create domestic growth as well as a potentially very large public debt overhang the German economy and indeed society will be in a very difficult position. It then seems a more likely outcome that Germany (and other ageing economies) will fight this and one of the only ways to do this (besides reversing the underlying demographics trends) will be through keeping domestic investment accumulation persistently above the domestic economy’s ability to absorb this and thus rely on the ability to offload this excess investment off to foreign takers.

List of References

Cutler, David M., James M. Poterba, Louise M. Sheiner and Lawrence H. Summers (1990) – An Aging Society: Opportunity or Challenge? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1990, No. 1: 1-56

Deaton, Angus (2005) – Franco Modigliani and the Life Cycle Theory of Consumption, Research Program in development studies and Center for Health and Wellbeing, Princeton University; the paper was presented ad the Convego Internazionale Franco Modigliani Feb. 17th-18th March 2005

Ferrero, Andrea (2007) – The Long Run Determinants of the US External Imbalance, FRB of New York Staff Report No. 295

Borsch-Supan, Axel H; Alexander, Ludwig; and Krüger Dirk (2007) – Demographic Change, Relative Factor Prices, International Capital Flows and their Differential Effects on the Welfare of Generations, NBER Working Paper No W13185

Bryant, Ralph C (2006) – Asymmetric Demography and Macroeconomic Interactions Across National Borders, Brookings Institute, the paper was presented at a conference hosted by the Reserve Bank of Australia in 2006

Higgins, Matthew (1998) – Demography, National Savings, and International Capital Flows, International Economic Review, Volume 39 (1998) Issue (Month): 2 (May) pp 343-69

Vistesen, Claus (2010) – Ageing and Export Dependency, Working Paper 2009 (forthcoming)

[1] Japan would be another obvious candidate here and essentially Japan and Germany are very similar on this account.

Germany's 2009 Bundestag election: a political realignment in progress?

2009-09-29T21:54:00.001-07:00

by Manuel Alvarez-Rivera, Puerto Rico

Voters in Germany gave a substantial plurality to Chancellor Angela Merkel's right-of-center Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian counterpart, the Christian Social Union (CSU), in a general election held last Sunday to choose members of the Bundestag, the lower house of Germany's bicameral legislature. Moreover, Chancellor Merkel - who has ruled for the past four years in a grand coalition with its main adversary, the center-left Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), following an inconclusive federal election in 2005 - will be able to form a government with its preferred coalition partner, the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), which scored its best election result ever.

The upcoming government will also have a majority in the Bundesrat - the indirectly-elected federal upper chamber - following elections in the Länder (federal states) of Schleswig-Holstein and Brandenburg, which were held concurrently with the Bundestag poll.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats sustained heavy losses and polled their worst result since the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949. However, both the Left Party (an amalgam of leftist SPD dissidents and ex-Communists from the former East Germany) and the environmentalist Alliance '90/The Greens made inroads at the expense of SPD; both parties scored nationwide vote percentages in the double digits for the first time ever.

Members of the Bundestag are elected by a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system, under which half the chamber's seats are filled in single-member constituencies by plurality or first-past-the-post voting, while the remaining half come from closed party lists; voters cast a first vote for a constituency candidate, and a second vote for a party list. All Bundestag seats (constituency and party list alike) are distributed by proportional representation among parties that win at least five percent of the nationwide second (that is, list) vote, or secure no fewer than three direct (constituency) mandates. Bundestag seats are subsequently apportioned among state-level lists on a party-by-party basis, and constituency mandates won by a party are subtracted from its corresponding seat total, with the remaining seats coming from the party's list.

However, if a party obtains direct mandates in excess of its assigned seat total in any given state, it is allowed to keep the additional seats - known as overhang mandates - and the Bundestag is expanded accordingly. In Sunday's election, CDU and CSU won a total of 24 overhang mandates - which did not change the election outcome (contrary to what had been feared in the days preceding the vote), but nonetheless will increase the upcoming CDU/CSU-FDP coalition government's Bundestag majority from eighteen to forty-two.

Elections to the German Bundestag has a detailed description of Germany's electoral system, as well as Bundestag election results since 1949, including preliminary 2009 figures.

While the outcome of last Sunday's vote was widely anticipated by opinion polls, it nonetheless constitutes a major departure from previous elections. Although the Union parties were the clear election winners, both CDU and CSU continued to lose ground and scored their lowest shares of the vote since 1949. As a result of their decline and the Social Democrats' sharp drop, Germany's two major groups now command only 56.8% of the party list vote - the lowest figure ever in the history of the Federal Republic, down from 69.4% in 2005 and 77% in 2002. Meanwhile, the gap between the Social Democrats and the liberal FDP is now down to the single digits for the first time ever; in fact, in the southern state of Baden-Württemberg, the liberals came within half a percentage point of displacing SPD as the second largest party.

As such, the results of the 2009 Bundestag election suggest that a realignment of political forces may be underway in Germany. While CDU/CSU will be able to form a coalition government with the Free Democrats for the first time since 1998, the postwar German party system of two large mass parties (Volksparteien in German, literally people's parties) and a smaller centrist party holding the balance of power - is definitively dead. Instead, Germany appears to be shifting towards a more fragmented, Scandinavian-type party system.

In fact, changes in Germany's traditional party system were already underway as early as 1983, when the Greens secured Bundestag representation, mainly by siphoning votes from the Social Democrats. However, the Greens' disastrous 1990 Bundestag election result, brought about by the party's opposition to reunification, as well as its short-sighted refusal to merge with the East German Greens and their allies ahead of the election; and the continuing decline of the post-Communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), which steadily lost ground after a relatively strong start in East Germany's 1990 parliamentary election, appeared to indicate that by the next federal election only CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP would remain as viable political players.

Alas, it was not to be, largely because reunification proved to be far costlier and messier than previously anticipated. Following their 1990 election fiasco, the Greens regrouped and went on to stage a successful Bundestag comeback in 1994, while PDS capitalized on East German discontent with reunification, and managed to bypass the five percent threshold by capturing four constituency seats in East Berlin. Meanwhile, the CDU/CSU-FDP coalition government of then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl barely hung on to office, mainly because overhang seats expanded the ruling alliance's ultra-narrow two-seat majority to ten seats - a pattern that has since become a recurring feature of Bundestag elections.

At any rate, by 1998 Kohl's government had overextended its welcome after sixteen years in office, and German voters were ready for change in the form of SPD leader Gerhard Schröder, who led the party to back-to-back victories in 1998 and 2002, both times in coalition with the Greens, and both times with overhang mandates padding otherwise thin Bundestag majorities. Moreover, Schröder only managed to survive in 2002 by virtue of his government's prompt response to the catastrophic floods that devastated eastern Germany shortly before the election: while the Social Democrats lost ground in western Germany, they scored gains in the east at the expense of PDS, which failed to clear either electoral threshold and lost all but two of its Bundestag seats.

Nevertheless, Chancellor Schröder's final term in office from 2002 to 2005 was characterized by the unpopular labor and welfare reforms his government was forced to enact in order to deal with a severe economic recession. These reforms, which scaled back Germany's generous welfare state, infuriated many Social Democratic left-wing traditionalists, who felt the party had betrayed its socialist roots. Eventually, a number of SPD left-wing dissidents abandoned the party; these subsequently went on to join forces with a reinvigorated PDS to establish the Left Party.

In due course, Chancellor Schröder triggered an early Bundestag election by deliberately losing a parliamentary confidence vote. However, while the Social Democrats put up an unexpectedly strong performance in the election - held one year ahead of schedule in September 2005 - they nonetheless came up a percentage point behind CDU/CSU. At the same time, neither the Union parties nor the Social Democrats could form a majority coalition government with their respective partners of choice, namely FDP and the Greens, and eventually it became clear that the only viable government was a grand coalition of the two major groups. After weeks of negotiations, both sides agreed to a coalition cabinet presided by CDU leader Angela Merkel - Germany's first-ever female head of government - while SPD retained a majority of the ministries.

At the outset, Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU-SPD grand coalition cabinet was widely expected to be a short-lived affair; as it was, Merkel proved to be a popular figure, and her government ran the length of its four-year mandate. Nonetheless, the grand coalition government was very much an alliance of necessity for both CDU/CSU and SPD, and neither group had any desire to continue it beyond 2009; consequently, Chancellor Merkel made it clear that she still regarded the liberal Free Democrats as her party's preferred coalition partner. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats hoped to form a "traffic light" coalition with the Free Democrats and the Greens. However, the liberals made it clear they were not really interested in any such arrangements, even though there was relatively little difference between the Social Democrats and the Union parties during the election campaign.

In fact, that perception may have weighted heavily against SPD: many of the party's traditional voters apparently concluded it had strayed too far from its ideological roots, and shifted their allegiances to the Left Party or the Greens (or stayed at home), which led to the party's disastrous result in Sunday's vote. Moreover, the collapse of the Social Democrats has led to the emergence of two distinct party systems: one in the former West Germany, and a very different one in East Germany.

To be certain, differences in the voting patterns of Germany's western and eastern zones have been a distinctive trait of German electoral politics since reunification in 1990: specifically, over the course of the last two decades PDS and its 2005 successor, the Left Party have retained significant popular support in the erstwhile German Democratic Republic, much to the dismay of politicians in the western part of the country. Nonetheless, until now CDU and SPD remained the two largest parties in the so-called "new Länder," with PDS and subsequently the Left Party in an increasingly stronger third place, but third place all the same.

At the same time, PDS fared poorly in the in the "old Länder" of western Germany, where it was widely reviled as the successor of East Germany's defunct Communist Party; even with the backing of SPD dissidents headed by former Social Democratic leader Oskar Lafontaine, the Left Party had a relatively limited impact outside Lafontaine's home state of Saarland: in the 2005 Bundestag election, the new party polled a quarter of the vote in the east, but less than five percent in the west.

However, while the Union parties are now the dominant force in both German sides of the now-defunct Iron Curtain, after Sunday's election the Left Party has become the second largest in eastern Germany, closely behind CDU; the Social Democrats have fallen to a distant third place. On the other hand, SPD still remains the second largest party in western Germany, where the Left Party has made significant inroads but remains twenty points weaker than in the east, well behind both FDP and the Greens (which like CDU and SPD fared better in the western part of the country). Meanwhile, in the capital city of Berlin, Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens are now in a very competitive four-way race - none of the parties won as much as a quarter of the list vote - with FDP not very far behind.

Incidentally, the established smaller parties were not the only beneficiaries of the voters' shift away from the major groups: the new Pirate Party, which advocates digital and privacy rights - most notably the legalization of file sharing - polled two percent of the list vote and qualified for state funding; the Pirates, which are now the largest party outside the Bundestag, have set their sights on next year's election in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's most populous state.

Nonetheless, a substantial number of voters chose to pass up the event altogether, and turnout dropped to the lowest figure ever for a Bundestag election: just 70.8% of the electorate went to the polls, sharply down from 77.7% four years ago.

While CDU/CSU and FDP have been coalition partners in the past - most recently from 1982 to 1998 - the Free Democrats were previously a much smaller party than CDU, usually with fewer seats in the Bundestag than CSU alone. By contrast, FDP will now have half as many seats as CDU, and over twice as many as CSU, which could introduce a different dynamic from past coalition governments of the three parties. Thus, it's not inconceivable that the liberals may want to throw their weight around on issues such as tax cuts, which were a central plank of the party's successful 2009 election campaign. That said, tax cuts do not appear to be a viable option for at least a couple of years, since Germany is just emerging from the severe recession triggered by last year's global economic crisis, and it remains to be seen how much influence will the liberals ultimately wield in Chancellor Merkel's new government.

Just as important, the future of the much weakened SPD - which returns to the opposition after eleven years in office - remains highly uncertain. The Social Democrats may well lurch to the left in an attempt to neutralize the Left Party and recover its lost support on that flank, but it's far from clear how such a move could be accomplished without losing its more moderate voters - which the party desperately needs as well in order to remain competitive - or for that matter without breaking apart. From that perspective, the changes already underway in Germany's party system may turn out to be a halfway house to yet another political realignment further down the road.

The G20 and Why Export Dependency And Global Imbalances Matter

2009-09-27T12:25:00.000-07:00

by Edward Hugh Barcelona

With the timing of the latest G20 meeting set to coincide with the run-in to the German elections acrimonious debate has not been absent, but even as the passions generated by the arrival of voting day subside, it is clear that just beneath the surface their lie some simmering problems which simply will not go away. Despite the fact that nothing is really on the table that will make that much difference in the short run, I think the structural transformation that they are carrying out at G20 level is going to be very important in the longer term in finding eventual solutions.

According to Bertrand Benoit in the Financial Times the G20: "will endorse a report from the Financial Stability Board that calls for bonuses to be linked to the long-term success of financial companies and not excessive risk taking." Well this of course sounds absolutely fine. I have absolutely no objection, but we need to understand that from a macro economic point of view it is virtually irrelevant, with the added detail that the implications are that a recovery in growth will be slower yet less risky. Evidently the issue of why there has been so much liquidity floating around (and this has been the heart of the problem) has little to do with bank bonuses and salaries.

Having interest rates near zero in a significant part of the developed world for an extended period of time - the inevitable consequence of having such a huge excess in global savings - means the the money will still be there, very cheaply, for people to do just whatever they want with it. They might, for example, like to buy Hungarian forint denominated assets, as Deutsche Bank analysts have been advising them to do, and try to find out just how long it takes them to push the economy of that small country right off the edge of the precipice on which it is presently so perilously perched. Or they might like to do something similar with the Russian Ruble, and see if they can block Bank Rossii from being able to move towards a floating currency. Or, if they are really short of interesting ideas, they might like to buy the South African Rand to see just how far out of line you can push the currency in a country which is suffering its worst recession in a couple of decades. Of course, all of this is not that risky for those who understand the finer arts of Forex trading, and the banks who lend them the money will run little risk. The risk here is for the poor people who live in Hungary's and South Africa's of this world. Risk in these cases is, of course, massive.

The banks are also being pressurised to raise their capital ratios. While this is always well-advised in the boom times, it only makes matters worse in a downturn. The current drive to make banks less leveraged and safer may well have the perverse consequence of reducing money balances in the short term. At least this is what Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research argues. This process simply "strengthens the deflationary forces in the world economy, and that increases the risks of a double-dip recession in 2010," he says.

Meanwhile everyone will continue to drive full speed ahead on open ended stimulus programmes, without being altogether clear what it is they are trying to stimulate (see the Spanish case if you don't believe me). "The G20 will call for extraordinary fiscal and monetary stimulus to be continued until “a durable recovery is secured”". But, and here comes the rub, it will also call on countries to act together to ensure more balanced economic growth in future, with surplus countries – China, Germany, Japan and oil exporters – urged to raise domestic demand and deficit countries asked to reduce budget and trade deficits once the world has secured a recovery.

This is evidently the sensitive point which has had everyone from Peer Steinbrück and Angela Merkel, to the newly elected members of the DJP in Japan and the governing elite in China twitching away furiously in recent days. The leaders of these countries have become nervous, since they feel they are being blamed for something they haven't done, and naturally they are lashing back.

They need not worry so much, these exhortations will also be to no real avail. In order to see why, let's take a quick tour through the real heart of the problem.

Who Runs The Current Account Deficits

According to the current director of the US president’s National Economic Council, Larry Summers, writing in an academic paper published in 1990, the United States economy was set to run current account deficits for a period of 15 years, with the consequence that more than 6 percent of U.S. assets would be owned by foreigners by 2010. However, as he saw it, high saving during the subsequent 15 years would result in the generation of current account surpluses and a reduction in foreign capital ownership to 3.5 percent. After 2025, or so the analysis ran, the rapid increase in the number of elderly, would once again lead the United States to run current account deficits.

Since this forecast seems to come so near to describing a process we are now seeing unfolding before our very eyes – in a world where many hold economists can see nothing at all coming – we might like to ask ourselves how anyone could have known so much so far in advance? The answer to this strange questioin is Larry Summers used a very simple model to arrive at his “predictions”, a model based on the life cycle saving and borrowing mechanism, the description of which was to lead Italian economist Franco Modigliani to win a Nobel in 1995. Summers and his co-authors simply applied the individual Life Cycle model to a whole population, and as it appears came up with a fairly plausible outcome.

Everyone is evidently only too well aware that all developed societies are ageing (some, of course, more rapidly than others), but what many observers do not seem to grasp is that this ageing process has very concrete and forseeable economic consequences, consequences which have now been captured in a whole generation of economic models, and which are described in the accompanying chart prepared by my colleague Claus Vistesen.

As can be seen from the chart, as the demographic transition – identified in age bands following the nomenclature of the Swedish demographer Bo Malmberg - advances median population ages move steadily upwards, producing in their wake a whole series of economic phenomena, phenomena which tend to impact directly on the domestic consumption and the current account balance of a national economy. The thick blue line shows what happens to the current account as a given country moves through the age bands. Initially there is a tendency to sharp deficits and severe economic crises, such as are very characteristic of low income, high fertility, developing economies like Ecuador or Pakistan. Then, as societies develop socially and economically the tendency toward deficit remains, only this time on a more mature, and seemingly more stable, basis as seen most evidently in recent years in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and France, who all have population median ages in the 35 to 40 range.

But then something strange happens as population median ages rise past the 40 mark, and especially as they age past 42. The current account suddenly swings into the positive zone, and this can be seen in the real world in countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden, where the ageing population effect means that domestic consumption becomes steadily weaker, and if we look at the second (purple) line in the chart, which illustrates the level of export dependency, we can see that while this is weak at the lower median age ranges (due to the momentum derived from stronger domestic-credit boom dynamics), it steadily grows at the higher median ages.

So, is there any empirical evidence for this phenomenon you may ask? Well just look at Germany, Japan and Sweden, and how the recent collapse in demand for their exports produced by the global crisis sent the economies in these countries spiralling downwards. On the other hand, during periods of economic boom, strong surplus countries need to find an outlet for the savings they accumulate. Hence the large current account deficit countries in the East of Europe, for example, were funded by Austrian, Swedish and German banks. The question we should be asking is not why banks in these countries were so stupid as to lose so much money, rather it is why they had so much money to lose in the first place. That is, why were their populations saving so much, and why were profitable domestic outlets for such savings insufficient? Once we can get hold of this, we can start to see one of the reasons why there have been such large global imbalances in the first place.

One of the problematic aspects of this situation, looking at the chart, is there there is no steady state (or cyclical correction) mechanism at work here, since there is not, to use the jargon, homeostatis, and the need to export (the export dependency purple line) simple heads off exponentially towards infinity, while the level of deficit does the same in the opposite direction. The reason that the need to export moves exponentially upwards is that median age doesn’t just move up from one level to another, and sit there, but keeps climbing steadily upwards, and the more it rises, the less “bang for the buck” in GDP growth you get from any given level of exports. This is the situation we are seeing now in Germany and Japan, and this is why they will struggle mightily to pull themselves out of the present recession, and why the whole situation is evidently not sustainable. So, if the countries in question don’t do something, and do something now, to stop median ages rising too rapidly, more crises like the one we are presently living through are evidently guaranteed.

This way of thinking about things is sure to form, in my opinion, one piece in the new, post-crisis, macro mindset that will emerge. Of this I have no doubt, since the present crisis is all about imbalances, and this is one simple and straightforward model for thinking about and understanding them. Basically one group of people - the current account surplus countries (China, Japan, Germany, Sweden) - were afloat with money, and spent their time rather recklessly lending it to another group of people - the current account deficit crowd ( the United States, Iceland, Ireland, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Hungary and New Zealand etc, etc) - who needed to fund their deficit habit, and who did so by equally recklessly borrowing the money. So if you want to understand the banking crisis, you need, as the US economist Brad Setser would say, to follow the money and find source of all those surpluses and deficits.

And all of this helps us understand not only the crisis, but also the problems we are going to have getting out of it, since as Larry Summers noted over lunch with the FT’s Chrystia Freeland “‘The global imbalances have to add up to zero and so, if the US is going to be less the consumer importer of last resort, then other countries are going to need to be in different positions as well.’

As Freeland highlighted, on this possibility, Summers was absolutely bullish, and understandably so. “The very great enthusiasm for accumulating reserves that one saw globally is likely to be a smaller factor over the next decade than it has been in recent years” he predicts this time. And so too is economic growth (going to be a smaller factor over the next decade), Edward Hugh rapidly adds, since with everyone looking to export their way out of trouble, we have to ask, as Nobel Economist Paul Krugman pointed out, the tricky question about just who the customers with the current account deficits are now going to be to enable all those much needed exports. The current talk of a simple and straightforward recovery for the global economy is misleading, and a long hard road lies ahead for all of us.

And the first evidence of this can be found in the latest quarterly US current account data. The deficit narrowed in the second quarter to $98.8 billion, the lowest level since 2001, reflecting a smaller shortfall in trade of goods as imports and exports both decreased. This is far from being a linear process, and the U.S. trade deficit was up again in July, rising 16.3% over June to hit $32.0 billion, according to Commerce Department data. Despite the fact that imports rose sharply in July on the back of the stimulus programme, total trade activity is still well below last year's level, and the trade deficit with China was $20.42 billion compared with $25.01 billion in July 2008.

In addition US bank loans have been falling fast, and were down at an annual pace of almost 14% in the three months to August (from $7,147bn to $6,886bn). The M3 "broad" money supply, watched as an early warning signal of where the economy will be a year or so later, has been falling at a 5% annual rate. There is absolutely no sign of an imminent sharp rebound in US domestic demand, and little likelihood of a continuing strong current account deficit. The most likely path is for the deficit to steadily close of its own accord as the stimulus programem which is still supporting it is steadily withdrawn. Well, this is what the world wanted, and this is what it is now going to get. So everyone should be happy, I guess.

And while the deficit countries close them down, there is little liklihood of the surplus countries taking their place. It is like telling these countries, you know, you really should have had more children 30 years ago. Do people really think these countries can simply invent policies at the snap of a finger and convince citizens who are worried about the stability of their pension system to spend more now, just because it is in the interest of the global economic system? And what policies exactly. Buy one and get another one for free from the central bank?

But coming back to the G20, as I said at the outset, what I think really matters at this point is that our policymakers have set up a problem for themselves to solve, and they have also set up a structure through which they may solve it. And that is something. Now in all likelihood we will continue to thrash around trying-out false solutions for the next two or three years, but then maybe, just maybe, they will all be ready to talk about what we really might do. And here's the good news, there is another planet out there waiting to be exported to. And the planet has a name - the Emerging Economies. So all we have to do now is work out is a sensible and responsible framework (the so called "supportive environment") through which cheap credit can be channeled into these countries, without that is producing the kind of boom-busts we just saw in the Baltics, Romania and Bulgaria. Not a little task, but not an impossible one either.

(1) An Aging Society: Opportunityor Challenge? - written with David M. Cutler (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), James M. Poterba (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and Loise M. Sheiner (Harvard University) and published in Brookings Papers On Economic Activity, 1990.

The Case of the Disappearing Bid?

2009-09-23T13:39:00.000-07:00

By Claus Vistesen: Copenhagen

I should immediately reassure my readers that I am not going to re-account or even continue Macro Man's story of 2007 in which Sherlock Holmes was looking for a vanishing bid in risky assets. Also, I am not sure that we are actually looking at a bid which will vanish but one which will perhaps taper off gradually or so at least is the estimated scenario policy makers would like markets to believe in. Of course, recent messages from the BOJ suggested a very cautious stance towards the economic outlook and although the ECB's chairman Trichet has ardently argued that an exit strategy from extraordinary financing provisions, the statement that, now is not the time to exit, still echoes most of the official messages coming from the ECB.

But perhaps more important than when to exit is the question of how and whether indeed it will be so easy and simple for central banks to simply wind down the supply of medicine. In the context of the ECB for example, I remain rather sceptical.

However, this day is all about the Fed decision and although I only rarely delve into account of US monetary policy decisions (comparative advantage you know!) this one is important since it was always going to be parsed very closely for signs of hawkishness on rates on the one side as well as indications of the future wind down of asset purchases. Now, for those who expected a big bang, I have to side with Macro Man that it seems to be much ado about nothing in the sense that the Fed basically reiterated the general view that although economic activity had been showing positive signs lately and especially in the context of leading indicators pointing to a strong bounce in Q3 and Q4 activity, the fundamentals of very low capacity utilisation and deleveraging across the real economy remain intact. In the context of Fed speak this translates into maintaining the current rate target at the zero bound and the the forward looking statement that rates are to kept low for an extended period;

Conditions in financial markets have improved further, and activity in the housing sector has increased. Household spending seems to be stabilizing, but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, sluggish income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Businesses are still cutting back on fixed investment and staffing, though at a slower pace; they continue to make progress in bringing inventory stocks into better alignment with sales. Although economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time, the Committee anticipates that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will support a strengthening of economic growth and a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability.

With substantial resource slack likely to continue to dampen cost pressures and with longer-term inflation expectations stable, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued for some time.

In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will continue to employ a wide range of tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability. The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.

So far so good then and this was really all we needed, one would imagine, to extent the rally in risky assets as well as the downward trend in the USD as the new funding currency for carry traders and others of their ilk. So far, there has been no signs of panic anywhere and everything seems to be all engines go.

Meanwhile, the Fed did actually give away some details as to how the future bout of asset purchases are to be conducted. On the matter of treasury purchases the Fed will its total purchase of $300 billion by the end of October. Most of us would naturally like to be able to predict what this will to do yields and prices and really you could spin this two ways. In the context of supply side worries, the Fed's withdrawal from the treasury market should push down yields if we add the, perhaps dubious assumption, that the $300 billion worth of supply of treasury bills has only been there to the extent that the Fed has been the main bidder (Say's law and everything). On the other hand it could also push up yields in a world where one assumes that there has been a decisive need to issue such bills and now that the Fed is stepping aside new buyers must step in and notwithstanding those with a printing press of their own, it should push up yields. Although this may seem quite innocuous and technical (i.e. unimportant) it may turn out to be important in a general context when it comes to the ability of economies (not just the US) to lift themselves out of the mire without the crutches of stimulus to lean on.

In the context of the Fed's outright asset purchases, the statement delivered good news for bulls/doves in so far as goes the fact that although the Fed was invariably going to issue a deadline, it seems to have been pushed somewhat out in the distance; well, at least a quarter. Consequently, the Fed will buy $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and up to $200 billion of agency debt, purchases which are set to be concluded by the end of the first quarter and not by year end which was the final date I had been led to believe judged by the points made in various economics report digested over the last week.

So, it is here perhaps that we may be looking at a disappearing bid in the context of the Fed gradually but surely reducing its presence in the market for MBS turds not to mention the agency market which went belly up as Fannie and Freddie crashed and burned. In the nice soothing light of efficient markets it is difficult to expect the decision to wind down purchases to be a big market mover as long as the incoming bout of data continues to provide plenty of upside and no downside. But if we get a setback just around the time when the Fed had envisioned to stand down its most aggressive measures of QE, one finds it difficult not to expect general sentiment and thus, in a forward looking perspective, real economic activity to take a hit which is exactly what we would all like to avoid; the double dip recession or "WL" recession if you will.

Ultimately, it is of course all still a great big mess, something which was neatly conveyed by the way Bloomberg handled the message carried by the IMF envoy to the G20 summit. On the one hand, the IMF was quoted for urging central banks to map a viable and transparent exit strategy and on the other hand Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn was quoting for urging policy makers to not withdraw fiscal stimulus to quickly. Lost in translation are we?

Well, I am perhaps being unfair here to the editors of Bloomberg not to mention the IMF in particular since ultimately; talking about exit strategies is not the same thing as enforcing them. However, I do feel rather strongly about the need to make the following point that the two are of course intimately connected and withdrawing QE cannot but affect the trajectory of fiscal stimulus. This is a point which I believe for example is absolutely crucial to understand in the context of the Eurozone where the ECB's refinancing operations seem to be implicitly underpinning national governments' efforts to shore up their capsized economies.

In this context and assuming that both the BOJ and the ECB will be trailing the Fed somewhat, it will be most interesting to see whether Bernanke manages withdraw the bid on financial markets currently offered by the Fed's policies and indeed whether others may follow in his footsteps and withdraw theirs.

As Hungary's "Correction" Heads For A Dead End, Time For A Change Of Course?

2009-09-20T09:42:00.000-07:00

by Edward Hugh: Barcelona

Hungary's economic correction still fails to convince. Indeed I am not the only one who remains unconvined by the viability of what is currently taking place it seems, since according to the opposition supporting local daily newspaper Magyar Hírlap, none other than the Hungarian Prime Minister himself may be having doubts, as he is reportedly thinking of leaving the helm of the struggling ship placed under his charge before the next general election, which is scheduled to take place sometime early next year.

If this version of events is ultimately confirmed it will only add to the IMFs growing problems out East, since events in Latvia are not going at all according to their liking - see FT Alphaville's Izabella Kaminska's "Another Latvian wobble" of last Friday - and indeed Latvia’s government rapidly cobbled together another 275 million lati ($575.6 million) in spending cuts for 2010 yesterday after EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia called on Latvia on Friday to “renew a national consensus”, and Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis paid a flying vist to Brussels, following a parliamentary vote against sending a real-estate tax bill through to the committee stage, implicitly rejecting part of an agreement with the IMF and EU. How many times this year does that now make it that the national consensus has had to be urgently renewed under directives from either Washington or Brussels, could someone please remind me?

Further, Hungary's main opposition party - Fidesz - which looks well-positioned to win next year's general elections, are threatening to rewrite the current ever-so-carefully written 2010 budget when they comes to powe next year, according to the latest statements from party president Viktor Orban.

"This (the IMF text, EH) is the most dangerous budget of the past 20 years ... never before has a budget put hundreds of. thousands, or even millions of Hungarian families at such grave risk," Orban told private broadcaster Hir TV in an interview late on Friday. "This budget will not remain in place, we will draw up another one instead," said Orban, a former prime minister, adding that if in power, his government would create one million new jobs in 10 years.

Well, things certainly do not look good either for Gordon Bajnai or for the EU Commission/IMF team who are behind the budget. Perhaps that is why the IMF's representative in Hungary, Iryna Ivaschenko, told national news agency MTI yesterday that while the government was committed to its 2010 fiscal targets, there were economic and implementation risks on the nature of which she declined to elaborate.

As Political Pressures and Bad Loans Mount, While The Economy Retreats Underground, It Is Hard To See How The "Correction" Can Work

Clearly the above mentioned report about the PMs intentions does come from a rather biased source, but it is interesting to note that credibility is being given to it by normally more impartial sources like Portfolio Hungary, and as they themselves point out there has been no outright denial of the suggestion from government sources.

Perhaps even more astonishing was the statement by the Hungarian Finance Minister Peter Oszko to Dow Jones Newswire on Friday that the most difficult reforms to address economic imbalances have now been completed. "I believe the most difficult part of our job is done - our package creates not only short-term but mid- and long-term fiscal balances" he said. I say astonishing, since as far as I personally can see (take a look for yourself at the charts below) the changes that are needed haven't even begun yet. The whole emphasis have been on cutting the deficit, with little serious thought being given about how the Hungarian economy can get back to growth - which is the only real way the fiscal balances can become stable - all that seems to have happened is a 5% VAT hike to squeeze domestic consumption even further, and some compensatory tax changes on the other side to stimulate employment, but the real economic imbalances have been left untouched. A supply side micro-economists paradise, whisper the words "long term steady state growth" to yourself three times, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.

However, the underlying mirky political realities may soon burst their way into the parlour room, to disrupt this happiest of happy families. Indeed everything may well now hinge on getting the budget through parliament and then disrcetely leaving by the side entrance, since Magyar Hirlap suggest that the Hungarian Parliament may well be dissolved directly after the vote on the 2010 budget - which is currently scheduled for 30 November. Apparently everyone's calculations have been thrown awry by the early re-election of José Barroso, and the imminent reappointment of the EU Commission. Plenty of food for thought here.

The paper also suggests that Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai now totally accepts that the forthcoming electtions are inevitably lost - the only bit of realism I can see in all this - and as a consequence seeks to have them advanced to February from the currently probable date of April or May.

In this way Bajnai would be able to offer himself to replace the present Hungarian representative László Kovács, who is currently Commissioner for Taxation and the Customs Union. Bajnai, it will be remembered, has only been Prime Minister since last April, but then, with these sort of techniques it doesn't take that long to put a country straight, now does it?

Advancing elections in a situation where the present budget proposals are massively unpopular may make perfect sense according to a certain democratic political logic, but the economics lying behind the idea must be making people in Washington and Brussels throw up their arms in despair.

More evidence to back the idea that the current programme is not working came in the latest report released by the committee which monitors the long term legalisation of Hungary's underground economy. The process is not only not advancing - it has been thrown into reverse gear, it seems.

According to Committee president, and Central Statistical Office analyst, Csák Ligeti some HUF 100 billion (EUR 369.17 million) in tax revenues were lost in the first half of the year due to a ressurgence in the growth of the black economy. In his report he noted, by way of contrast, that during the previous two years the state budget had received around HUF 200-250 billion (EUR 738.1-922.6 million) in extra revenue due to the "whitening" process initiated in the autumn of 2006 as part of a programme to correct the large fiscal deficits the country was running.

On another front, the IMF warned last week that while Hungary's banking sector had so far weathered the crisis reasonably well - thanks to the multilateral rescue programme - and now has sufficient capital buffers, asset quality still looks set to deteriorate steadily due to weakness in the domestic economy, and especially rising unemployment. This, of course, is another good reason why they should have been including a rapid return to export lead growth in the correction strategy, since obviously if you simply sit back and wait to see what happens, there will be no big surprise - the percentage of Non Performing Loans will just go up and up.

"Developments in the banking sector have been positive; so far so good, and in line with one of the main objectives of the (IMF) program to preserve financial stability," Iryna Ivaschenko, the IMF's resident representative in Hungary, told Down Jones in an interview on Thursday.

However she immediately added that the IMF projects the amount of non-performing loans, which stood at a "still moderate" 4.8% of overall loans at the end of June, "will peak and at least double in the first quarter of 2010,".

This IMF warning follows a Standard and Poor's one at the end of August. The financial profile of Hungarian banks is set to weaken over the near term as a result of the country's ongoing recession, the weak and volatile national currency, and pressure on funding, according to the S&P report.

The report, which was entitled "Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: Hungary", followed the recent decision by Standard & Poor's to revise its ranking of the Hungarian banking system to reflect increased economic risks in the country (BBB-/Negative/A-3) and structural weaknesses in the country's economy and banking industry.

"Hungary's significant external financing needs, which stem from high public-sector leverage and large external imbalances, represent a structural weakness that exposes the economy to the tight and expensive funding conditions in global markets," according to Standard & Poor's credit analyst Harm Semder, who wrote the report.

The report argues that nonperforming loans and depressed recovery rates are likely to cause a material rise in credit losses, which will in turn subdue bank profits and capital through 2011.

Credit risk is heightened by the rapid growth of unseasoned loans - particularly commercial real estate mortgages - over the past five years and a significant increase in loans denominated in foreign currency that lack the foreign currency revenues to service them.

The report estimates that cumulative gross problematic assets, which include restructured loans and repossessed collateral, could increase to 25%-40% of total loans during the course of the current domestic recession. It further suggests that the eventual recovery will be slow.

Which Way To Turn?

The entire situation in Hungary vis-a-vis wages, employment and inflation continues to be preoccupying. The country is in the midst of a huge correction, and depends on improving exports in order to attain economic growth.

Yet the correction is not proceeding as planned. Inflation - at an annual rate of 5% in August, is far too high in contrast to benchmark German inflation which remained negative in August (minus 0.1% ) to be recovering competitiveness. Real wages have continued to rise, and only sneaked into negative territory for the first time in over six months in July - with a 1.1% drop in the benchmark ex-bonus hourly rate in the private sector. Total employment is falling slowly, but even this process masques an important shift towards public sector employment, as the number of public employees has risen substantially in recent months while the number of employees in the private sector has continued to fall - exactly the opposite of what was meant to be happening. Meanwhile the country continues to get ever deeper in debt thanks to the relatively generous financing conditions offered by the EU and the IMF. The point is where does this all end? Where is the correction here?

The National Bank of Hungary is struggling to find an adequate monetary response. The bank lowered its benchmark interest rate by 50 bp to 8% last week, but this still represents a real interest rate of around 3%.

The move followed a surprise 100-bp rate cut at the end of July. While a month ago, the market was expecting 50 bp easing, this time there was no real surprise. As for the future, the National Bank of Hungary release uses standard central bankspeak that intentionally remains ambiguos and guarantees the Bank Council is not committed in any particular direction. As long as there is no change in the international environment over the coming months, the the Council will be most likely having to decide whether to cut a further 50 bp or more.

So while the bank has evidently eased policy considerably, monetary conditions are evidently still far too tight to stimulate dynamic activity in the private sector, which is almost literally wilting on the vine at the present time.

Meanwhile, in a further sign that the recession is settling in for the long haul, Hungarian retail sales extended their decline to 29 months in June as IMF/government measures to narrow the budget deficit continued to sap consumer spending.

True Love In The Eternal Embrace?

Well, despite the fact that many may think the expression "eternal triangle" in the present context refers to the Hungarian government, the EU Commission and the IMF, they would be wrong since one convenient way of thinking about what just happened in Hungary could be to use another kind of eternal triangle the one developed in Nobel Economist Paul Krugman’s model of the same name, which postulates that when it comes to tensions within the strategic trio formed by exchange rate policy, monetary policy, and international liquidity flows, maintaining control over any one implies a loss of control in one of the other two.

In the case of the Central Europe “four”, Poland and the Czech Republic opted for maintaining their grip on monetary policy, thus accepting the need for their currency to “freefloat” and move according to the ebbs and flows of market sentiment. As it turns out this decision has served them remarkably well, since the real appreciation in their currencies which accompanied the good times helped take some of the sting out of inflation, while their ability to rapidly reduce interest rates into the downturn has lead to currency depreciation, helping to sustain exports and avoid deflation related issues.

The other two countries (Hungary and Romania), to a greater or lesser degree prioritised currency stability, and as a result had to sacrifice a lot of control over monetary policy, in the process exposing themselves to the risk of much more violent swings in market sentiment when it comes to capital flows. Having been pushed by the logic of their currency decision towards tolerating higher inflation, they have seen the competitiveness of their home industries gradually undermined, and as a consequence found themselves pushed into large current account deficits for just as long the market was prepared to support them, and into sharp domestic contractions once they were no longer disposed so to do.

A second problem which stems from this “initial decision” has been the tendency for households in the latter two countries to overload themselves with unhedged forex loans, a move which stems to some considerable extent from the currency decision, since in order to stabilise the currency, the central banks have had to maintain higher than desireable interest rates, which only reinforced the attractiveness of borrowing in forex, which in turn produced lock-in at the central bank, since it can no longer afford to let the currency slide due to the balance sheet impact on households. Significantly the forex borrowing problem is much less in Poland than it is in Hungary or Romania, and in the Czech Republic it is nearly non-existent.

The third consequence of the decision to loosen control on domestic monetary policy has been the need to tolerate higher than desireable inflation, a necessity which was also accompanied by a predisposition to do so (which had its origin in the erroneous belief that the lions share of the wage differential between West and Eastern Europe is an “unfair” reflection of the region’s earlier history, and essentially a market distortion). The result has been, since 2005, a steady increase in unit wage costs with an accompanying loss of competitiveness, and an increasing dependence on external borrowing to fuel domestic consumption.

So, if we look at the current state of economic play in the four countries, we find two of them (Hungary and Romania) undergoing very severe economic contractions - to such a degree that in both cases the IMF has had to be called in. At the same time both of them are still having to “grin and bear” higher than desireable inflation and interest rates. In the other two countries the contraction is milder, the financial instability less dramatic, and both inflation and domestic interest rates are much lower. Really, looked at in this light, I think there can be little doubt who made the best decision.

Hungarian GDP - The Big Slide

While wages and prices more or less steadily wend there way upwards, we have no hurry hear, you understand, GDP has been in freefall. Year on year it was down an annual 7.5% in Q2 (and a seasonally adjusted 2% from the first quarter) . The Hungarian government currently expects the economy to contract 6.7 percent this year, in the largest drop in outout since 1991. My view is that we have a total policy trap in operation here, since neither monetary or fiscal policy are available to an adequate degree (even after today's change interest rates are still at 8%), and there is thus little support available to put under the economy at this point. The only way to break the circle in my opinion is to violently kick start exports by letting the forint drop, bringing down interest rates, and restructuring all those CHF loans.

If, instead of browsing over all those diplomatic statements we look at what is going on on the ground, then we find that private sector employment is now well down, by 9.2% y-o-y in July. While in the same month industrial output was down 19.4% over a year earlier. Something just doesn't seem to be working as it should be here.

Unbalanced Movements In Employment

Not surprisingly given the strength of the contraction total employment fell back again, for the second consecutive month, in July, and stood at was 2.657 million. There were 1.803 million in the private sector and 765 thousand in the public sector. Total employment was thus down 4.4% over July 2008.

Private sector employment is well down in Hungary, by 9.2% y-o-y in July.

On the other hand, public sector employment has been chugging away on the up and up, due to job creation under the short term stimulus programme, courtesy indirectly of the IMF, who have permitted a larger than anticipated budget deficit.

But don't get me wrong, it's not the stimulus I am quibbling about here, it is what it is being used for, and the absence of a realistic plan. It's easy enough to run up debt, especially when the EU Commission and the IMF guarantee you, but its a lot harder to pay it down again later, and Hungarian debt to GDP now looks set to go through the 80% of GDP level in 2010. So, the outcomes we are seeing simply don't seem to me to be producing a large enough structural change in the right direction. On the other hand, even this public sector employment boost now seems to have started to turn, since even public sector employment fell back on the month in July - for the first time in six months - although it was still up 5.6% year on year.

Hungary's gross average ex bonus private sector real wages entered negative territory in June, for the fisrt time in over six months, and fell at annual rate of minus 1.1 percent.

Real public sector wages continue to fall sharply, and contracted by an annual 11 percent year-on-year in July following a 13.4 percent contraction in June - although some of the volatility here is the result of a changed system of payment for the additional (13th) month's salary. What is happening in Hungary is really an obvious example of "sticky wages" if ever there was one as far as I can see, since employment in the private sector is falling, and unemployment rising, so you would expect the opposite effect to operate, and real wages to be falling sharply at this point. According to Erika Molnarfi of the stats office, the upward drift in average private sector salaries is the outcome of a sharp decline in production workers which was not accompanied by a decline in administrative workers, exactly the opposite result to that you want to see.

Inflation Stubbornly High

Far from the current recession leading to a significant downward shift in wages and prices, real wages had been rising continuously until July, while Hungary's consumer prices were still running year on year at 5% in August - up from 3.7% in June due to the VAT effect, and still far to high to start restoring competitiveness. . If the current trend continues, and the HUF remains in the region of its current euro parity, then Hungary's agony looks set to continue unabated well into 2010.

And Hungarian manufacturing output fell back again in July, and industrial output decreased by 19.4% compared to July 2008. The volume of production was 22.1% lower over the first seven months of 2009 than in the same period of the previous year. The volume of industrial production fell back in July by 0,7% on June according to seasonally and working-day adjusted indices. Industrial export sales declined by 25.2% in the first seven months of 2009 and by 19.8% in July compared to the same period of the previous year, as a result of a sharp fall in external demand.

So Hungary is suffering from a generalised drop in demand - domestic, export, government, and investment - for which it is difficult to see any short term remedy.

Investments fell in the second quarter of 2009 by 4.7% compared to the same period of 2008. In the first half of 2009 investments in the national economy were 6% down over the corresponding period of the previous year. Investments did however increased by 0.4% quarter on quarter, but when we break this down we find that of the 4.7%annual drop in investments in the second quarter those in machinery and equipment fell by 11.6%, while the volume of construction investments – due to investments in dwellings and motorway constructions – grew by 1.1% compared to the same period of 2008. But when we look at the construction data we find that the improvement in construction is all about civil engineering, so any increase in machinery and equipment investment is still some way off at this point.

Evidently the first sign of any real recovery in the Hungarian economy will come when machinery and equipments investments stabilise and even start to increase, since that will be a reflection of the expectation of future demand arriving further down the pipeline, and will be a measure of real employment creating possibilities.

But things don't look set to improve soon, since Hungary's purchasing manager index dropped by 3.4 points to 45.8 points in August, according to the most recent report from the Hungarian Association of Logistics, Purchasing and Inventory Management (HALPIM). The latest data is highly disappointing not only because Hungarian manufacturing has now been contracting for 11 straight months, but because the August eurozone PMI index showed a larger-than-expected pickup. This thus suggests that Hungary is being left behind in the scramble.

Exports Remain Weak, And Imports Are Even Weaker

Hungary recorded its fifth monthly trade surplus in June, coming in at 457,3 million euros slightly below the 490.1 million euros acheived in May but well above the 30.8 million euros of June last year.

Now good news is always good news, but it is important to understand that this result was almost entirely achieved via a dramatic drop in imports, which plunged an annual 30.4 percent in June (following a 32.3 percent decline in May). It is impossible to talk of any marked improvement in exports, since these fell by an annual 21.1 percent, decelerating from the 24.1 percent drop in May, but still very large. While in the short term this substantial drop in imports (and hence rise in the trade balance) is GDP positive, it is very negative for living standards in the longer term, and the whole situation needs to be reversed by a large boost in exports leading imports as the eurozone economy eventually recovers. But to be able to achieve this Hungarian industry needs to do more, much more, to achieve competitiveness.

Over the January-June period, the volume of exports and imports fell by 20 and 25 percent, respectively, compared to the same period of the preceding year. The trade balance showed a surplus of HUF 606 billion (EUR 2,055 million), which meant an improvement of HUF 534 billion (EUR 1,766 million) compared to the surplus of HUF 72 billion (EUR 288 million) in January-June 2008. In January-June 2009, the forint price level of exports and imports both increased by 6 percent, respectively, The forint exchange rate had however weakened by 17 percent with repsect to a basket of leading foreign currencies, and within this by 14 percent to Euro and by more than 30 percent to the dollar. So, if getting the growth needed to drive GDP is the objective, and this is any evidence, then there is still a long long way for the forint to fall.

Over January-June 2009, the export and import volumes of machinery and transport equipment, which constitute 60 percent of exports and nearly 50 percent of imports, fell by and above average 24 percent in the case of exports, and by 27 percent in the case of imports.

Domestic Demand Drifts On Downwards

Construction activity was down by 5.1% in July as compared to July 2008. In the first seven months of 2009, output was down by 2.4%. In comparison June, production fell by 12.2% in July according to indices adjusted for seasonality and working days. This large drop is really only a reflect of the pre VAT introduction surge registered in June.

The two construction sectors are moving in opposite directions at the moment. Within the 5.1% aggregate increase, building construction was down by almost a quarter, while civil engineering works expanded by 19.6%. From the start of the year the construction of new buildings is down by 12.7% while civil engineering works are up by 12.3%.

From the September 2006 peak construction activity as a whole is now down by 27.58%. September 2009 will mark the start of the third year of contraction.

Hungary's retail sales fell by 2.2% in June compared to June 2008, although sales did increase by 0.5% compared to the previous month. Of course, we need to remember in this case that the 5% VAT hike was introduced on 1 July, so it is perhaps surprising that the increase wasn't bigger.

Thus the month on month increase is very misleading, since it was evidently driven by the government decision to raise value-added tax on the first of July - in an attempt to compensate for revenue losses which will be produced by forthcoming reductions in personal income and payroll taxes . So the increase in sales was in fact due to an attempt to avoid the 5% rise in VAT, and we should be ready for a sharp drop in July. Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai is in the process of implementing spending cuts worth 1.3 trillion forint ($6.9 billion) over a period two years in an attempt to keep the budget deficit in check.

While The Central Bank Is Caught In A Policy Trap

Hungary’s central bank cut its benchmark interest rate to the lowest level in 17 months at the end of August to try to help jolt the countryt out of its worst recession in almost two decades. The Magyar Nemzeti Bank lowered the two-week deposit rate to 8 percent from 8.5 percent. Monetary policy makers voted for the 50 basis-point cut with an “overwhelming” majority over a reduction to 7.75 percent according to central bank President Andras Simor. In fact the minutesd showed that the bank cut interest rates by a seven to one majority, with one member voting for a 75 base point cut.

In fact many analysts now see further easing in the pipline, but in taking this stance they need to think about two points.

i) The Hungarian government is still incredibly complacent about the inflation problem, and currently forecasts that inflation will only slow by the end of next year to something just below the central bank's current medium-term target which is itself very complacent.

"We expect inflation to slow from [an annual average of] 4.5% this year to 4.1% in 2010. As for 2010, the December inflation figure may start with a digit 2," Finance Ministry State Secretary Tamas Katona told journalists last week.

In its latest report on inflation, published in August, the National Bank of Hungary projected that inflation will likely dip below the 3% mark from the third quarter of 2010 onward. The central bank's annual inflation forecast is 2.5% on average for the second half of next year.

But if Hungary wants to avoid a substantial devaluation then the internal devaluation needs to operate, and to a significant degree, which makes these current forecasts simply laughable. You wouldn't have thought, given all the complacency that the economy was contracting at around an annual 7% rate.

ii) the key problem for the central bank is the value of the forint - given the level of household exposure to Forex loans. My opinion is that the recent recovery in the currency value has been almost entirely driven by yield differentials, and by self-fulfilling expectations (traders expect the currency to rise), rather than by any change in the underlying economic fundamentals, which as we have seen, has not taken place.

But with consumption sinking, government spending falling and exports insufficiently competitive to drive the necessary surplus, the whole thing is now becoming rather a mess, with no clear economic policy objective in the short term (except, of course, cutting the bfiscal deficit and maintaining a strong exchange rate), while in the long term the emphasis is rightly on increasing exports. But no one has any idea of how exactly to correct prices sufficiently with the CHF mortgages stuck in the middle, and it remains to be seen how the markets will ultimately respond to these rate reductions as and when the wind of risk sentiment changes, as it will.

Basically the problem is the value of the forint. My opinion is that the recent recovery in the currency value (see chart below) has been almost entirely driven by yield differentials, and by self-fulfilling expectations (traders expect the currency to rise), rather than by any change in the underlying economic fundamentals, which as we have seen, has not taken place.

The problem the central bank and the Finance Ministry have to address is the ongoing issue of the mountain of Swiss Franc denominated mortgages.

These have stopped increasing in recent times, but still constitute a serious obstacle to any devaluation of the HUF, due to the non performing loans issue this would create for the banking sector. Not only has money been borrowed against homes for to fund house purchases, it has also been loaned for consumption, so indeed the fact that even these loans are stagnating hardly bodes well in any way for domestic demand.

The result of all this botched policy is that Hungary’s EU harmonised unemployment rate rose to the its highest level in at least a decade in May and has been stick there ever since - and with the rise of unemployment, of course the percentage of impaired loans in the banking sector will also continue to grow. The rate rose to a seasonally adjusted 10.3 percent, the highest since at least 1996 and was still there in July (the latest month for which we have Eurostat data).

And the situation is more likely to deteriorate than improve, with the central bank forecasting lay-offs of around 180,000 across 2009-2010, nearly 5% of the total number of employed, and now even the number of employees in the public sector is starting to fall back.