Are improving UK Public Finances a sign of austerity or stimulus?

One of the features of the credit crunch era is that it brought the public finances into the news headlines. There were two main reasons for this and the first was the economic slow down leading to fiscal stabilisers coming into effect as tax revenues dropped. The second was the cost of the bank bailouts as privatisation of profits turned into socialisation of losses. The latter also had the feature that establishments did everything they could to keep the bailouts out of the official records. For example my country the UK put them at the back of the statistical bulletin hoping ( successfully) that the vast majority would not bother to read that far. My subject of earlier this week Portugal always says the bailout is excluded before a year or so later Eurostat corrects this.

The next tactic was to forecast that the future would be bright and in the UK that involved a fiscal surplus that has never turned up! It is now rather late and seems to have been abandoned but under the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne it was always around 3/4 years away. This meant that we have had a sort of stimulus austerity where we know that some people and at times many people have been affected and experienced cuts but somehow the aggregate number does not shrink by much if at all.

If we move to the economy then there have been developments to boost revenue and we got a clear example of this yesterday. Here is the official retail sales update.

Compared with August 2016, the quantity bought increased by 2.4%; the 52nd consecutive month of year-on-year increase in retail sales.

As you can see we have seen quite a long spell of rising retail volumes providing upward momentum for indirect taxes of which the flagship in the UK is Value Added Tax which was increased to 20% in response to the credit crunch. Actually as it is levied on price increases too the development below will boost VAT as well.

Store prices increased across all store types on the year, with non-food stores and non-store retailing recording their highest year-on-year price growth since March 1992, at 3.2% and 3.3% respectively.

There is one cautionary note is that clothing prices ( 4.2%) are a factor and we are at a time of year where the UK’s statisticians have got themselves into a mess on this front. In fact much of the recent debate over inflation measurement was initially triggered by the 2010 debacle on this front.

Public Sector Pay

One area of austerity was/is the public-sector pay cap where rises were limited to 1% per annum, although we should say 1% per annum for most as we saw that some seemed to be exempt. However this seems to be ending as we start to see deals that break it. In terms of the public finances the Financial Times has published this.

 

The IFS has estimated that it would cost £4.1bn a year by 2019-20 if pay across the public sector were increased in line with inflation from next year rather than capped at 1 per cent……….Figures published in March by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the fiscal watchdog, suggest that if a 2 per cent pay rise were offered to all public sector workers rather than the planned 1 per cent cap, employee numbers would need to be reduced by about 50,000 to stay within current budgets.

Today’s Data

The UK data this week has been like a bit of late summer sun.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £1.3 billion to £5.7 billion in August 2017, compared with August 2016; this is the lowest August net borrowing since 2007.

This combined with a further upgrade revision for July meant that we are now slightly ahead on a year on year basis.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £0.2 billion to £28.3 billion in the current financial year-to-date (April 2017 to August 2017), compared with the same period in 2016; this is the lowest year-to-date net borrowing since 2007.

Revenue

There was good news on the income tax front as the self-assessment season was completed.

This month, receipts from self-assessed Income Tax were £1.3 billion, taking the combined total of July and August 2017 to £9.4 billion; an increase of £0.4 billion compared with the same period in 2016. This is the highest level of combined July and August self-assessed Income Tax receipts on record (records began in 1999).

So we had an increase of over 4% on a year on year basis. This seems to be the state of play across overall revenues.

In the current financial year-to-date, central government received £280.4 billion in income; including £209.4 billion in taxes. This was around 4% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.

There is one area which continues to stand out and in spite of the talk and comment about slow downs it remains Stamp Duty on land and property. So far this financial year it has raised some £5.9 billion which is up £0.9 billion on the same period in 2016. A factor in the increase will be the rise in Stamp Duty rates for buy-to lets.

Expenditure

This rose at a slower rate which depending on the measure you use close to or blow the inflation rate.

Over the same period, central government spent £302.7 billion; around 3% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.

The subject of inflation remains a topic in another form as the UK’s inflation or index linked debt is getting expensive. This is due to the rises in the Retail Price Index which will be the major factor in UK debt interest rising by £3.8 billion to £26.3 billion in the financial year so far. So much so there is an official explainer.

Both the uplift on coupon payments and the uplift on the redemption value are recorded as debt interest paid by the government, so month-on-month there can be sizeable movements in payable government debt interest as a result of movements in the RPI.

The next area where there has been something of a surge raises a wry smile. Contributions to the European Union have risen by £1 billion to £4.6 billion this financial year so far.

Comment 

We can see the UK’s journey below.

Current estimates indicate that in the full financial year ending March 2017 (April 2016 to March 2017), the public sector borrowed £45.6 billion, or 2.3% of gross domestic product (GDP). This was £27.6 billion lower than in the previous full financial year and around one-third of that borrowed in the financial year ending March 2010, when borrowing was £152.5 billion or 10.0% of GDP.

We seem so far this year to be borrowing at the same rate as last year. So you could easily argue we have had a long period of stimulus ( fiscal deficits). Yet only an hour after today’s numbers have been released we seem to have moved on.

Chancellor should have room to ease austerity in November Budget, says John Hawksworth

Oh and remember the first rule of OBR ( Office of Budget Responsibility) Club? From the Guardian.

Back in March, the OBR forecast that the budget deficit would rise to around £58 billion this year, but the latest data suggest that it may be similar to the £46 billion outturn for 2016/17.

So let us enjoy a week where the data has been better as we mull the likely consequences of a minority government for public spending. Meanwhile here are the national debt numbers and as I pointed out earlier they omit £300 billion ( RBS).

Public sector net debt (excluding public sector banks) was £1,773.3 billion at the end of August 2017, equivalent to 88.0% of gross domestic product (GDP), an increase of £150.9 billion (or 4.8 percentage points as a ratio of GDP) on August 2016.

Oh and £108.8 billion of the increase is the “Sledgehammer” QE of Mark Carney and the Bank of England. On that subject here is Depeche Mode.

Enjoy the silence

Me on Core Finance TV

http://www.corelondon.tv/central-banks-infinity-beyond/

.

Advertisements

UK Public Finances see a fiscal stimulus for bond holders and the EU

Today we advance on the latest data for the UK Public Finances. This adds to a week where they have already been in the news. After all they will be affected by the HS2 railway project especially if its costs overrun as we looked at on Tuesday. It is tempting to suggest it will take place in a time way beyond how far ahead politicians think but of course the raising of the state pension age to 68 beginning in 2037 was badged as saving this according to BBC News.

The government said the new rules would save the taxpayer £74bn by 2045/46. While it had been due to spend 6.5% of GDP on the state pension by 2039/40, this change will reduce that figure to 6.1% of GDP.

If you look at the state pension system it appears that you can take away jam tomorrow but not jam today. Only yesterday I looked at this and the pension prospects for millennials who will ( rightly in my view) fear further rises in the state pension age.

The better economic news this week on inflation and retail sales will help a little in the short-term but the truth was that after the EU leave vote 2017 was always going to be more of an economic challenge due to a lower value for the UK Pound £ leading to higher inflation and lower real wages. We have some economic growth but not much.

Looking ahead

A week ago the Office for Budget Responsibility looked at the UK public finances and attempted to forecast years and indeed decades ahead. For perspective let me remind you that the first rule of OBR club is that the OBR is always wrong! However there are a few issues to look at and this summary of our current position is a start.

But the budget is still in deficit by 2 to 3 per cent of GDP – as it was on the eve of the crisis – and net debt is more than double its pre-crisis share of GDP and not yet falling. As a result, the public finances are much more sensitive to interest rate and inflation surprises than they were.

That latter sentence suggests they have been reading the discussions on here. I remember a comment pointing out that the UK would struggle if gilt yields rose above 3% and I have pointed out the impact of this year’s rise in inflation on the debt costs of index-linked Gilts. On that subject the economics editor of the Financial Times has written another piece of propaganda about the Retail Price Index saying it gives much to high a number. You may note he uses clothing prices as apparent proof but the vastly more important housing market somehow gets forgotten. Mind you if I had been a vocal supporter of putting imputed rents into the botched CPIH maybe I would suffer from selective amnesia as well.

 I keep forgettin’ things will never be the same again
I keep forgettin’ how you made that so clear
I keep forgettin’ it all ( Michael McDonald )

Still my rule that forecasts will tell us the public finances will be fine in four years time continues to be in play.

Our March forecast showed it on course to reduce the deficit to 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2021-22, but predicated on plans for a further significant cut in real public services spending per person.

Today’s data

Some of the cheer from this week’s UK economic data disappeared as these numbers were released.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) increased by £2.0 billion to £6.9 billion in June 2017, compared with June 2016………….Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) increased by £1.9 billion to £22.8 billion in the current financial year-to-date (April 2017 to June 2017), compared with the same period in 2016.

So we see that the financial year so far has deteriorated and the cause was June. If we drill into the detail we see that my point about the cost of inflation is in play as debt interest costs rose from £3.7 billion to £4.9 billion. This has to be the cost of our index linked Gilts rising as the RPI does ( currently 3.5% annually ). So far this financial year we have paid an extra £3.3 billion and whilst there may be a small cost from conventional Gilts the may player again will be higher inflation.

Also there was something which Britney Spears would describe as a combination of toxic and hit me baby one more time.

In June 2017, the UK paid £1,249 million to the EU budget through GNI and VAT based contributions, which are made net of the UK rebate. This payment consisted of our standard monthly VAT and GNI based contribution of £991 million, along with a £258 million payment adjustment covering earlier years.

That was some £700 million higher than last year.

If we switch to the broad picture then the revenue situation looks pretty good and makes us mull economic growth.

In the current financial year-to-date, central government received £164.2 billion in income; including £119.6 billion in taxes. This was around 5% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.

But we have spent more and it can hardly be called austerity can it?

Over the same period, central government spent £185.7 billion; around 5% more than in the same period in the previous financial year

Oh and rather curiously Stamp Duty receipts are up from £3 billion to £3.4 billion so far this financial year.

The Bank of England and the national debt

At first the rise of the UK national debt looks troubling.

This £1.8 trillion (or £1,753.5 billion) debt at the end of June 2017 represents an increase of £128.5 billion since the end of June 2016.

It has the feel of surging until we note the impact of the Bank of England’s Sledgehammer so beloved of Mark Carney and Andy Haldane.

Of this £128.5 billion, £86.6 billion is attributable to debt accumulated within the Bank of England, nearly all of it in the Asset Purchase Facility. Of this £86.6 billion, £69.3 billion relates to the Term Funding Scheme (TFS).

So our national debt rises so they can subsidise the banks yet again!

Comment

Depending on your perspective you can argue that the UK has seen austerity in the credit crunch era as the annual deficits have shrunk or stimulus as each year has seen a deficit. Actually we have seen a hybrid where some have experienced austerity but others such as beneficiaries of the triple-lock on the basic state pension have gained. The “Forward Guidance” is that the deficit will be gone in around 4 years time but that remains true at whatever point in time you choose to pick.

Meanwhile June has seen a fiscal stimulus except there are two catches. Firstly the main component has gone to the holders of RPI linked Gilts which means their credit crunch has been a stormer. I wish I had continued to hold some as whilst it went very well I did not realise that even more was on its way. Let us hope they spend/invest the money in the UK. Of course it will be party time at the pension fund of the Bank of England. The other catch is more toxic as the fiscal stimulus goes to the European Union of which we will only get some back. Ouch!

Meanwhile do we have another potential signal for the state of play in the UK economy? From the BBC.

Air traffic controllers are warning that UK skies are running out of room amid a record number of flights.

Friday is likely to be the busiest day of the year, with air traffic controllers expecting to handle more than 8,800 flights – a record number.

Me on Core Finance

http://www.corelondon.tv/leaky-cpi-effects/

 

 

 

Of UK Austerity and the Queen’s Speech

Today in a happy coincidence we get both the future plans of the current government in the Queen’s Speech as well as the latest public finances data. It looks as though the atmosphere is for this at least according to the Financial Times.

But he (the Chancellor) is coming under growing pressure from some Tory MPs — who are reeling from the loss of the party’s majority in the House of Commons at the June 8 election — to learn lessons and increase public spending.

Why? Well this happened.

The opposition Labour party pulled off surprise gains in the UK general election by offering voters a vision of higher public spending funded by increased taxes on companies and the rich.

So there is likely to be pressure on this front especially as we will have a government that at best will only have a small majority.

Mansion House

The Chancellor Phillip Hammond also spoke at Mansion House yesterday and told us this.

And higher discretionary borrowing to fund current consumption is simply asking the next generation to pay for something that we want to consume, but are not prepared to pay for ourselves, so we will remain committed to the fiscal rules set out at the Autumn Statement which will guide us, via interim targets in 2020, to a balanced budget by the middle of the next decade.

Is that an official denial? Because we know what to do with those! But in fact setting a target of the middle of the next decade (so 2025) gives enormous freedom of movement in practical terms. You could forecast pretty much anything for then and the Office for Budget Responsibility or OBR probably has. If we look back over its lifespan we see that one error which is that forecasting wage inflation now would be 5% per annum as opposed to the current 2% has had enormous implications. Also we only need to look back to the 3rd of October to see the Chancellor giving himself some freedom of manoeuvre.

“As we go into a period where inevitably there will be more uncertainty in the economy, we need the space to be able to support the economy through that period,” he said. “If we don’t do something, if we don’t intervene to counteract that effect, in time it would have an impact on jobs and growth.”

As later today the media will no doubt be using OBR forecasts as if they are some form of Holy Grail lets is remind ourselves of the first rule of OBR club. That is that the OBR is always wrong.

A 100 Year Gilt

You might think that with all the political uncertainty and weakness from the UK Pound that the Gilt market would be under pressure. My favourite comedy series Yes Minister invariably had the two falling together. But nothing is perfect as that relationship is not currently true. It raises a wry smile each time I type it but the UK 10 year Gilt yield is blow 1% ( 0.98%) as I type this. In terms of recent moves the market was boosted yesterday by the words of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney who with his £435 billion of holding’s is by far its largest investor. In essence the likelihood of more purchases of that sort nudged higher yesterday and thus the market rallied and yields fell.

Also we live in a world summarised by this from Lisa Abramowicz of Bloomberg.

Argentina has defaulted on its external debt seven times in the past 200 years. It just sold 100-year bonds.

Actually it was oversubscribed I believe and I will let readers decide if they think a yield of 7.9% was enough. The UK however could borrow much more cheaply than that as according to the Debt Management Office the yield on our longest Gilt (2068) is 1.52%. Actually as we move from the 2040s to the 2060s the yield gets lower but I will not extend that and simply suggest we might be able to borrow for 100 years at 1.5% which seems an opportunity.

Actually quite a historical opportunity and we could go further as this from the Economist from 2005 ( h/t @RSR108 ) hints.

In 1751 Henry Pelham’s Whig government pulled together the lessons learnt on bonds to create the security of the century: the 3% consol. This took its name from the fact that it paid 3% on a £100 par value and consolidated the terms of a variety of previous issues. The consols had no maturity; in theory they would keep paying £3 a year forever.

I have a friend who has always wanted to own a piece of Consols to put the certificate on his wall so he would be pleased. Assuming of course they still do certificates…..

Today’s data

It was almost a type of Groundhog Day.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £0.1 billion to £16.1 billion in the current financial year-to-date (April 2017 to May 2017), compared with the same period in 2016; this is the lowest year-to-date net borrowing since 2008.

So the financial year so far looks rather like its predecessor. Although below the surface there were some changes as for example it is hard to put a label of austerity on this.

Over the same period, central government spent £123.5 billion; around 4% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.

In case you were wondering on what? Here it is.

Of this amount, just below two-thirds was spent by central government departments (such as health, education and defence), around one-third on social benefits (such as pensions, unemployment payments, Child Benefit and Maternity Pay)

This meant that tax revenue had to be pretty good.

In the current financial year-to-date, central government received £110.2 billion in income; including £79.1 billion in taxes. This was around 5% more than in the same period in the previous financial year.

In case you are wondering about the gap some £20 billion or so is National Insurance which is not counted as a tax.

How much debt?

The amount of money owed by the public sector to the private sector stood at just above £1.7 trillion at the end of May 2017, which equates to 86.5% of the value of all the goods and services currently produced by the UK economy in a year (or gross domestic product (GDP)).

Actually some of this is due to the Bank of England something which we did not hear about yesterday from Governor Carney.

£86.8 billion is attributable to debt accumulated within the Bank of England, nearly all of it in the Asset Purchase Facility. Of this £86.8 billion, £63.3 billion relates to the Term Funding Scheme (TFS).

Comment

There is much to consider about austerity UK style. Ironically in the circumstances we would qualify under one part of the Euro area rules as our deficit is less than 3% of GDP. But of course that is a long way short of the horizon of surpluses we were promised back in the day. Please remember that later today as all sorts of forecasts appear, as the George Osborne surplus remained 3/4 years away regardless of what point in time you were at. As we have run consistent deficits is that austerity? For quite a few people the answer is yes as some have lost jobs or seen very low pay rises as we note it represented a switch. The switch concept starts to get awkward if we look at the Triple Lock for the basic state pension for example.

Moving onto other matters it was only yesterday that Governor Carney was boasting about the credit boom and I pointed out the unsecured portion. Well already the news has not gone well for him.

Provident Financial said recent collections performance had “deteriorated”, particularly in May. ( New York Times)

Presumably they mean the month and not Theresa. Also there was this in the Agents Report about the car market.

Increases in the sterling cost of new cars and decreases in the expected future residual values of many used cars had put some upward pressure on monthly finance payments on Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) plans.

If there was a canary in this coal mine well look at this.

Car companies had sought to offset this in a
number of ways, including increasing the length of PCP
contracts.

As the can gets solidly kicked yet again we wait to see if finance in this area is as “secured” as Governor Carney has assured us.

The Longest Day

The good news for us in the Northern Hemisphere is that this is the longest day although the sweltering heat in London it felt like a long night! So enjoy as for us it is all downhill now if not for those reading this Down Under. I gather it is also the Day of Rage apparently which may be evidenced when the Donald spots this.

Ford Motor Co (F.N) said on Tuesday it will move some production of its Focus small car to China and import the vehicles to the United States ( Reuters )

The General Election and its impact on the UK Public Finances

Firstly let me start today by expressing my deepest sympathies to those affected by last night’s dreadful attack at Manchester Arena. I do understand some of the feelings of those affected as I was just around the corner from the IRA Bishopgate bomb in the City many years ago. This time around though things are even worse with the apparent targeting of children at a music concert.

Today I wish to do a different form of travelling in time as it will be helpful to remind ourselves of the state of play some 7 years ago as we approached a General Election. From April 29th 2010.

If you look at the three published manifestoes there is a hole in each of them of a similar size, £30 billion. So in truth none of them are being transparent and honest in their spending pledges. So the answer to the question what are they not telling us? Is in economic terms £30 billion. This is just over 2% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Put another way it is around a quarter of the annual cost of the National Health Service.

So is the standard of debate, manifesto and honesty any better this time around? In terms of scale maybe a little as we see the woeful efforts from back then.

The worst offender is the Liberal Democrats who have not explained where they will find £79 billion of spending cuts which is 5.4% of national income.The Conservatives plan spending cuts but have not explained where they will find £71 billion of them which is 4.8% of national income. Labour plan spending cuts but have not explained. Labour have £59 billion of spending cuts which they have not explained which is 4.1% of national income.

What about now?

We can permit ourselves an opening sigh of relief as the numbers are much lower now as this is what we thought was the situation back then.

Our fiscal deficit for the last year was £163 billion which is 11.6% of our economic output (Gross Domestic Product or GDP).

That compares with £48.7 billion last year. So we have in fact made quite a lot of progress although much more slowly than promised as we were supposed to be in surplus by now. Oh and in a sign of how reality changes over time we now think we borrowed £151 billion in the peak year.

As to the situation post election there is more smoke than clarity but I think whoever wins the Institute of Fiscal Studies have this right.

A balanced budget can apparently now wait until the middle of the next decade.

In political terms that is beyond the furthest star! As to the detail here is the IFS again.

Labour promised £75 billion a year in additional spending and £50 billion of additional taxes. The Liberal Democrats are also aiming for tens of billions of pounds in extra spending partially funded by more tax. Yesterday’s Conservative manifesto was much more, well, conservative………The Conservatives do not appear to have felt the need to spell out much detail. But they have left themselves room for manoeuvre.

The “room for manoeuvre” has been at least partly used over the issue of social care and what has become called the Dementia Tax.Which is currently unchanged or very changed and was always intended to have a cap or has a new one depending on your point of view. Personally I think the official denials of any change are the clearest guide. As to Labour there are clear plans to spend more of which an example from its Manifesto is below.

we will establish a National Investment Bank that will bring in private capital finance to deliver £250 billion of lending power.

This sounds rather like the Juncker Plan from the Euro area but we do not know how much public borrowing there will be or why private sector capital is not supporting such investment already? There are also plans for rail and water nationalisation which as the Guardian points out would work if the UK was/is a hedge fund.

At Severn Trent, for example, the dividend yield is 3.4% at the current share price. Borrowing at 1.5% to buy an asset yielding 3.4% is not the worst trade in the world. And the state, if it wanted to act like a supercharged private equity house, would be able to juice up returns by refinancing the companies’ debt at a lower rate.

In case some of you read the piece the author was somewhat confused about UK Gilt yields but somehow ended up near the right answer. We can presently borrow at 1.6% for fifty years ( for some reason they looked at 10 years) so the doubt in the issue is whether the public sector could get the same rate of return as the private sector. But the elephant in the room is the £60 billion or so required to buy the companies in the first place. They could of course just take them but that would presumably scupper the private capital for the National Investment Bank.

As to the NHS then there seems to be little variety about.

While precise comparisons are hard, there is strikingly little difference between Labour and the Conservatives in their funding promises for the NHS.

The Conservatives are promising a real increase of £8 billion over the next five years. That sounds like a lot but it won’t go far. Nor will Labour’s only slightly less modest offering.

Although the Liberal Democrats do offer something of an alternative.

Increasing spending on the NHS and social care, using the proceeds of a 1p rise in Income Tax.

Actually in a groundhog style way the latter part of that sentence does take us back our 7 years again as the musical theme for whoever is in government next comes from the Beatles.

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet

Today’s data

Let us open with the good news.

Since the previous bulletin, the provisional estimate of central government net borrowing for the full financial year ending March 2017 has been revised down by £3.5 billion

Much of this was from higher tax receipts which particularly in the case of VAT may hint we did a little better than previously thought.

current receipts were revised upwards by £2.4 billion; VAT receipts were revised up by £1.7 billion between January and March 2017, largely due to higher than forecast cash receipts in April 2017; and Income Tax and National insurance contributions received in March were revised upwards by £0.5 billion and £0.3 billion respectively

As to April itself it was not so good.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) increased by £1.2 billion to £10.4 billion in April 2017, compared with April 2016;

Tax receipts were higher but in a potentially worrying signal it was debt costs which moved the numbers as we spent an extra £2.1 billion in this area this April. We are not told why but I expect it to be the rise in inflation and in particular the rise in index or inflation linked Gilts driving this especially as they are linked to the Retail Price Index.

Comment

As we look back that is much that is familiar about the UK Public Finances in a General Election campaign. The reality is that our politicians do not think we are not capable of accepting or dealing with the truth so we get presented with what they think we will take rather than what they think might happen. There are more holes in the various manifestoes than in a Swiss cheese!

However since the 2010 election we have made a fair bit of progress in reducing the level of annual borrowing although the concept of balance or a surplus was a mirage at best. This means that you might like to sit down as you read the change in another set of numbers. First back then it was £1.03 trillion or 65.7% of GDP. And now.

The amount of money owed by the public sector to the private sector stood at just above £1.7 trillion at the end of April 2017, which equates to 86.0% of the value of all the goods & services currently produced by the UK economy in a year (or gross domestic product (GDP)).

We should be grateful that the cost of borrowing is so low as this has provided an enormous windfall over the period to our public finances. Odd that the Bank of England does not explicitly present that as a gain from its £435 billion of Gilt purchases is it not?

What are the economics of Scottish independence?

Yesterday saw the First Minster of Scotland fire the starting gun for a second vote on independence from the UK for Scotland as the pace of possible change ratchets up yet another notch. With it came am intriguing view of how long a lifetime is these days! Although I am also reminded of the saying that “a week is a long time in politics”. However as ever I look to steer clear of the political melee and look at the economics. So how is the Scottish economy doing?

Economic growth

The Scottish government has published this data.

When rounded to one decimal place, at 2016 Q2 annual GDP growth in Scotland was 0.9 percentage points lower than in the UK. At 2016 Q3, annual GDP growth in Scotland was 1.2 percentage points lower than in the UK. Between 2016 Q2 and 2016 Q3, the gap between annual Scottish and UK GDP growth increased by 0.3 percentage points in favour of the UK (when rounded to one decimal place).

As you can see the recent performance has been around 1% per annum slower than the UK and may well be accelerating. With the UK economy overall having grown by 0.7% in the last quarter of 2016 that seems likely to have continued but of course there are always dangers in any extrapolation. If we look back we see that in the pre credit crunch period GDP growth was similar then Scotland did worse and then better as presumably the oil price boom benefited it ( although the oil sector itself is excluded). Then until the recent phase Scotland did mildly worse than the rest of the UK.

Looking ahead

The Scottish government plans to improve this and with an eye on future policy has set a European Union based objective.

To match the GDP growth rate of the small independent EU countries by 2017.

How is that going so far?

The latest data show that over the year to 2016 Q3 GDP in Scotland grew by 0.7% whilst GDP growth in the Small EU was 3.5% (measured on a rolling four quarter on four quarter basis). When rounded to one decimal place, this resulted in a gap of 2.8 percentage points in favour of Small EU. This compares to an annual increase in GDP to 2016 Q2 of 1.0% in Scotland, and an increase of 4.2% in the Small EU – resulting in a 3.3 percentage point gap in favour of Small EU (when rounded to one decimal place).

As you can see the gap here is much wider and leaves Scotland with a lot of ground to recoup. If you look at the list that may well get harder.

The small independent EU countries are defined as: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden. Luxembourg has been re-included in the newest update due to a change in availability of data.

Ireland is proving a hard act to follow.

Preliminary estimates indicate that GDP in volume terms increased by 5.2 per cent for the year 2016. GNP showed an increase of 9.0 per cent in 2016 over 2015.

It is an awkward fact that the 21% economic growth registered by Ireland in the first quarter of 2015 lifted the target away from Scotland and it continues to offer something hard to catch. Of course such large moves also challenge the credibility of the Irish data series.

What about employment?

Good but not as good as England currently.

Scotland’s employment rate of 73.6 per cent for Q4 2016, is the second highest across all UK countries, 1.3 percentage points below England. This indicates a worsening position compared with a year ago when Scotland had the highest employment rate across all UK countries, 0.2 percentage points above England (the second highest).

Natutral Resources

Crude Oil and Gas

Plainly Scot;and has considerable resources here although unless there are new discoveries these seem set to decline over time. There have also been big changes in the crude oil price as FullFact reported last October.

It is correct that crude oil prices are currently at around $50 a barrel. Back at the time of the first Scottish independence referendum in September 2014 oil was selling for just over US $90 a barrel.

Energy policy, and how oil revenue would be invested, was part of  the Scottish government’s vision for an independent Scotland……….”With independence we can ensure that taxation revenues from oil and gas support Scottish public services, and that Scotland sets up an Energy Fund to ensure that future generations also benefit from our oil and gas reserves. “

I think that FullFact were being very fair here as there were forecasts from Alex Salmond that the oil price would rise towards US $130 per barrel if my memory serves me right. Whereas it is now US $51 or so in terms of Brent crude oil. So the oil sector has seen something of a recession affecting areas like Aberdeen although there would have been gains for other Scottish businesses and consumers from lower prices.

The Fiscal Position

This has been affected both by the lower oil price and also by the recent trend to lower economic growth than the rest of the UK. The former was highlighted by this from the 2015-16 data.

Scotland’s illustrative share of North Sea revenue fell from £1.8 billion in 2014-15 to £60 million, reflecting a decline in total UK North Sea revenue.

This led to these numbers being reported.

Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £14.9 billion (10.1 per cent of GDP).

Including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5 per cent of GDP).

For the UK, was a deficit of £75.3 billion (4.0 per cent of GDP).

This adds to an issue I reported on back in my Mindful Money days in November 2013.

So there is something of a shark in the water here. If we add in the fact that Scotland spends more per head than the rest of the UK then the IFS ( Institute for Fiscal Studies) considers that the fiscal position is more dangerous. Both the UK and Scotland spend more than they get in from tax but the Scottish position is more reliant on a fading source of tax revenue. This is what leads to the following conclusion.

As it turns out that source of revenue has ended at least for now and seems to be capped by the shale oil wildcatters for the next few years. All rather different to this.

But a current strength of the numbers is revenue from North Sea oil which was 18.6% of tax revenue in 2011-12 for Scotland.

Of course there would be quite a debate over the share of the UK national debt that would belong to Scotland but the fiscal position is presently poor.

What currency?

This poses a few questions so let me repeat the issues with using the UK Pound.

1. The Bank of England will presumably set interest-rates to suit England (and Wales and Northern Ireland). This may or may not suit Scotland.

2. The value of the pound will mostly be determined by the much larger English economy in some respects similar to the way that Germany dominates the Euro. That has not worked out well for many of the Euro nations.

3. This is to say the least awkward, if further bank bailouts are required. Will the Bank of England be the “lender of last resort” in Scotland? How does this work when it has an independent treasury? Just as a guide, individual nations in the Euro area had their own central banks which survive to this day partly because of this issue.

4. There is also the issue of currency reserves and intervention which presumably also stay with the Bank of England.

5. What about the money supply of Scotland which will again presumably be controlled by the Bank of England and set for the rest of the UK?

6. Has anybody bothered to ask the citizens of the rest of the UK if they are willing to take the risk of having Scotland in a currency but not a political or fiscal union? This would take place just as the Euro is demonstrating many of the risks of such an arrangement. But added to it for the rest of the UK would be new oil or gas discoveries pushing up the value of the pound and thereby making their businesses and industry less competitive.

Comment

Scotland plainly has economic strengths with its natural resources and financial services industry. However since the last vote there has been a deterioration in economic circumstances as we have seem growth fall below that of the rest of the UK. This has led to a problem with the fiscal deficit and it is hard not to think of the criteria for joining the European Union.

New Member States are also committed to complying with the criteria laid down in the Treaty in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course after accession.

We do not know what the national debt would be but the fiscal deficit is around treble the 3% of GDP target per annum in the Euro accession rules. Of course Euro members have often ignored it but they have been much stricter on prospective entrants. Quite a Euro area style austerity squeeze would seem likely and that has been associated with recessions and quite severe ones at that.

Charlotte Hogg’s Resignation

Back on the 1st of March I pointed out the lack of competence on monetary policy she displayed in front of the UK Treasury Select Committee. Today it was announced that she offered to resign last week but Mark Carney would not take it. Now he has.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2017/charlottehoggletter130317.pdf

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2017/028.pdf

 

 

 

The growing debt problem faced by Italy

Yesterday saw one of the themes of this website raised by a rather unusual source. The European Commission released this document yesterday.

Today’s 27 Country Reports (for all Member States except Greece, which is under a dedicated stability support programme) provide the annual analysis of Commission staff of the situation in the Member States’ economies, including where relevant an assessment of macroeconomic imbalances.

Greece is omitted presumably because it is all to painful and embarrassing although of course one of those presenting this report Commissioner Pierre Moscovici keeps telling us it is a triumph. Reality tells us a different story as this from Macropolis illustrates.

The employment balance stayed negative in January 2017, with net departures climbing to 29,817 from 9,954 a year ago, data from the Labour Ministry’s Ergani information system revealed on Tuesday.

But as we note that 13 countries in the European Union were investigated for imbalances or just under half with 12 found to have them ( oddly the troubled Finland was excluded) the Commission found itself in an awkward spot with regards to Italy. Here is the label it gave it.

excessive economic imbalances.

Which led to this.

a report analysing the debt situation in Italy

So let us investigate.

Italy’s National Debt

Firstly we get a confession of something regularly pointed out on here.

in particular low inflation, which made the respect of the debt rule particularly demanding;

No wonder the ECB is pressing on with its QE (Quantitative Easing) program and as I pointed out only yesterday seems set to push consumer inflation above target which will help the debtors. Also in that section was something awkward as you see it is a statement of Italy’s whole period of Euro membership.

the unfavourable economic conditions,

We have an old friend returning although of course pretty much everyone has ignored it even Germany.

namely: (a) whether the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) exceeds the reference value of 3%; and (b) whether the ratio of government debt to GDP exceeds the reference value of 60%, unless it is sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace.

Yep the Stability and Growth Pact is back although these days in the same way as the leaky Windscale became the leak-free Sellafield it is mostly referred to as the Fiscal Compact. The real issue here for Italy though is the debt numbers are from a universe far,far away.

Italy’s general government deficit declined to 2.6 % of GDP in 2015 (from 3% in 2014), while the debt continued to rise to 132.3% of GDP (from 131.9 % in 2014), i.e. above the 60% of GDP reference value. For 2016, Italy’s 2017 Draft Budgetary Plan7 projects the debt-to-GDP ratio to peak at 132.8%, up by 0.5 percentage points from the 2015 level. In 2017, the Draft Budgetary Plan projects a small decline (of 0.2 percentage points) in the debt-to-GDP ratio to 132.6%.

We get pages of detail which skirt many of the salient points. So let me remind them. firstly a debt-to-GDP target of 120% was established back in 2010 for Greece to avoid embarrassing Italy (and Portugal). Since then both have cruised through it which poses a question to say the least for this.

Italy conducted a sizeable fiscal adjustment between 2010 and 2013, which allowed the country to exit the excessive deficit procedure in 2013

So as soon as it could Italy returned to what we might call normal although whilst it runs fiscal deficits they are lower than the UK for example. Whilst the EU peers at them they are not really the causal vehicle here. Regular readers of my work will not be surprised to see my eyes alight on this bit.

the expected slow recovery in real GDP growth

This is the driving factor here as we note that even in better times the Italian economy only grows by around 1% a year ( 1.1% last year for example) yet in the bad times it does shrink faster than that as the -3.2% annual growth rate of the middle of 2012 illustrates. The Commission describes it like this.

Italy’s GDP has not grown compared to 15 years ago, as against average annual growth of 1.2% in the rest of the euro area.

Putting it another way the economy seems set to get back to where it was at the opening of 2012 maybe this spring but more likely this summer. In such an environment any level of borrowing will raise not only the debt level but also its ratio to GDP. Thus the pages and pages of detail on expenditure would be much better spent on looking at and then implementing economic reform.

A fiscal boost

This has come form the policies of Mario Draghi and the ECB.

taking advantage of the fiscal space created by lower interest expenditure, which declined steadily from the peak of 5.2% of GDP in 2012 to 3.9% in 2016.

Of course debt costs have lowered across the world but the ECB has contributed a fair bit to this gain of over 1% per annum in economic output. I doubt Italy’s politicians admit this as they rush to spend it and bathe themselves in the good will.

Monte dei Paschi

Another old friend so to speak but it does illustrate issues building for Italy as the Commission admits. Firstly to the debt numbers explicitly.

For instance, in 2017, both the deficit and debt figures could be revised upwards following the EUR 20 billion (or 1.2 % of GDP) banking support package earmarked by the
government in December 2016.

But also implicitly as we mull current and future economic performance.

At the current juncture, following the protracted crisis, banks are burdened by a large stock of non-performing loans and may not be able to fully support the
recovery.

We left MPS itself on the 30th of December as it was socialised and in state ownership. You might reasonably think it would have been solved over the New Year break. Er no as this from the Financial Times today highlights.

Rome’s proposal to recapitalise MPS has been in limbo since December because the ECB, the bank’s supervisor, and the European Commission, which polices state aid, have different views on their responsibilities and the merits of taxpayer bailouts.

There was always going to be trouble over whether this turned out to be a bailout, a bailin or a hybrid of the two. Has any progress at all been made?

The two-month stand-off leaves fundamental questions over the rescue proposals, including the level of state support allowed, the amount of losses that creditors will suffer and the depth of restructuring needed to make the bank viable.

The creditor issue is one that resonates because ordinary Italian depositors were persuaded to buy the banks bonds in a about as clear a case of miss selling as there has been. The trouble is that the guilty party the bank’s management cannot pay on the scale required and nor can the bank inspite of it being in “optimal condition” according to Finance Minister Padoan.

Indeed some may be having nightmares about the return of a phrase that described so much economic destruction in Greece.

An Italian official said talks were on track.

Comment

This is a situation which continues to go round in circles. Europe concentrates on fiscal deficits and now apparently the national debt but ignores the main cause which is the long-term lack of economic growth. There is a particular irony that at every ECB policy press conference the Italian Mario Draghi reads out a paragraph asking for more economic reform and the place where it happens so little is his home country.

The implementation of structural reforms needs to be substantially stepped up to increase resilience, reduce structural unemployment and boost investment, productivity and potential output growth in the euro area.

Yet when the European authorities get involved we see as in the MPS saga that they “dilly and dally” as Claudio Ranieri might say. Exactly the reverse of what they expect from the Italian government and people. The next issue for the banking sector is that for all its faults the UK for example began dealing with them in 2008 whereas Italy has looked the other way and let it drag on. That poor battered can is having to be picked up.

My suggestion would be an investigation into what is now called the unregulated economy to see how much has escaped the net. Maybe people do not want to do so because they fear that it has increased but what is there to be afraid of in the truth?

Tip TV Finance

http://tiptv.co.uk/boes-deflection-strategy-not-yes-man-economics/

The UK National Debt rises to pay for yet another bank subsidy

The credit crunch era has seen two opposing schools of thought on the public finances. One side labelled as austerity is where the deficits which appeared and rose are then cut back and the other side labelled as stimulus was happy to let deficits flow anticipating that they would create economic growth in the future to solve the problem. Actually these were mostly theories as practice remained different as for example the UK looked to restrain the growth of public expenditure rather than actually reduce it. The one place where austerity was clearly applied was on Greece and that went badly as it was already slipping into depression and received a further push downwards,

More recently fiscal stimulus came back en vogue. To some extent this began back in 2013 with this mea culpa of sorts from the IMF (International Monetary Fund).

We find that, in advanced economies, stronger planned fiscal consolidation has been associated with lower growth than expected, with the relation being particularly strong, both statistically and economically, early in the crisis.

In 2016 we saw more and more calls for fiscal stimulus from the IMF and other global institutions with something of a U-Turn on Japan. From Reuters.

The International Monetary Fund said Tuesday Japan should coordinate fiscal stimulus with further central bank easing measures that could include rate cuts and more asset purchases.

Although maybe not quite a U-Turn.

Japan needs to show it will regain fiscal discipline with gradual increases in the consumption tax and an explicit cap on social security spending, he said.

So actually rather confused but the mood music did switch towards stimulus of a fiscal nature as we looked at the plans of both US Presidential candidates and the UK.  But whilst it is still very early days for President Trump some of the pressure for a fiscal boost seems to have eased so bond markets have rallied. The UK has seen one or two small piecemeal schemes but these have seemed ad hoc political moves rather than any sort of coherent plan. Although yesterday’s industrial strategy did repeat a past promise of more spending. From the Financial Times.

A government promise made in November to increase infrastructure investment by 60 per cent from £14bn in 2016 to £22bn in 2021 was reiterated in the document.

But the hints of more fiscal expansionism seem otherwise to have faded somewhat.

Today’s data

We see a familiar marginal improvement in the monthly data.

Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks) decreased by £0.4 billion to £6.9 billion in December 2016, compared with December 2015.

If we look into the detail of the numbers we see that there was a 2.2% increase in spending but that it was lower than this.

Central government receipts in December 2016 were £53.8 billion, an increase of £2.9 billion, or 5.6%, compared with December 2015.

The particular areas which were strong are shown below.

Social (National Insurance) contributions increased by £1.0 billion, or 10.1%, to £10.6 billion….. Income Tax-related payments increased by £0.7 billion, or 5.8%, to £13.3 billion……Corporation Tax increased by £0.4 billion, or 12.4%, to £4.0 billion.

It doesn’t seem that much of an improvement considering the strength of those receipts does it? Also it relies somewhat on the increase in some National Insurance rates.

Some Perspective

We get a better idea of the trends if we look at the performance in the UK fiscal year to date.

In the financial year-to-date (April to December 2016), public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (PSNB ex) was £63.8 billion; a decrease of £10.6 billion, or 14.3% compared with the same period in 2015.

So an improvement but along the lines of edging forwards especially as we note that the economy continued to growth through this period. We see some confirmation of the fact that the economy has been growing by the tax receipt figures.

Central government receipts for the financial year-to-date (April to December 2016) were £476.8 billion, an increase of £21.9 billion, or 4.8%, compared with the same period in the previous financial year.

As we look into the numbers we see that income tax receipts rose by 2.6% and Value Added Tax ( a consumption tax) rose by 3.2% broadly confirming the economic growth. There is also a ying and yang to the numbers as an area for which government’s are often criticised  performed well.

Corporation Tax increased by £3.3 billion, or 9.9%, to £36.2 billion

I suppose there is an irony in such news coming on the day that we find out that less Corporation Tax will be paid by BT after its corruption problems in Italy which seem to have risen to £530 million from £145 million. But the real yang to the ying above is the sort of last hurrah we are seeing for Stamp Duty receipts.

Stamp Duty on land and property increased by £0.8 billion, or 9.4%, to £9.5 billion

With the prospects for UK house prices and activity the surge looks set to end. Actually Stamp Duty full stop has been in a boom.

Stamp Duty on shares increased by £0.5 billion, or 23.7%, to £2.8 billion

So not a bad set and I have put the 9.2% increase in National Insurance contributions at the end because they were also driven by a rise in contribution rates for some.

By contrast central government expenditure rose by 1.4% of which the fastest rising component was this.

debt interest increased by £2.4 billion, or 6.7%, to £38.1 billion; of this £38.1 billion,

That is too soon to be the rise in Gilt yields having an impact and is much more likely to be the impact of the rise in the cost of UK Index-Linked Gilts which pay out relative to the Retail Price Index.

National Debt

The numbers continue to rise.

Public sector net debt (excluding public sector banks) was £1,698.1 billion at the end of December 2016, equivalent to 86.2% of gross domestic product (GDP); an increase of £91.5 billion, or an average of £251 million each day over the last year.

There was something new in the rise however as the Bank of England move in August helped push the national debt higher. Here is the impact of the Term Funding Scheme or TFS.

By the end of December 2016, the Bank of England had made £20.1 billion of loans through the Term Funding Scheme.

Thanks Mark Carney! Raising the national debt to subsidise the banks.

Also as we move forwards we need to note that the international standard for what is the size of the national debt is different so here are the UK numbers on that basis.

general government gross debt was £1,652.0 billion at the end of March 2016, equivalent to 87.6% of gross domestic product (GDP); an increase of £47.9 billion on March 2015.

Comment

It is easy to forget that we were supposed to be basking in a fiscal surplus now under the original plans of the coalition government back in the summer of 2010. The colder harder reality is that whilst we have made considerable progress in reducing the deficit it remains a substantial sum. As time passes the danger rises of us seeing another slow down and perhaps recession and upwards pressure going back on the numbers.A challenge will be posed at 2017 develops by the rise of consumer inflation.

Meanwhile the national debt continues to rise. In terms of debt costs that has not been much of an issue so far because of the extraordinary falls in UK Gilt yields. But they are now back to similar levels to when the Bank of England began its new QE operations and of course index-linked Gilts are becoming more expensive to finance due to the rise in inflation. It has been quite a while since government’s have felt a squeeze from this area as the QE era has brought them plenty of windfalls, and this of course just illustrates another area where QE is like a spider’s web.

Mind you compared to some forecasts we have ended 2016 in pretty good shape! So we should perhaps be grateful for that….