30/4/2013: Why not in Ireland?..

Bloomberg has an excellent report on MIT pairing up with Russia's Skolkovo on research, education and commercialisation:

Key stats of interest: "There were 83 international branch campuses of U.S. universities as of March, not including partnerships such as MIT and Skolkovo’s, according to GlobalHigherEd.org, a website run by researchers at the State University of New York at Albany. That number has climbed from 10 in 1990, says Jason Lane, a SUNY Albany professor."

Ok, how many are in Ireland - the country with self-professed 'best educated workforce' and focused on building 'knowledge economy' self-dubbed 'innovation island', where we are so solemnly focused on exports (yes, education is exportable and it is a very high value-adding export too)? Answer: none.

There's an MIT campus in Portugal (hardly a shining light in 'knowledge economics'), there are educational 'hubs' all over the world (http://www.globalhighered.org/edhubs.php) and campuses all around the globe (http://www.globalhighered.org/branchcampuses.php). We even have 5 Irish institutions' campuses outside Ireland (though I seem to think UCD and TCD have either plans or actual campuses too, though they are not on the list), but when it comes to the closed shop market inside Ireland, there are no top-league unis from the US trading from the Emerald Isle into Europe and beyond.

Check out this map with locations and spot Ireland... http://www.globalhighered.org/maps.php

Why?.. We have lavish facilities for some ITs built around the country with little reason or rationale for their existence. Why not convert one of them into a JV with, say, Stanford? Princeton? Hell, University of Arkansas would be an improvement... Ah, I hear the Unis dons say, competition is good when it is regulated (aka, stacked in incumbents' favour), but in the age of economic crisis, why not get universities to start really competing for exports by giving them a worthy competitor here, targeting markets outside Ireland?

30/4/2013: Business Confidence... not exactly an unbiased metric of reality

Readers of this blog would know that I have always been skeptical about 'business confidence' and 'consumer confidence' surveys as indicators of true underlying activity or predictors of the future activity. In the past I have criticised the German Ifo data on business expectations (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/02/22022013-small-cloud-over-german.html) and Irish consumer confidence indicators (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/04/2642013-another-indicator-turns-south.html) as being somewhat systemically biased into the la-la land. I even lost Sunday Tribune column back in 2007 on foot of criticising one of Ireland's largest real estate brokers' research on similar methodological basis.

Now, behold research from NBER, titled "Firms’ Optimism and Pessimism"  
(NBER Working Paper No. w18989) by RUDI BACHMANN, STEFFEN ELSTNER and (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2257179) which looks at whether in general, firms’ expectations can be systematically too optimistic or too pessimistic. The authors used "micro data from the West German manufacturing subset of the IFO Business Climate Survey to infer quarterly production changes at the firm level and combine them with production expectations over a quarterly horizon in the same survey to construct series of quantitative firm-specific expectation errors."

The authors found that "depending on the details of the empirical strategy at least 6 percent and at most 34 percent of firms systematically over- or underpredict their one-quarter-ahead upcoming production. In a simple neoclassical heterogeneous-firm model these expectational biases lead to factor misallocations that cause welfare losses which in the worst case are comparable to conventional estimates of the welfare costs of business cycles fluctuations. In more conservative calibrations the welfare losses are even smaller."

Ouch… the confidence fairy might not only be a lier, but biased lier on top of that…

30/4/2013: 2012 Was Not a Year of Brilliance for the Central Bank

From the Opening Statement by Governor Patrick Honohan at the publication of the Central Bank of Ireland Annual Report 2012, 30 April 2013


"Two major elements of the Bank’s work during 2012 came to decisive junctures early this year – the liquidation of IBRC and related replacement of the promissory notes with marketable government bonds; and the introduction of an enhanced mortgage arrears resolution framework, which was announced in recent weeks. All of these measures are ultimately concerned with creating the environment for sustainable economic growth and reduction in unemployment."

It is my opinion that 2012 marked the year when the Central Bank has done the least to deliver on any meaningful reforms and change that can create or sustain "the environment for sustainable economic growth and reduction in unemployment". The bases for my opinion are:

1. In 2013, the Central Bank attempted (key word here) to introduce an enhanced mortgage arrears resolution framework. The new framework is 'enhanced' only to the extent that the previous framework was proven to be a complete failure. However, looking forward and setting aside the failures of the very recent past, the new framework is not consistent with the goals for either reducing unemployment or enhancing prospects for economic growth. Some of my criticism of the new framework in the context of these two objectives can be found here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/04/1842013-legalising-modern-version-of.html
2. In 2013, the Irish Government has undertaken a swap of one financial liability (promissory notes) with another (government bonds). This transaction has been deemed by myself, many others, including the IMF, to have near-zero impact on debt sustainability when it comes to the Irish Government debt. The transaction was net positive for cash flow, albeit moderately, and hugely positive for PR. while th CB of Ireland did benefit significantly from improved security underlying the ELA, this benefit came at a cost to the rest of the Irish economy in the form of the conversion of the quasi-sovereign debt (promo note) into long-dated sovereign bonds.
3. Beyond the above two points, there has been very little progress on any tangible reforms in the banking sector in Ireland. We are still pursuing a duopoly model of the domestic banking market,  and there is no effective discussion, let alone effective resolution of the problem of lack of new entrants and lack of restructuring of the existent lenders. We have no new models of banking and lending in the country emerging after six years of this crisis and, if anything, we are now consolidating the strategic space in our banking services to a singular model of low-quality, low-access services supplied at an excessive cost. Both AIB and Bank of Ireland are pursuing this model, leaving customers to pick up the tab for reduced access to services and increased charges on the remaining services. This hardly supports Governor Honohan's claim that the Central Bank is working on creating and sustaining environment for growth.
4. All banking sector performance parameters have been either not improving or deteriorating over 2012 within the directly state-influenced covered group of financial institutions.

Slapping ad hoc targets on the banks to reduce mortgages arrears and then introducing masers to give them power well in excess of that awarded to the borrowers is about as productive of a measure for dealing with mortgages crisis as giving hospitals management targets for reducing the number of trolleys in corridors while removing patients protection from malpractice.

The Central Bank-supplied 'framework' is thus simply not fit for purpose, neither by the criteria of dealing effectively and humanely with the debt crisis (by first removing the unsustainable debt in systemic, transparent and fairly-priced fashion, then by addressing future moral hazard), nor in terms of placing the burden of crisis resolution where the causes of the crisis rest (proportionally with both the banks and the borrowers), nor in respect of the Central Bank claimed objectives of delivering supports for economic recovery.


Updated: Central Bank of Ireland has made a claim of 2012 'profit' of EUR 1.4 billion. But wait, a business makes profit by taking investors' / equity holders' / lenders' or own funds, purchasing inputs into production, producing something and then selling that something to willing customers who pay for these goods from their own funds. Central Bank of Ireland took claims imposed by the Government of Ireland on consumers and taxpayers, gambled these claims on the banks, who were basically compelled to take 'as offered' these Central Bank-supplied 'goods' and then collected from these captive banks pay (which the banks promptly ripped-off their customers - aka consumers and taxpayers). The Central Bank subsequently relabelled these rip-off charges 'profits' and remitted them back (EUR 1.1 billion) to the Exchequer. So can anyone explain to me what Central Bank produced that someone voluntarily was willing to buy with their own cash?

30/4/2013: German credit keeps flowing to firms... & still there's no growth

Per German Ifo institute: " Credit constraints for German trade and industry edged downwards by 0.1 percentage points compared to March. Around a fifth of the companies surveyed reported a restrictive credit policy on the part of banks. Despite recent developments in the euro crisis, there have been no significant changes in the favourable financial environment of German companies.

"After last month's decrease, credit constraints for large and small firms rose again, with the latter experiencing the sharpest increase of 1.3 percent. Medium-sized companies reported an easing of credit constraints."

So things are going swimmingly in terms of credit for German enterprises. Ease of getting credit is about as good as 2005-2007 average - the years when German banks were not just lending with abandon to domestic enterprises, but were also funding massive property booms in Spain and Ireland... yet, for all the credit access, German growth is... tanking.

So much for the Irish (and other governments') thesis that if only credit flows were improved, growth will return...

30/4/2013: The horrors of Euro-austerity: Part 1

The horrors of Euro-austerity are so vivid in this chart...

It is obvious (to anyone who is economically blind or illiterate in a basic Cartesian sense) that 'sustaining growth' would have required deficits of ugh... ogh... like... say 5% pa over 2009-2013 period? Or 6%? To cumulate these to over 25-30% of GDP in added debt? What could have possibly gone wrong?..

28/4/2013: That German Miracle...

Germany... the miracle economy of Europe:

Let's do some growth facts. recall that G7 includes such powerhouses of negative growth as Japan and Italy, and the flagship of anemia France.

1) Germany vs G7 in real GDP growth:

From data illustrated above:

• In the G7 group, Germany ranked 6th in growth terms over the 1980s, rising to 5th in the 1990s and 2000s, and, based on the IMF forecasts, can be expected to rank 4th in the period 2010-2018. In simple terms - Germany ranked below average in every decade since 1980 through 2009 and exact average in 2010-2018 period.
• On a cumulated basis, starting from 100=1980, by the end of this year, judging by latests IMF forecast for 2013, Germany would end up with second slowest growth in G7, second only to Italy. 
• On a cumulated basis, starting from 100=1990, by the end of this year, judging by latests IMF forecast for 2013, Germany would end up with fourth fastest growth in G7. Ditto for the basis starting from 100=2000.

2) Germany vs G7 in annual growth rates in GDP based on Purchasing-power-parity adjustment (PPP) per capita to account for exchange rates and prices differentials:

From data illustrated above:

• In the G7 group, Germany ranked 5th - or below average - in PPP-adjusted per capita growth terms over the 1980s and the 1990s, rising to 4th - group average - in the 2000s, and, based on the IMF forecasts, can be expected to rank 3rd - slightly above average - in the period 2010-2018. In simple terms - Germany ranked below or at the average in every decade since 1980 through 2009 and one place ahead of the average in 2010-2018 period.
• Note: Germany is the only G7 country with shrinking overall population, that peaked in 2003 and has been declining since, thus helping its GDP (PPP) per capita performance.

Here's the chart summarising Germany's rankings in G7 in terms of two growth criteria discussed:

Germany might have been performing well in 2006 and 2011 (when it ranked 1st in real GDP growth terms) and really well in 2007-2008 and 2010 when it ranked 2nd, but other than that, it has been a lousy example for any sort of a miracle.

28/4/2013: Nassim Taleb's Reading List

Following on my link to a TED talk (go figure... I am getting soft) here's another link, this time to Nassim Taleb's reading list:

http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2012/02/book-recommendations-from-nassim-taleb/

Worth a 'trip' to the Amazon...