Category: Economic Data

RBNZ Issues Consultation On LVR Rules For Auckland Residential Property Investors

The NZ Reserve Bank has published a consultation paper about proposed changes to the rules that banks must follow for high-LVR mortgage loans.

The proposals were announced in the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Report released on 13 May 2015. They would mean investors in Auckland property would generally need a 30 percent deposit if they’re borrowing for a property, while home buyers outside Auckland would see increased availability of high-LVR mortgages.

The specific proposals are to:

  • Restrict property investment residential mortgage loans in the Auckland region at LVRs of greater than 70 percent to 2 percent of total property investment residential mortgage commitments in Auckland.
  • Retain the existing speed limit of 10 percent for other residential mortgage lending, as a proportion of total non-property investment residential mortgage commitments, in the Auckland region at LVRs above 80 percent.
  • Increase the speed limit on residential mortgage lending at LVRs above 80 percent outside of Auckland to 15 percent of residential mortgage commitments outside Auckland.

A number of loan categories are exempted from LVR speed limits, and these exemptions will be retained under the proposed policy changes. Specifically, loans that are made as part of Housing New Zealand’s Welcome Home Loan scheme, and loans that are made for the purpose of refinancing an existing mortgage loan, moving house (without increasing borrowing amount), bridging finance or constructing a new dwelling will continue to be exempt from the policy.

The paper also offers further evidence on the different risk profiles of investment versus owner occupied loans in a down turn, including data from experiences in Ireland.

“Residential property investment loans appear to have relatively low default rates during normal economic circumstances. However, the Reserve Bank has looked at evidence from extreme housing downturns during the GFC, and this clearly indicates that default rates can be higher for investor loans than for owner occupiers in severe downturns. For example, as shown in table 1, forecast loss rates on Irish mortgages were nearly twice as high for investors as for owner-occupiers. Similarly, actual arrears rates were about twice as high for investor loans (29.4 percent) than for owner occupied loans (14.8 percent) as at December 2014. Furthermore, studies which have separately estimated default rates by LVR for investor loans and owner occupier loans suggest that investor loans are substantially riskier at any given LVR. The data  shows an estimate of default rate based on current LVR. For example, if a loan was initially written at a 70 percent LVR and then prices fell 30 percent, the loan would appear in the chart below as LTV=100. This would have a mildly increased rate of default compared to a low-LVR loan for an owner occupier. But for an investor, the rate of default would be higher, and would have increased more sharply as a result of a given decline in house prices.”

RBNZ-Ireland-DefaultsNote: PDH is principal dwelling house, BTL is buy to let. LTV (loan to value ratio) is conceptually the same as LVR, but this dataset uses the current LTV (after the sharp falls in house prices) rather than origination LTV.

The consultation will run until 13 July. The Reserve Bank expects to publish a summary of submissions and final policy position in August, with revised rules taking effect from 1 October.

The Reserve Bank proposes that the policy changes take effect from 1 October 2015. This relatively long notice period is to allow banks to make the necessary systems changes in order to properly classify new lending. There is a risk that a notice period of this length could lead to some Auckland property investors rushing in to beat the policy changes. However, our expectation is that banks will observe the spirit of the proposed restrictions, and will act to curtail lending at LVRs of above 70 percent to Auckland property investors well in advance of 1 October.

Currently, compliance with the LVR policy is measured over a three-month rolling window for banks with monthly lending of over $100m, and over a six-month rolling window for banks with monthly lending of less than $100m. At the time that LVR restrictions were first introduced, all banks were provided with an initial six-month measurement period. This was done to accommodate outstanding pre-approved loans, and recognised the relatively short notice period provided. A longer first measurement period does not appear to be warranted for this change to the restriction, given more than four months’ notice of an intention to change the restriction. Further, the low speed limit for Auckland property investment mortgage lending does not provide much scope to smooth lending over a longer measurement period.

US Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy

A speech by Governor Lael Brainard at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C. on “The U.S. Economic Outlook and Implications for Monetary Policy” suggests that whilst the US economic outlook is patchy, interest rates will rise.

This spring marks the end of the Federal Reserve’s calendar-based forward guidance and the return to full data dependency in the setting of the federal funds rate. So it is notable that just as policymaking is becoming more anchored in meeting-by-meeting assessments of the data, the data are presenting a mixed picture that lends itself to materially different readings.

No doubt, bad weather, port disruptions, and statistical issues are responsible for some of the softness in first-quarter indicators of aggregate spending. Indeed, it may be that the dismal estimate by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the annualized change in first-quarter gross domestic product (GDP), negative 0.7 percent, is principally an extension of the pattern, seen for several years, of significantly slower measured GDP growth in the first quarter followed by considerably stronger readings during the remainder of the year. In that case, it would be appropriate to minimize the importance of the first-quarter estimate in judging the likely path of the economy over the remainder of the year.

But there may be reasons not to ignore the recent readings entirely. First, the limited data in hand pertaining to the second quarter do not suggest a significant bounceback in aggregate spending, which we would expect if all of the weakness in the first quarter were due to transitory factors. Private-sector forecasts of second-quarter growth are centered around 2-1/2 percent, while the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s GDPNow forecast, which was quite accurate in its prediction of the first estimate of first-quarter GDP growth, is projecting second-quarter GDP growth of only 0.8 percent.

Second, it would not be the first time this recovery has proceeded in fits and starts. The underlying momentum of the recovery has proven relatively susceptible to successive headwinds, which have kept overall economic growth well below the average pace of previous upturns.

My own reading is that earlier, more optimistic growth projections may have placed too much weight on the boost to spending from lower energy prices and too little weight on the negative implications for aggregate demand of the significant increase in the foreign exchange value of the dollar and large decline in the price of crude oil.

Based on today’s picture of moderate underlying momentum in the domestic economy and the likelihood of continued crosscurrents from abroad, the process of normalizing monetary policy is likely to be gradual. It is also important to remember that the stance of monetary policy will remain highly accommodative even after the federal funds rate moves off the effective lower bound, because the real federal funds rate will initially still be low and because of the elevated size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and the associated downward pressure on long-term rates. Moreover, the FOMC has stated clearly that it will reduce the size of the balance sheet in a gradual and predictable manner starting at an appropriate time after liftoff, which will depend on how economic and financial conditions evolve.

In summary, the string of soft data in the first quarter raises some questions about the contours of the outlook. While it is possible that residual seasonality and temporary factors were responsible, it would be difficult, based on the data available today, to dismiss the possibility of a more significant drag on the economy than anticipated from foreign crosscurrents and the negative effects of the oil price decline, along with a more cautious U.S. consumer. This possibility argues for giving the data some more time to confirm further improvement in the labor market and firming of inflation toward our 2 percent target. But while the case for liftoff may not be immediate, it is coming into clearer view. When that time comes, the policy path will be highly attuned to incoming data and not on a preset course, and it is important to be mindful of the possibility of volatility as markets adjust to a change in the stance of policy. Thus, the FOMC will continue communicating as clearly as possible regarding the outlook and the factors underlying its policy determinations.

The Budget is Still Unfair – The Conversation

From The Conversation’s “Looking inside the sausage machine.” NATSEM’s analysis of the 2015-16 federal budget, the same as used by the Howard and Rudd–Gillard governments as a policy tool, has been likened by Treasurer Joe Hockey to a sausage machine.

What makes Hockey’s analogy particularly striking is its applicability to this year’s budget process. While the government threw away the very toughest bits of gristle from last year, a number of the most unpalatable cuts are still in the mince, plus some added sweeteners.

Like last year, we have made some calculations showing the impact of the budget measures on disposable income in July 2017, once most of the proposed indexation pauses have taken effect.

Our assumptions are conservative. We consider as status quo the repeal of changes to income tax rates and the low-income tax offset. Like last year, we do not factor in the abolition of the Schoolkids Bonus, or the Income Support Bonus, because this was not strictly speaking a budget measure.

Restricting eligibility for Family Tax Benefit Part B, or FTB-B, may lead to substantial losses of disposable income for families with school-aged children – even before the Schoolkids Bonus is taken away. Our figures show that a couple with two children aged 11 and 8, where one parent earns A$60,000 per year, would lose A$84.43 per week, or 7.4% of disposable income. A single parent with one child aged 8 and no private income stands to lose A$49.93 per week, or 10.9% of disposable income.

Pausing indexation of all FTB payment rates affects the most vulnerable families. A couple with no private income and one 3-year-old child would lose A$11.24 per week, or 1.8% of disposable income, while a single parent would lose A$8.80 per week, or 1.6% of disposable income.

Working families on modest wages face a double hit if indexation pauses apply both to payment rates and thresholds. A couple with one child aged 3, where one parent earns A$60,000 per year, would lose A$21.86 per week, or 2.1% of disposable income. The same family with two children aged 6 and 3 would have A$27.81 per week less to spend, a loss of 2.4 % of disposable income. The losses for a working single parent are A$20.75, or 2%, and A$26.69, or 2.3% respectively.

Families with teenagers will also forgo indexation and receive no compensation for the wind back of FTB-B. For a single parent with one child aged 14, this means a loss of A$63.70 per week – 13.4% of disposable income if the parent is unemployed and 7.4% on an income of A$40,000. A couple on income of A$60,000 with a 14-year -old could lose up to 79.61 per week, or 7.5%.

These figures represent maximum losses of disposable income. Couples may experience lower losses if both members work. Single parents may also have different outcomes if, for instance, their family tax benefits are subject to the maintenance-income test.

Importantly, we do not include the impact of changes to child care, but if families are not currently using child care and do not use it after the changes, then our figures will be a reasonably accurate guide to the impact on these families (for example, those with school age children not using after-school care).

What NATSEM measured

Our figures broadly agree with the cameo analysis produced by NATSEM, when tax changes and the Schoolkids and Income Support Bonuses are taken into account. The NATSEM microsimulation model comes to the fore, however, in its ability to model the overall impact of complex policy changes such as the Child Care Subsidy, and its estimation of distributional impacts for the whole population – not just selected family types.

The childcare package is the centrepiece of the budget for households. It is estimated to cost A$4.4 billion over 4 years. In isolation, the package appears progressive and increases assistance more for low and middle income families than for higher income families, with the subsidy for childcare costs reducing from 85% to 50% as family incomes rise.

To finance these reforms the government proposes to maintain some initiatives from the 2014-15 budget. These include freezing family tax benefit (FTB) rates for two years, adjusting supplements linked to the benefits and freezing the upper income test threshold so that more people lose payments as their incomes increase, and most significantly to stop paying FTB Part B when the youngest child turns six.

There is uncertainty about the overall size of these savings. Because these changes were factored into last year’s budget they are not identified as new measures in the 2015-16 budget. Just before the budget, the Weekend Australian estimated these changes would cut payments by A$9.4 billion over four years. In addition, the government is proposing new changes to family payments and paid parental leave that would save more than A$1.6 billion over four years.

Clearly, the total volume of assistance for families is going down. To assess the overall household impact of the budget, it is necessary to balance who wins from the generally progressive child care assistance proposals versus who loses from last year’s and the new savings proposals.

The impact

NATSEM analysed the impact of much more than the changes in family assistance and child care and include 25 changes in the first two Abbott government budgets, comparing these with what would have happened if the previous government’s policy parameters had been unchanged. This distributional analysis involves modelling policy changes for some 45,000 real families included in two years of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Income and Housing.

NATSEM produces distributional impacts for quintiles (20%) of households by family type – couples with and without children, lone parents and single person households. Both couples with children and lone parents lose on average, with the poorest quintile of couples losing just over A$3,000 a year or 7.1% of their disposable income and the poorest quintile of lone parents losing just under A$3,000 a year or around 8% of their disposable income. Most households without children – except the poorest 20% – are estimated to have minor increases in real disposable incomes by 2018-19.

The government in Question Time has emphasised that the NATSEM calculations do not include any “second round” impacts of the budget changes. That is, the policy package put forward by the government makes work more attractive both by reducing the cost of childcare but also by cutting benefits to families, giving them greater “incentive” to increase their hours of work to make up for the loss of FTB-B in particular.

Will the Budget increase workforce participation?

Asked about the modelling during question time, the prime minister said this omission meant the modelling was “a fraudulent misrepresentation” of the government’s budget because returning people to work was “the whole point of the policy measures”.

At one level, this sounds like a reasonable criticism. The explicit aim of the budget changes is to make increased hours of work more attractive to families.

However, Treasurer Joe Hockey has also conceded that “as a rule second-round effects are not taken into account” in any budget. This is because while there are likely to be some behavioural responses to these changes, the size of that response is unclear. A 2007 Treasury Working Paper points out that estimates of labour supply responses to tax and benefit changes can vary widely.

The Productivity Commission in its report on childcare that formed the basis of the proposed childcare changes in the budget was cautious about the size of the labour supply response to its recommendations, arguing that additional workforce participation will occur, but it will be small, and is estimated to increase the number of mothers working by 1.2% (an additional 16,400 mothers).

It is also worth pointing out that the economic parameters underlying the overall budget suggest that employment effects are not likely to be substantial. The labour force participation rate is projected to rise marginally from 64.6% to around 64.75% over the forward estimates, but the unemployment rate is projected to increase from 5.9% to between 6.25% and 6.5%, which implies a small fall in the proportion of the adult population who are actually employed.

Overall, while there will be some second-round positive effects it is highly unlikely that they will offset the losses in disposable income experienced by many families with children.

Governments should welcome the type of evidence-based policy analysis exemplified by NATSEM’s work, and ideally provide it themselves. It focuses the debate on concrete questions of how policy changes affect people’s lives. To criticise the straightforward modelling approach because it yields the “wrong” answer smacks of shooting the messenger. The government should be upfront with the public about exactly what is in the budget sausage.

Why the Small Business Tax Break Could Pay for Itself

The immediate tax deduction for small business announced in the Federal Budget has been broadly welcomed, but what may have been missed is the fact that what the Government doesn’t collect now, it will collect later, according to The Conversation.

As part of the $5.5 billion small business package at the centre of its latest Budget, the Federal Government announced it would allow businesses with turnover less than $2 million to immediately deduct the cost of any individual asset purchased up to the value of $20,000, from Budget night through to the end of June 2017. The estimated cost of this accelerated depreciation measure to revenue is estimated at $1.75 billion over the four years of forward estimates.

But what should be noted about this measure is that it doesn’t change the eligibility for tax deductions of these assets; it simply changes how quickly a small business is able to receive the tax deduction.

Under the existing simplified depreciation rules for small business, an asset costing over $1000 would be depreciated at 15% for the first year, and 30% thereafter, until the taxable value of the asset pool is $1000 or less, at which point the full amount can be written off.

For a $20,000 asset, this would mean a $3,000 deduction would be allowable in the first year, and it would take around 10 years to fully depreciate it for tax purposes. This compares to a $20,000 deduction in the first year under the proposed measure.

Bear in mind, too, that small businesses fall into two general categories: those that are incorporated (companies), and those that aren’t (sole traders and partnerships). The taxable profits of small companies are taxed at a flat rate, which – assuming the announced 1.5% tax cut passes – will be 28.5%.

Unincorporated small businesses don’t get the 1.5% tax cut, as their income is included in the assessable income of the owners and taxed at their marginal rate of tax. Instead they’ll get a tax discount of 5% of business income up to $1000 a year.

Here, we’ll focus on small companies, where the flat rate of tax makes analysis easier.

For a small, incorporated business, and assuming the 28.5% tax rate, its tax bill would be reduced by $5,700 in the first year, as compared to only $855 under the existing regime. This is a total upfront benefit of $4,845, and supports the government’s argument that the change will improve cash flow for small business as compared to existing arrangements.

But the timing aspect also has a benefit for the Government, and there is evidence of this in the Budget Papers. Over the first three years of the forward estimates, the expected cost to revenue totals $1.9 billion. However, in the final year of the forward estimates (2018-19), this cost begins to reverse, and the Government expects to bring in an extra $150 million in revenue.

The reason for this reversal can be explained with respect to a hypothetical $20,000 asset purchased on July 1, 2015, by a small incorporated entity. Under the proposed rules, the company would have reduced its tax payable by $5,700 in the first year, as compared to only $855 under the existing rules.

This means the Government would collect $4,845 less tax from this company in respect of the 2015-16 tax year. However from the 2016-17 tax year onwards the Government will collect more, under the proposed measure, as this company has no further depreciation tax deductions available to it in respect to that asset.

This means that while over the forward estimates period, allowing this company to immediately deduct the cost of the asset in 2015-16 will cost the Government $1,662, it will subsequently collect $1,662 more in tax in the period beyond the forward estimates.

Mechanically, the total deduction for the asset under either the original simplified depreciation rules for small business or the proposed immediate write-off, will still be $20,000. In other words, whatever the Government doesn’t collect now it will collect later.

For the Government this is a good outcome politically for three reasons.

First, it allows it to say it is supporting small businesses to “have a go”, as Treasurer Joe Hockey puts it.

Second, even though there is a cost to revenue in the forward estimates period, over the following years this measure will have a positive impact on revenue. However, because this increase in revenue is primarily outside the forward estimates it is not visible in the Budget Papers.

This increase in revenue has to be equal to the cost – so the $1.75 billion net cost in the next four years will lead to an increase in revenue of $1.75 billion beyond the forward estimates.

Third, the Budget Papers contain only information on government decisions that involve changes since the previous Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. So while this measure will mean the Government will collect more revenue over the years 2019-20 and onwards, this increase won’t register as a change in next year’s Budget and therefore this increase won’t be quantified there as such.

Re-balancing Unbalanced

Data from the ABS yesterday and today together sum up the problem with the Australian economy. Yesterday we got the latest construction data showing that mining was dropping, and construction, especially residential construction, was up, but not enough to compensate, so the overall trend is a fall in activity. The trend estimate for total construction work done fell 1.8% in the March quarter 2015. The trend estimate for non-residential building work done rose 0.2%, while residential building work rose 3.1%. The trend estimate for engineering work done fell 4.7% in the March quarter.

ConstructionMarch2015Today we got data on private sector capex. The trend volume estimate for total new capital expenditure fell 2.3% in the March quarter 2015, the trend volume estimate for buildings and structures fell 3.7% in the March quarter 2015 and the trend volume estimate for equipment, plant and machinery rose 0.7% in the March quarter 2015. Forward looking capital expenditure (a dodgy data set by definition) shows the same trend, mining falling away quicker then other part of the economy, including construction and manufacturing not filling the gap, so net trend is down.

ExpenditeMarch2015 The painful process of re balancing away from mining is unbalanced, and we do not think the gap will be closed by a combination of residential construction, and household spending. Further rate cuts won’t do much more to assist either. It is time for a concerted look at how to drive business harder, to make productive investments in future growth. This should be a time to drive public sector construction programmes harder. Otherwise, GDP will be weaker into 2017 than the budget base case suggests.

RBNZ Still Looking For Low Inflation Key

A paper from the Reserve Bank of NZ entitled “Can global economic conditions explain low New Zealand inflation?” by Adam Richardson, was published today.

While international economic factors help explain the vast majority of why inflation in New Zealand is currently low, they do not shed additional light on the small portion of low inflation that is difficult to explain. Instead, domestic specific factors likely help account for the unexplained component of CPI inflation and this is a current focus of internal research at the Bank.

Inflationary pressure in New Zealand has been persistently low since the onset of the global financial crisis. This can be seen in the New Zealand economy in two major ways. First of all, the Official Cash Rate has remained low in New Zealand for a number of years, currently sitting at 3.50 percent. Interest rates have remained low in order to support growth and keep the outlook for future inflation consistent with the target mid-point.

Second, the weak inflationary environment can be seen in inflation itself. Since 2012, core consumers’ price index (CPI) inflation has averaged 1.4 percent – within the Bank’s target range, but below the 2 percent mid-point.

Even when accounting for developments in the international economic environment and New Zealand’s own economic conditions, inflation in New Zealand is a little weaker than the Bank’s usual modelling frameworks would suggest. That is, with the benefit of hindsight, there remains a portion of current low inflation outturns that is difficult to account for.

Overall, this unexplained portion of current low inflation is modest, in comparison to the usual level of uncertainty and the contribution international economic factors have made to current low inflation. However, it is important for the Bank to investigate potential explanations, so we can make fully informed policy decisions.

Note: The Analytical Note series encompasses a range of types of background papers prepared by Reserve Bank staff. Unless otherwise stated, views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Reserve Bank.

 

 

China’s Growth: Can Goldilocks Outgrow Bears? – IMF Paper

The latest IMF working paper analyses the recent growth dynamics in China, evaluating both cyclical positions and long-term growth prospects. The analysis shows that financial cycles play a more important role than traditional inflation-based cycles in shaping the dynamics of growth.

China’s impressive growth record speaks for itself, and the country’s policymakers have won additional accolades for the timely response to the Global Financial Crisis. The Chinese GDP has been growing at the average rate of nearly 10 percent per year in the past four decades. The well-timed policy relaxation supported growth in the immediate aftermath of the crisis. Several analysts pronounced the arrival of a goldilocks economy in China—not too hot to fuel inflation and not too cold to slip into recession —and some see a continuation of the stable economic growth as the most likely scenario for China.

A key question is how much of China’s slowdown is temporary (cyclical) versus long lasting (structural). Growth fluctuations in developing and emerging markets often follow a pattern of spans of impressive growth followed by long periods of stagnation. The concern is therefore not only about a cyclical growth slowdown typically experienced by mature economies, but a prolonged slump so often experienced in emerging markets. These fears are also fed by the observation that structural ‘imbalances’ in the Chinese economy—exceptionally high investment rates associated by some with ‘forced savings’ —have further grown since the GFC, reducing investment efficiency and total factor productivity (TFP) growth.

Headline growth in China has slowed from the pre-GFC peak of 14 percent to less than 8 percent in 2013. China benefitted from the pre-crisis global expansion, but its export-based model suffered a blow when global demand collapsed. At the same time, the authorities embarked on a massive credit-cum-investment stimulus, which cushioned the impact of the global slowdown.

China-GrowthThe paper simulates theoretical convergence growth paths by substituting China’s data to two versions of the estimated model. The actual growth path for China is significantly above the convergence path simulated from the full model (‘low convergence path’) and is oscillating around the Asian Tigers’ path (‘high-convergence path’) since the dismantling of the strict central-planning system in 1979.

In summary, the paper contributes to the ongoing growth debate by identifying the cyclical position and assessing the degree of potential output slowdown in China. The main results are:

  1. Expect growth to slow down in the near-term. Financial cycles in China play a significant role in shaping growth dynamics, and the economy is now likely near the peak of a powerful cycle propelling the economy since the GFC. An adjustment is therefore both likely and needed to bring the economy closer to equilibrium.
  2. Potential growth is slowing. This is expected as China makes progress on the long journey of converging to advanced economy income levels. As it moves closer to this technology frontier, growth will continue to slow. However, the pace of convergence, and thus China’s medium-term growth rate, will depend on structural reforms. With success in implementing reforms, China can follow the historical experience of other fast-growing Asian economies.

Currently, the ‘finance-neutral’ gap—a measure of the financial cycle—is large and positive, reflecting imbalances accumulated in the economy since the Global Financial Crisis. A period of slower growth is therefore both likely and needed in the near term to restore the economy to equilibrium. In the medium term, growth will slow as China moves closer to the technology frontier, but a steadfast implementation of reforms can ensure that China follows the path of the “Asia Tigers” and achieves successful convergence to high-income status.

Note The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate.

Effects of Income, Fiscal Policy, and Wealth on Private Consumption

An IMF working paper discusses an important issue, relating to what should have been the appropriate fiscal policy in the aftermath of the global financial crisis is very much open. There is considerable controversy over the impact of fiscal consolidation on economic activity and on why sluggish economic growth persists across many advanced economies several years after the onset of the financial crisis.

This paper looks at private consumption because, on average across countries, it is the component of GDP that accounts for the largest proportion of the overall changes to real GDP. Using econometric modelling the paper looks at the possible effects of fiscal policy on private consumption, but also explore the negative wealth effects stemming from the collapse of housing and financial assets in the context of high household debt. They argue that wealth effects played an important role weighing down consumption growth, suggesting that the effect of fiscal policy on economic activity may be overestimated if such factors are overlooked.

Two interesting data sets relating to the relative position of Australia and other countries in the analysis which shows the relative significance of private consumption in Australia since 2003. In the context of slowing income growth and very high household debt levels today, we cannot expect households to create significant GDP momentum in the next few years. Yet we have been very reliant on this for some time. In essence we have a structural economic problem.

IMF-Consumption-2 IMF-Consumption-1More generally they find that consumption is impacted by wealth effects, in addition to fiscal policy. They find a significant long-term relation between consumption and the different components of income and wealth. Labor income remains the main driver of consumption. Personal income taxes and social security contributions are found to have a negative impact on consumption, while social benefits are found to have a larger positive impact. Financial assets and housing assets are found to have a positive coefficient, while household debt is found to have a negative coefficient. Furthermore, the results suggest that the contribution to consumption from an increase in financial or housing assets would be more than offset if financed fully through in increase in household debt.

Note that IMF Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management.

China Policy Shift Prioritises Growth Over Debt Problem – Fitch

Fitch Ratings says the Chinese government directives last week concerning local government debt signal a potentially significant policy shift to prioritise growth over managing the country’s debt problem. Uncertainty over the scale and strategy to resolve high local government debt remains a key issue for China’s sovereign credit profile, and the latest directives could reflect a continuation of an “extend and pretend” approach to the issue. The directives should be credit positive for local governments, while broadly neutral for banks.

A joint directive from the Chinese finance ministry, central bank and financial regulator on 15 May, instructed the banks to continue extending loans to local government financing vehicles (LGFV)s for existing projects that had commenced prior to end-2014, and to renegotiate debt where necessary to ensure project completion. This is an explicit form of regulatory forbearance, and serves to delay plans to wind down the role of LGFVs. More broadly, it also suggests that propping up growth in the short term has temporarily taken priority over efforts to resolve solvency problems at the local government level.

Fitch estimates local government debt to have reached 32% of GDP at end-2014, up from 18% at end-2008. The CNY14.9trn increase accounts for 18% of the rise in total debt.

The authorities’ efforts to rein in indebtedness have led to a squeeze on monetary conditions and credit that has dampened growth. GDP expanded 1.3% qoq in 1Q15, and April activity data indicated the slowdown has persisted into the second quarter with weak demand across the board. Fixed-asset investment growth slowed to 12% yoy for the first four months of 2015, a 14-year low. Property investment growth fell to 6% from 8.5% in March as China’s 2009-2014 real estate boom continues to unwind.. This poses downside risk to Fitch’s projection of 6.8% growth for 2015.

Earlier, on 13 May, the central government also announced a USD160bn debt swap plan by which local governments would be allowed to convert LGFV debt for municipal bonds and where the bond yields would be capped.

For local governments, the swap will ease the interest burden at a time when a slowing economy and a significant reduction in land sales are weighing on revenue growth. Local government debt often carries interest rates in excess of 7%, whereas the local bonds that will be converted from debt under this programme will be restricted to yields not in excess of 30% above central government bonds with similar tenors.

Fitch views the development of a local bond market as credit positive in itself for local governments. They will benefit from an extended maturity profile on the bonds compared with LGFV instruments. This will significantly reduce liquidity risks, and ensure a better asset/liability match. It also widens local governments’ funding channels and builds a more transparent fiscal reporting system.

More broadly, Fitch expects the resolution of China’s debt problem will ultimately involve sovereign resources, and that debt will migrate on to the sovereign balance sheet. The agency views the debt-swap plan as part of this process, even though the new local government debt is not expected to carry an explicit sovereign guarantee – as the debt is likely to be perceived as having a strong implicit guarantee. Nonetheless, the expectation of substantial contingent liabilities is factored into China’s ‘A+’/Stable sovereign IDR, affirmed in April 2015.

For Chinese banks, the shift from debt to bonds will affect profitability, especially as the rates on the swapped bonds are being capped. Banks will receive lower yields on the same exposure at a time when net interest margins are coming under pressure owing to the macroeconomic slowdown. Furthermore, the government directive to continue extending loans to LGFVs on certain projects will have a negative effect on banks’ liquidity and leverage. More broadly, the directive highlights that banks remain subject to direct influence from the authorities, which could have an impact on management governance and standards.

However, it also reinforces the role that state banks play in economic stability, and therefore the high likelihood that they will benefit from state support. Furthermore, the impact on liquidity will be offset somewhat by the fact that banks will be able to use municipal and provincial bonds as collateral to access key lending facilities. This will enable them to boost lending to higher-margin business. Notably, too, the conversions should have some positive impact on banks’ reported capital ratios as municipal bonds have lower risk weights than local government loans.

ASEAN Financial Integration – SME Funding Needs

Interesting speech from Mr Muhammad bin Ibrahim, Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Malaysia (Bank Negara Malaysia), at the ASEAN Risk Conference. The 10 countries which together are defined as ASEAN, make up a large and fast developing economic area with 600m people, and it could be the fourth largest trading bloc by 2050. But the credit gap for SMEs in East Asia is estimated to be more than USD250 billion, due to under-developed financial systems. Cross regional financial services players could have a critical role to play in future growth and development.

The vision for an economically and financially integrated ASEAN represents the aspiration of many policy makers, old and new. A recent take on this can be found in a document titled “The Road to ASEAN Financial Integration”, a study on the financial landscape and formulating milestones on ASEAN monetary and financial integration. This document endorsed by the ASEAN Central Bank Governors and approved by the Finance Ministers presents a clear, ambitious and committed statement by the region to collectively embark on this journey. In this respect, ASEAN has made meaningful progress in the identification, articulation and implementation of principles to advance financial and economic integration among its members.

ASEAN is home to more than 600 million people and if considered as a single entity, would represent the sixth largest economy in the world with a combined GDP of USD2.5 trillion. According to the OECD, the region is projected to sustain an average annual growth of 5.6% over the next four years and is expected to be the fourth largest trading bloc by 2050. Concurrently, the standards of living among the general populace will continue to improve. Household purchasing power has risen significantly over the last decade, transforming the region into a thriving hub of consumer demand. The size of ASEAN’s consuming class is expected to double from 81 million to 163 million by 2030. By 2020, Asia is estimated to account for more than half of the total global middle class population, with ASEAN representing more than USD2 trillion of additional consumption within the region.

Also, as the sources of economic growth become increasingly domestic-based, this enables many economies to diversify their sources of growth. An important development is the significant increase in intra-regional trade. These developments augur well for the region and would expand domestic demand and further fuel greater intra-regional trade among ASEAN member countries.

The promise of higher living standards and employment is also drawing large numbers of people from the countryside to cities. Today, just over a third of ASEAN’s population are living in urban areas. This is expected to rise to 45% by 2030.

Integrating national financial systems within the region is key to unlocking ASEAN’s enormous economic growth potential. As a critical component of the AEC, financial integration will significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of intermediation and allocation of resources. This is crucial as the region pursues greater economic prosperity that is both inclusive and sustainable. By allowing the region’s financial resources to move more freely across borders, financial integration will open up new opportunities for businesses and trade, enhancing further financial linkages within the region.

A more integrated regional financial system would also allow a larger share of the region’s surplus savings to be deployed within the region towards productive ends, such as in physical infrastructure projects. According to the Asian Development Bank, ASEAN will require approximately USD1 trillion 1  over the next 10 years in infrastructure investments across the region. This includes for the provision of sufficient housing, efficient public transportation and access to clean water and electricity. While the numbers seem staggering, the ability to recycle the huge savings within ASEAN will substantially enhance the region’s prospects to fund and sustain such investments.

With one of the highest savings rate in the world, at approximately 30% of GDP which currently amounts to USD750 billion, a well-integrated regional financial system would provide a more comprehensive eco-system for an efficient and competitive intermediation and investment.

An important component of ASEAN growth is the critical role of SMEs in all economies. The AEC recognise this and calls for SMEs to play a greater role in contributing to the overall economic growth and development of ASEAN as a region. Access to financing, however, remains a key challenge for many businesses. Despite various national level efforts, more needs to be done for SMEs to obtain access to financing, including the funding required to grow their business beyond national borders. The credit gap for SMEs in East Asia is estimated to be more than USD250 billion.  The difficulties in access to financing are compounded by underdeveloped financial systems, the need to manage multiple banking relationships across different markets, and a lack of coordinated financial advisory support to help businesses navigate the regulatory and business environment in different jurisdictions. A larger presence of regional financial institutions can significantly reduce these challenges. Banks with wide regional networks would possess the intimate knowledge of each economy and understands the unique requirements of SMEs. Such banks are well placed to serve and harness SMEs’ capability to participate more meaningfully in the region’s production networks.

For ASEAN financial institutions, the prospect of regional financial integration will also serve to raise industry standards across the region. This includes enhancing the breadth and quality of financial products and services as a result of more efficient markets and the transfer of knowledge and technology. Financial institutions will also need to meet higher standards in how they manage risk and govern their operations. To some extent, this will be driven by regulatory efforts to elevate prudential and business conduct standards. But aside from regulation, greater economies of scale and scope will also make it more feasible for financial institutions to invest in talent and more advanced technology and systems, to support business development and risk management.