Category Archives: Growth

Dairy debts make NZ Banks vulnerable

New Zealand dairy farmers are making banks worried about their ability to keep up with their mortgage payments. Four recent issues haven’t helped the cause:

1. Falling produce prices making it harder for farms to service debt
2. Mycoplasma bovis cutting productivity and profitability of the sector
3. Regulatory changes  – restrictions on foreign ownership and therefore reducing the value of dairy farms
4. Environmental regulations – increasing operating costs for farms

Whilst the last two might improve the long-term sustainability of the dairy sector they could reduce the profitability of highly indebted farms and their equity buffers.

Banks are closely monitoring about 20% of their dairy farm loans because of concerns about the borrowers’ financial strength. Although a dairy downturn is unlikely to threaten the solvency of the banking system, it does weaken their position if there is another external shock like another GFC. Bank lending in the dairy sector has been consistent over the last few year years but the proportion of loans on principal and interest terms has increased from 6% in January 2017 to 12% in March this year.

Although the average mortgage for most farm types has decreased in dollar value over the past six months, the average mortgage amount increased in the dairy farms – see graph below. The average mortgage for dairy farms is the highest at $5.1 million for the first time since the survey began in August 2015.

The table below shows the average current mortgage by sector over the years shown. Dairy farmers continue to hold the largest proportion of mortgages in excess of $2 million. They are also more likely to have a mortgage over $2 million – 62.5% of all dairy farms – and $20 million – 3.4% of dairy farms.

Source: Federated Farmers of New Zealand – Banking Survey – May 2018

GDP not the indicator for wellbeing – Robert Kennedy was right 50 years ago

Traditional economic measures, such as gross domestic product (GDP), productivity and economic growth remain fundamentally important but they’re not the whole picture. We think economics is ultimately about improving people’s living standards but you can’t look at GDP as the indicator to focus on.

US senator Robert F Kennedy pointed out 50 years ago that GDP traditionally measures everything except those things that make life worthwhile.

The introduction of the living standards framework in New Zealand takes into account environmental resources, individual and community assets, ‘social capital’ – which includes cultural norms and how people interact – and human capital, such as people’s health, and their skills and qualifications.

By living standards, the NZ Treasury means more than income; it’s people having greater opportunities, capabilities and incentives to live a life that they value, and that they face fewer obstacles to achieving their goals.

Limitations of GDP as a measure of standard of living – see list below.

  1. Regional Variations in income and spending
  2. Inequalities of income and wealth
  3. Leisure and working hours
  4. The balance between consumption and investment
  5. The shadow economy and non-monetised sectors
  6. Changes in life expectancy
  7. Innovation and the development of new products
  8. Defensive expenditures

 

New Zealand’s regional and per capita GDP.

From the New Zealand Parliamentary Library – April 2018.

  • Auckland region has the largest regional GDP at $101,370 millionWellington region
  • ($35,603 million), and the Canterbury region ($34,933 million). Economic output in the North Island accounted for over 77 percent of total economic output in New Zeala
  • Old with the South Island providing the remaining 22.7 percent.
    The economy expanded by 6.2 percent over the year in nominal terms (not to be confused with real economic growth of 3.7 percent over the year). The Bay of Plenty region grew the most in percentage terms, expanding by nine percent in nominal ter
  • ms, followed by the Northland and Waikato regions (8.2 percent each). In contrast, the Wellington region expanded by 4.6 percent over the year.

The region with the highest GDP per capita was the Taranaki region ($70,863), followed by the Wellington region ($69,851), and the Auckland region ($61,924). The region with the lowest GDP per capita was the Gisborne region, at $39,896 for the year ended March 2017.
The following table shows nominal GDP, the annual percentage change, and GDP per capita for the year ended 31 March 2017 by region.

Source: New Zealand Parliamentary Library. April 2018

 

 

Volvo Ocean Race and the Multiplier Effect.

I am quite an avid watcher of the Volvo Ocean Race with the daily race updates and the excellent graphics on their website – currently they are in Auckland before setting sail for Itajaí in Brazil. Most days they have news on the current positions of the yachts and who has made gains and losses in the last 24 hours. A recent race update dealt with the economic impact that the race has had on the Spanish economy and it just happens that I am covering the multiplier with my A2 Economics class.

The Multiplier Explained

Consider a $300 million increase in business capital investment. This will set off a chain reaction of increases in expenditures. Firms who produce the capital goods that are ultimately purchased will experience an increase in their incomes. If they in turn, collectively spend about 3/5 of that additional income, then $180m will be added to the incomes of others. At this point, total income has grown by ($300m + (0.6 x $300m). The sum will continue to increase as the producers of the additional goods and services realise an increase in their incomes, of which they in turn spend 60% on even more goods and services. The increase in total income will then be ($300m + (0.6 x $300m) + (0.6 x $180m). The process can continue indefinitely. But each time, the additional rise in spending and income is a fraction of the previous addition to the circular flow.

The value of the multiplier can be found by the equation ­1 ÷ (1-MPC)
You can also use the following formula which represents a four sector economy
1 ÷ MPS+MRT+MPM

Source: CIE Revision Guide by Susan Grant

Impact of Volvo Ocean Race on Spanish Economy

PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conducted a study measuring the impact of the Volvo Ocean Race on the Region of Valencia and Spain. Some their findings are:

  • The impact in the Region of Valencia has grown to 68.6 million euros in GDP and 1,270 full-time equivalent jobs.
  • Hotels, restaurants and local business were the sectors to benefit the most.
  • Alicante received 345,602 visitors from October 11 to 22, 2017, (10.3% more than in 2014-15 and 17.6% more than in 2011-12).
  • The Volvo Ocean Race had a significant positive effect on national tax revenue, adding more than 41 million euros.
  • The media value directly linked to coverage mentioning the Alicante brand over the period of the race start exceeds 36 million euros.

The Volvo Ocean Race 2017-18 has added 96.2 million euros to the Spanish Gross Domestic Product (GDP), an increase of 7.6% over the 2014-15 edition. The race also generated the equivalent of 1,700 full time jobs in Spain, according to an economic impact study delivered by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) measuring the impact of the Volvo Ocean Race on the Region of Valencia and Spain.

The impact in the Region of Valencia grew to 68.6 million euros of GDP, a 3.3% increase on the 2014-15 edition. The sectors of activity that benefited the most were local businesses and restaurants, each by more than 10 million euros. In terms of employment, the equivalent of 1,270 full-time jobs were generated, a figure similar to the last edition.

The PwC study estimates a positive effect on tax collection in Spain of more than 41 million euros as a result of an increase in economic activity and employment generated by the Volvo Ocean Race 2017-18.

The actual value of the multiplier is not mentioned in the report but from all accounts the Volvo Ocean Race has had a very positive impact on Valencia.

Property rights needed for post-Mugabe Zimbabwe

Determining who owns the land is a necessary step to development and democratisation in Zimbabwe. Nearly all Zimbabweans who benefited from Mr. Mugabe’s land reform policy lack titles, or legal ownership of their property — leaving them at the mercy of the politically powerful. Titles are necessary if landowners are going to secure bank loans and without these loans farmers cannot buy the equipment needed to move on from a subsistence farming environment and their dependence on the government for aid etc.

Government officials, aware of the situation, have urgently started to survey the 6,000 farms that were seized after the fast-track program (where white farmers were forced off their land by the pro-Mugabe ‘Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association’) in the late 1990’s. This move will hopefully mean that Zimbabwe can now qualify for badly needed loans from international creditors like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Mr. Chaparadza, the village leader, said that as part of any resolution of the land issue, the new government should compensate white farmers.

“Even if they come back, that’s fine as long as they give us another place,” he said. “We won’t deny them. What we need is only some land where we can survive — and title to the land.’’

Property rights and Hernando de Soto

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto sees a main obstacle to the development of markets and capitalism within developing countries being linked with the lack of property rights. The result of this is that most people’s resources are commercially and financially invisible. Nobody knows who owns what or where, who is accountable for the performance of obligations, who is responsible for losses and fraud, or what mechanisms are available to enforce payment for services and goods delivered. Consequently, most potential assets in these countries have not been identified or realized; there is little accessible capital, and the exchange economy is constrained and sluggish. However in the West, where property rights and other legal documentation exist, assets take on a role of securing loans and credit for a variety of purposes – building capital with capital.

De Soto estimates that about 85% of urban parcels in Third World and former communist nations, and between 40 and 53 % of rural parcels, are held in such a way that they cannot be used to create capital. The total value of the real estate held but not legally owned by the poor of these countries is at least $9.3 trillion. This is approximately twice as much as the total circulating U.S. money supply and nearly as much as the total value of all the companies listed on the main stock exchanges of the world’s twenty most developed countries. The lack of such an integrated system of property rights in today’s developing nations makes it impossible for the poor to leverage their now informal ownerships into capital (as collateral for credit), which de Soto claims would form the basis for entrepreneurship. However, in reality, it cannot be seen as the panacea. Titling must be followed by a series of politically challenging steps. Improving the efficiency of judicial systems, rewriting bankruptcy codes, restructuring financial market regulations, and similar reforms will involve much more difficult choices by policymakers. Zimbabwe seems to be in need of Hernando de Soto’s ideas. His book The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else is a good read.

Source: New York Times – 20th January 2018

Below is are two great clips from the ‘Commanding Heights’ series with Hernando de Soto talking about property rights. The second one has an interview with a Tanzanian coffee farmer and asks the question – “who owns the land around here?”

 

 

Paradox of Thrift – Great Depression & GFC

Although the paradox of thrift has been a regular part of the CIE A Level syllabus it is has only become more relevant since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). It has its origins in the 1714 book entitled ‘The Fable of Bees’ by Bernard Mandeville but it was John Maynard Keynes who really popularized this concept during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Classical economic theory suggests that greater levels of saving will increase the amount of loanable funds in the banks and therefore reduce the cost of money – interest rates. This allows people to put off consumption to a later date thereby avoiding the risk of taking on debt and thereby give people security if their jobs became threatened during a recessionary period

Keynes’ beliefs
Keynes argues that saving was not a virtue from a macroeconomic view as he believed that negative or pessimistic expectations during the Depression would dissuade firms from investing. Cutting the rate of interest is supposed to be the escape route from economic recession: boosting the money supply, increasing demand and thus reducing unemployment. He also suggested that sometimes cutting the rate of interest, even to zero, would not help. People, banks and firms could become so risk averse that they preferred the liquidity of cash to offering credit or using the credit that is on offer. In such circumstances, the economy would be trapped in recession, despite the best efforts of monetary policy makers. The graph below shows a liquidity trap. Increases or decreases in the supply of money at an interest rate of X do not affect interest rates, as all wealth-holders believe interest rates have reached the floor.

Liquidity Trap

All increases in money supply are simply taken up in idle balances. Since interest rates do not alter, the level of expenditure in the economy is not affected. Consequently, monetary policy under these circumstances is futile.

Keynes saw the 1930’s as a time when aggregate demand needed boosting – C+I+G+(X-M) – as the economy was in underemployment equilibrium. With the help of the multiplier, output and employment would increase – GDP. But with increased saving leading to reduced consumption and a fall in aggregate demand, a recession will worsen.

The fact that income must always move to the level where the flows of saving and investment are equal leads to one of the most important paradoxes in economics – the paradox of thrift. Keynes explains how, under certain circumstances, an attempt to increase savings may lead to a fall in total savings. Any attempt to save more which is not matched by an equal willingness to invest more will create a deficiency in demand – leakages (savings) will exceed injections (investment) and income will fall to a new equilibrium. In the graph below, the point of equilibrium is at E where the saving curve SS and investment curve II intersect each other. The level of income at equilibrium is OY and saving and Investment are equal at OH. When the aggregate saving increases, the saving curve shifts upwards from SS to S1S1. The new equilibrium point is E1 with OY1 level of income. Saving and investment are equal at point OT. As the level of saving increases, national income decreased from OY to OY1. Similarly, the volume of saving and investment also declined from OH to OT.

Paradox of Thrift

Negative Multiplier

People save more → spend less → another’s reduced income → negative multiplier → reduces demand → unemployment ↑ → incomes ↓ → AD↓ therefore planned increase in savings makes a recession worse.

Paradox of thrift today

The relevance of the paradox of thrift today is different from that during the Great Depression in the 1930’s. Back then consumers weren’t in as much debt as they are today and the government played a much smaller role in the economy with little or no welfare state to provide automatic stabilizers. Also the financial system wasn’t an interconnected as it is today and the financial engineering that evolved in the 2000’s allowed for the creation of instruments that had no real value to the economy – CDO and CDS. But after the GFC the expectations of consumers became very negative and as workers became fearful of losing their jobs what followed was an increase in savings as they wanted less exposure to debt, which negatively affected consumption.

Have Central Bankers’ got it wrong?

Below is very good video from the FT – here are the main points:

  • Central Banks – by lowering interest rates they could make savings less attractive and spending more attractive
  • After GFC low interest rate and asset purchases increased lending and avoided a global depression.
  • Now the world economy is not behaving as the central bankers’ said it would
  • Their theory was that with lose credit (lower interest rates) the economy would grow and inflation would rise.
  • Inflation is stagnant (unlike the 1960’s – see graph below) and this is worrying as a little inflation is required to lubricate the economy. It allows prices to fall in real terms.
  • The missing inflation may mean that the bankers’ theories are wrong.
  • Cheap money may have encouraged high asset prices and debt levels but it may undermine the economy without doing much for growth.

Inflation Unemployment.png

IMF’s global growth forecast

Below the FT’s Chris Giles talks to Maury Obstfeld, chief economist of IMF, on how the global economy is growing at its fastest rate in almost seven years. One chart (below) shows a falling unemployment rate with stagnant wage growth – Obstfeld talks of lower labour productivity as the reason for this. Well worth a look and very useful for the prospects of global growth – including developed and developing countries.

Unemp v Wages

Growth from cutting capacity – Chinese way

Economic growth is normally we associate growth with capital investment and a shifting out of the production possibility curve. The Chinese have implemented an alternative policy that entails cutting capacity of its steel and coal production by at least 10% over 5 years which will reduce global supply by 5%. The rationale behind this is that:

less supply = greater scarcity = higher prices = greater profits.

Supply curve leftAlthough there have been doubters over this policy it seems to have worked. Coal and steel prices increased as have the profits in those industries and this has led global markets to be more positive about China’s economy. The higher prices has also reduced the threat of deflation coming out of China. Furthermore the Yuan has appreciated and nominal growth has close to a five year high.

Problems with this policy:

  • The higher price caused by reduced supply raised concerns that supply would lead to surplus capacity.
  • The underlying problem was that cheap loans were forthcoming from Chinese banks for certain projects run by state-owned firms. This can lead to an uncomfortable scenario with the firms being reckless as if their investment runs into trouble they will be bailed out by the government.
  • The reducing of output of steel and coal means a loss of 1.8m jobs which will concern Chinese authorities as a top priority has been to keep unemployment as low as possible and thereby limiting possible unrest that may follow.

The Multiplier explained

An initial change in AE can have a greater final impact on equilibrium national income. This is known as the multiplier effect and it comes about because injections of demand into the circular flow of income stimulate further rounds of spending.

Multiplier Process

Consider a $300 million increase in business capital investment. This will set off a chain reaction of increases in expenditures. Firms who produce the capital goods that are ultimately purchased will experience an increase in their incomes. If they in turn, collectively spend about 3/5 of that additional income, then $180m will be added to the incomes of others. At this point, total income has grown by ($300m + (0.6 x $300m). The sum will continue to increase as the producers of the additional goods and services realize an increase in their

incomes, of which they in turn spend 60% on even more goods and services. The increase in total income will then be ($300m + (0.6 x $300m) + (0.6 x $180m). The process can continue indefinitely. But each time, the additional rise in spending and income is a fraction of the previous addition to the circular flow.

The value of the multiplier can be found by the equation ­1 ÷ (1-MPC)

You can also use the following formula which represents a four sector economy

1 ÷ MPS+MRT+MPM

MPS = Marginal propensity to save

MRT = Marginal rate of tax

MPM = Marginal propensity to import

MPC = Marginal Propensity to Consume (of additional income how much of it spent)

e.g. $1m initial spending; MPC=.8

=> income generated = 1/(1-.8) = 1/.2 = 5

=   $5m

=> $4m extra spending ($1m initial, $4m extra spending, $5m total)

Use different equations depending on the information given.

e.g.: a) if the MPC is 0.5 – 50% of the income will be spent, 50% will be saved.

then MPS is 0.5 then the multiplier is 2 = 1/0.5 = 2

b) if the MPC is 0.8 – 80% of the income will be spent then MPS is 0.2 then the multiplier is 1/0.2 = 5

c) if the MPC is 0.9 – 90% of the income will be spent then MPS is 0.1 then the multiplier is 1/0.1 = 10

What is the effect of MPT – the marginal propensity to tax or t.

  • greater MPT would lead to less income being spent in the economy

Below is a very informative mind map that I copied from an old textbook.

Multiplier.png