Is Chinese M1 growth giving a false positive signal?

Posted on Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 11:03AM by Registered CommenterSimon Ward | CommentsPost a Comment

Chinese narrow money growth has rebounded strongly in recent months, suggesting better economic prospects – see previous post. A claim has been made, however, that the surge in the official M1 measure mainly reflects a temporary impact from the local government debt swap programme, implying little significance for the economy or markets. The analysis below does not support this claim.

The debt swap programme involves provincial governments issuing bonds and passing the proceeds to related local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) in order for them to repay bank debt. The claim is that the last stage of this process has yet to occur, so LGFV money holdings have been temporarily inflated. LGFVs are classified as part of the corporate sector in the monetary statistics while corporate demand deposits account for most of the recent M1 strength.

Annual growth of corporate demand deposits rose from 4.6% in June to 16.2% in October – see chart. It is not possible to identify the contribution of LGFV deposits to this surge but a separate series is available for demand deposits of non-financial enterprises, which exclude LGFVs and account for about half of the corporate total. Annual growth in these deposits rose from 2.0% to 18.3% between June and October. It is wrong, therefore, to state that most of the increase in corporate demand deposit growth has been due to LGFVs.

The remaining segment of corporate demand deposits (i.e. the total minus deposits of non-financial enterprises) covers the LGFVs and other government-linked bodies, as well as private financial institutions. Annual growth in this segment rose from 7.1% to 14.2% between June and October. This may reflect monetary and fiscal policy easing as well as the posited debt swap effect.

As previously discussed, the Chinese M1 definition, unusually, excludes household demand deposits, which should be taken into account when assessing narrow money trends. (They are added to the official series to create the “true M1” measure followed here.) Annual growth of such deposits rose from 0.2% to 8.9% between June and October.

To summarise, the narrow money surge reflects stronger growth of household as well as corporate demand deposits while most of the latter pick-up is unrelated to the debt swap programme. Narrow money has been a good leading indicator of the economy in recent years and there is little reason to doubt the current positive signal.

UK Autumn Statement: small shift to tax-and-spend

Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 04:35PM by Registered CommenterSimon Ward | CommentsPost a Comment

The Chancellor defied claims that he was “boxed in”, finding room to abandon cuts to working tax credit, loosen the squeeze on departmental current spending and boost capital spending plans, while reducing cumulative borrowing and maintaining a forecast surplus of £10 billion in 2019-20.

He was able to achieve this feat partly thanks to helpful decisions by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Monetary Policy Committee. The OBR revised up its receipts forecast significantly, citing recent higher-than-expected income / corporation tax revenues and “modelling changes”. Projected net interest payments, meanwhile, have been cut to reflect lower market rates and the MPC’s decision to delay a reversal of QE until Bank rate reaches 2%.

The Chancellor, interestingly, chose to give himself additional spending room by raising extra revenue via a new apprenticeship levy on companies, a rise in stamp duty on buy-to-let property and second homes, and an increase in council tax.

While spending plans are less restrictive, the overall pace of fiscal tightening is little changed from the July Budget. Cyclically-adjusted net borrowing is projected to fall by an average of 1.0% of GDP a year over the next four years, slightly more than the 0.9% of GDP forecast in July.

Global money growth solid not booming

Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:37PM by Registered CommenterSimon Ward | CommentsPost a Comment

Global monetary trends have been signalling a revival in economic momentum in late 2015 and respectable growth in the first half of 2016 – see previous post. The lift was expected to be driven by Europe and Asia, with relatively weak US money growth suggesting moderate economic expansion at best.

Incoming news remains consistent with this scenario. November “flash” PMI surveys surprised positively in the Eurozone and Japan but negatively in the US. The German Ifo survey was strong, confirming a bullish signal from trucking activity – see Friday’s post. Export order responses in the German / Japanese surveys, meanwhile, suggest that global trade is reviving.

US indicators are mixed rather than signalling weakness. On the positive side, truck sales remain strong and single-family housing permits rose to a new recovery high last month. While the PMI was softer, the Philadelphia Fed manufacturing survey recovered in November and is often a better guide to the national ISM result.

Global money trends, on the analysis here, are giving a reassuring message but are not outright strong. Claims have recently been made, however, that global real or inflation-adjusted money growth is at its highest level, excluding the 2008-09 period, since the late 1980s. Such claims are dubious.

The chart shows annual rates of change of real (i.e. consumer price index-deflated) narrow / broad money and bank lending in the G7 and seven large emerging economies (the "E7"). Real narrow money (M1) growth is around the middle of its range since 2010. Real broad money (M3) growth, similarly, is below its peak in early 2013 and significantly lower than in 2006-07.

One recent report stated that global real M1 growth had risen to an annual 11%, compared with a 7% estimate here for the G7 plus E7. The former figure is difficult to reconcile with national data. On the latest numbers, real M1 growth is 12.5% in China, 11.8% in the Eurozone, 5.7% in the US and 5.4% in Japan. While real money is rising significantly faster in some emerging economies (Korea, Mexico), it is contracting in others (Brazil, Russia). To generate a “global” estimate of 11%, it is necessary to assign much higher weights to China and Euroland than their shares of world GDP, while omitting E7 laggards*.

*The G7 plus E7 aggregates are constructed by combining monthly percentage changes in national series using GDP-based weights. This approach is appropriate if 1) the focus of interest is G7 plus E7 GDP and 2) national GDP prospects depend on national money trends. The alternative of adding up currency-adjusted national money supply levels may be misleading because of large cross-country differences in liquidity preference: for example, the ratio of M1 to GDP in China is more than three times that in the US, so the adding-up approach assigns a much larger weight to money growth in China than the US.

German trucking activity suggesting stronger economy

Posted on Friday, November 20, 2015 at 01:33PM by Registered CommenterSimon Ward | CommentsPost a Comment

The "toll index" produced by the IZA research institute measures domestic trucking activity using data from the system that levies road tolls. Unsurprisingly, it is usually a good coincident indicator of industrial activity. The chart compares year-on-year percentage changes of industrial output and aggregate kilometres driven, using monthly data unadjusted for seasonals. The toll index has diverged positively from industrial output in recent months and rose sharply further in October (October output will be released on 7 December). Trucking activity has presumably been boosted by a need to transport supplies to incoming refugees but this should still signal a stronger economy, to the extent that the supplies are sourced domestically.

G7 core inflation up again, Japanese exports rebounding

Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:09PM by Registered CommenterSimon Ward | CommentsPost a Comment

Annual “core” consumer price inflation in the G7 countries and seven large emerging economies is estimated to have remained stable at 2.7% in October, a seven-year high*. A further rise in the G7 was offset by a fall in the E7, where the core rate may have peaked in June – see first chart.

Core inflation has moved up across the major developed economies this year, with the largest rises in Japan and the Eurozone – second chart. The Eurozone core rate has recovered from 0.6% in early 2015 to 1.1%, reflecting higher services as well as goods inflation, with the former increasing from 1.0% to 1.3%. Monetary policy changes take up to two years to have their maximum impact on inflation**, so the recent increase in the Eurozone core rate appears consistent with returning inflation to the target of “below, but close to, 2%” by end-2016. QE and expected further action in December may be laying the foundation for an overshoot in 2017-18.
Two key influences on G7 core inflation trends are labour market tightness and pass-through of lower commodity prices, both directly and via temporarily reduced wage pressures. In common with rises in 2000-01 and 2006, this year’s increase in core inflation followed a fall in the G7 unemployment rate below 6% – third chart.

The commodity price influence can be measured by the gap between G7 headline and core inflation, which was recently the most negative since 2009 – third chart. The gap, however, is forecast to narrow sharply in early 2016 and will close by late next year if commodity prices stabilise – fourth chart. Unless labour markets loosen, this suggests further upward pressure on the core rate.

The view that the global economy is regaining momentum, meanwhile, is supported by October Japanese trade numbers, showing export volume up by a further 1.1% last month, consistent with a METI survey forecast of a solid increase in industrial output – fifth chart.

*October available for all countries except Japan and Canada; Japan estimated from Tokyo data, Canada assumed unchanged. Core definition varies slightly across countries but in most cases excludes all food and energy items. See footnote in previous post for details.

**Source: Bank of England.