Tag: GDP

Categories
Economics

[2791] Frontloanding theory confirmed for 2Q15 GDP

Apart from the slowdown in consumption, I was wrong. The Malaysian GDP grew 4.9% from a year ago, considerably higher than what I thought it would be at 4.1%-4.2% YoY. Still, economic growth is decelerating quite drastically.

Malaysian GDP growth

Trade surplus did not improve as exports contracted worse than imports, and not the other way round as I wrote previously. Service trade and price factors have something to do with it since trade values published monthly had suggested otherwise. I had naively taken the number without taking into account export and import prices.

Meanwhile, investment growth crashed, becoming much weaker than what I expected. The Pengerang project has not created much dent yet.

But the two big things that caused me to miss the actual growth figure are inventories and government spending. I should have raised my inventory projection when the industrial figures come out respectably okay but the pessimistic me refused to do so. And I had expected with all the rage for deficit targeting, government expenditure would have taken a big hit (yes, I know the GDP government spending does not correspond exactly to actual federal government spending and there are other states’ government spending to account for). It grew in annual terms instead.

The thing that was really hard to get it wrong was consumption. The GST collected its toll. It was a stark slowdown, growing only 6.7% YoY after the 1Q15 8.8% YoY spike. Domestic demand growth decelerated to 4.6% YoY from 7.9% YoY in the same period.

A lot of people had expected a dip after the spike and they were right. The frontloading theory is right.

That has led me thinking about how much did consumers stock up on their foodstuff and other typical consumer non-durable goods. None of us has a warehouse to store a whole year worth of supplies.

This is a hard and important question. Whatever the answer is, it is the key to knowing when will spending normalization take place. When it happens, I think it is reasonable to expect a massive spike in consumption, at least on quarter-on-quarter basis.

If I had to guess, the normalization would probably start this quarter. We could see complete normalization by the end of the year.

Still, preempting the typical data for 3Q15, this quarter would likely be weak too and I feel we would only start getting better in 4Q15. The GST impact itself should be gone completely by 2Q16, if only because of mathematical artifact.

Categories
Economics WDYT

[2790] Guess the 2Q15 Malaysian GDP growth!

The Malaysian GDP figures for the 2015 second quarter will be out next week on Thursday.

I think it will be bad because of how the GST has hit consumption. This will be the focus next week as people write out their commentary. I am a believer of the frontloading theory but admittedly there are some problems with it as I have highlighted yesterday: consumption imports have been growing strongly much against expectations.

The trend in trade is not great either. The funny thing is trade surplus is improving in the quarter. The widening is not something to be celebrated however. Imports raced against exports to the bottom. Imports won that race no thanks to weak consumption.

The industrial index has been doing quite well despite the gloom all around. That is another funky stats that refuse to line up cleanly. The excellent EconsMalaysia believes it is really inventory build-up. That hypothesis can easily be assessed with the GDP figures.

I think, the only real good news will come from investment, especially with the Petronas Pengerang project down south. I have been there myself and it is truly massive. Still, I struggle to think of any other new big public infrastructure project that started recently. I have not heard any large scale work for the Pan-Borneo Highway despite earlier fanfare. MRT and LRT are old news. New water treatment plant? Ask Selangor. New power plant? Ask 1MDB. There are some (an understatement?) residential construction in Danga Bay but…

I could talk about inflation but with the GST in the way, it is hard to be confident about the exact CPI message. My core inflation is out of whack. The Stats Department produces a seasonally-adjusted CPI series but I have no learned to trust it just yet.

On the balance, I think our GDP growth for 2Q15 will probably be in the region of 4.1%-4.2%. I think there is an upward risk with the the weirdness in import composition and the industrial index.

What do you think?

How fast do you think did the Malaysian economy grow in 2Q2015 from a year ago?

  • 0%-2.0% (6%, 1 Votes)
  • 2.1%-3.0% (17%, 3 Votes)
  • 3.1%-4.0% (28%, 5 Votes)
  • 4.1%-4.5% (39%, 7 Votes)
  • 4.6%-5.0% (11%, 2 Votes)
  • 5.1%-5.5% (0%, 0 Votes)
  • 5.6%-6.0% (0%, 0 Votes)
  • Faster than 6.0% (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 18

Loading ...
Categories
Economics

[2789] What happened to second quarter consumption imports?

There is something quite weird going on in the imports data.

In the last quarter, we all know we had GST for the first time. It replaced an older consumption tax. After all have been said and done, the effective rate was higher than it was under the old regime. That means higher tax. You could also see it in the inflation figure that hit 2.4% YoY in May from almost 0.9%% in March when retail petrol prices took a dive.

There were concrete proofs of frontloaded purchases happening from the 2015 first quarter GDP statistics. From the 2014 fourth quarter even. Consumers did buy everything to avoid paying the new consumption tax. It happened on a scale grander than the ridiculous lines formed at the petrol station each time a price hike was announced. The GDP consumption component rose 8.8% from a year ago in 2Q15 at a time when credit growth was very weak. Bank loans used to increase more than 10% YoY each month. Now, it is about 9% YoY. All those lending requirement tightening are working.

201508GDPCvsLoanGrowthMalaysia

There is not much correlation from the chart above but the theory is, weak credit growth should affect spending growth negatively. Less money for everybody. The GDP consumption spike is jarring in that aspect, lending credence to the frontloading theory.

If the theory is right, we should see considerable weakness in private consumption growth in the second quarter. And there are quite widespread anecdotes of weaker consumer activities all around. Some statistics like car sales are extremely weak, providing more concrete proof to rely on.

On the surface, merchandise imports data suggests the same thing. In terms of value, it fell 5.2% YoY in the second quarter. In term of volume stripping off the price effect of depressed commodity prices like crude oil, gas, palm oil and rubber, it fell about 4.8% YoY in the same quarter.

So far, so good for the frontloaded purchase theory.

But there is a wrinkle.

Malaysia is a huge trading nation and it is an integral part of the global supply chain. We import not just end goods but also intermediate goods used for the production of other goods. Some are reexported.

Deep down beyond the import headlines, we can see some of these at work. The cause of import contraction however does not seem to be weak consumption growth. In fact, imports of consumption goods have been growing strongly despite the GST in the second quarter (and also despite the weakening ringgit).

201508consumptionImportsJune2015Malaysia

I cannot drill down the category too deeply. So, I do not know the exact reason behind the increase in consumption goods. I have heard explanation that goes like this: the imported stuff were really luxury goods and demand for it had not really let up, suggesting a tale of two classes in Malaysia. But I do not know for sure.

The second quarter GDP numbers will be out next week. Perhaps that would provide some answer to the puzzle.

Categories
Economics

[2777] Rebasing, revision and GDP-ratio targets

From time to time, economic statistics get revised. Usually statisticians require a lot of time to compile data and in that mad rush, certain data could left out first and included only later when everybody gets a chance to reflect. There is nothing structural about the revision. It is just about errors, corrections and business as usual.

Other times, the revisions are more structural. Some are structural only because of definition change like what happened with the concept “external debt” last year. Others include very deep changes. An example of that is the GDP rebasing exercise and it affects policy targets.

The Malaysian GDP gets rebased once every five years and the exercise consists of two parts: rebasing and revision.

The rebasing itself is simply a manipulation of index but the more significant part of the exercise is the revision that include/exclude of new/old sectors. Strictly speaking, the change in the composition of the GDP is not rebasing but instead, it is a structural revision. It is really the revision that makes rebasing such a big deal.

The revision is a problem for any policy with GDP-ratio targets as it can make such targets quickly irrelevant. Since Malaysia structurally revises its GDP once every five years (for instance, from 2010 to 2014, the GDP base year was 2005. For 2015 till 2019, the base is 2010), any GDP-related target formulated in 2013 for instance could become problematic in 2015 when a new GDP series is used.

Here are two examples.

First is the 55%-to-GDP debt limit that the Malaysian government maintains. Notwithstanding the off-the-budget spending criticism as well as the fact that the limit itself is a paper tiger and assigned arbitrarily, the government promises to keep its debt below 55% of GDP. Previously, a lot of people were worried that the government would breach the limit. Not so much now and this is largely because of the revision.

As you can see, the old GDP series (with the 2005 base) has the government cutting it close but under the 2010 GDP series, there is a lot of space still for fiddling around:

Effect of GDP revision on Malaysian debt limit

The implication? It gives the government more room to borrow just because the GDP statistics have been revised upward while allowing the government to keep to its words.

Another example is the fiscal balance of the federal government. You can see, the Malaysian fiscal deficit ratio is slightly lower under 2010 GDP series compared to the 2005 series.

Effect of GDP revision on fiscal balance

The ratio changes are not trivial from policy perspective.

In the case of deficit, previously thought to be a severe policy under one GDP series might not be so severe under the other after all. For instance, the federal government recently revised its deficit target from 3.0% to 3.2%. But 3.2% deficit under the 2005 GDP series is harder to achieve than it is under the 2010 GDP series. If the government sticks with the 3.2% target after the rebasing/revision, then the government could have higher absolute deficit and actually borrow more than it would have if there was no rebasing/revision exercise.

To put it simply, the goal post moves and it becomes larger.

This is part of the reason why I prefer to target deficit on government revenue instead of  on GDP.

I suppose the other way to correct for this is to tighten those targets every time there is a rebasing exercise.

And there are other policies beside fiscal that look at GDP-ratio too.

I think the revision would become less of an issue if it is done every year. The problem with doing it once every five years is the sudden jump, which can throw a lot of targets into questions. Policymakers make targets simply on incomplete and dated data. In fact, any target made based on the status quo would be softer than it looks like.

A yearly revision would solve that and make any GDP-ratio target more robust.

Categories
Economics

[2765] If pre-GST spending was that high, how low would it be post-GST?

The Malaysian GDP figures released yesterday suggest there was indeed a pre-GST spending spree.

Private consumption growth was phenomenal especially if you consider the fact that previous quarterly growth figures have been slowly dropping gradually over the past year from 8% year-on-year to all the way down to mid-6% in the third quarter of 2014. The latest consumption figure grew 7.8% year-on-year, which is crazy. It is so red hot that if the overall situation had not been so gloomy, Bank Negara would surely have panicked and raised its rates by another 25 basis points. This is quite a surprise even if you had believed the pre-GST spending spree hypothesis.

As a result, 2014 growth was at 6%, which is higher than most (well, all) economists watching Malaysia had projected.

But the central bank would not hike rate because the feeling is that the jump is temporary. I think it would last into this quarter before growth takes on a drowsy mode. The GST should depress consumption growth from April onwards. This is the danger. If consumption could jump so high pre-GST, how low would it get post-GST?

That is a scary thought.

This also gives more proof that consumers do expect prices to increase post-GST. I should add ceteris paribus, I guess, because the low retail fuel prices could make the net effect somewhat a wash. As for the recent electricity tariff cut, do not bother. I did a simulation and it hardly changed my headline projection.

Regardless of expectations, I am unsure there would be an actual net price hike. Last year, somebody told me the authorities expected (ranging from the Department of Statistics to the Treasury) inflation would hit 6% with GST, after months of official drive by the mainstream press that inflation would rise. Then it fell to about 4%. (You could understand why most banks are projecting about 4% inflation previously. They took the government’s guidance to heart) Now? I was informed the government expected it to be about 2%, mostly because of fuel prices. My own projection is about 3.3% YoY monthly average where I assume the GST will hit the economy in full force without any exception-zero rated stuff, but I keep several projections in the spirit of scenario analysis with the lowest at about 1.5% YoY where I pretend GST is the spoon in The Matrix.

My confidence in my models is  at an all time low and I have resigned to the fact that we will only know it in June or July when the Department of Statistics will release the April-May inflation figures. The crazy demand fluctuation, the retail fuel flotation and the GST make projections go everywhere.