Categories
Economics

[2689] Dear soon-to-be minister, it is y-o-y, not q-o-q

The soon-to-be Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department overseeing the Economic Planning Unit Abdul Wahid Omar commented on the 1Q real GDP growth earlier this week. He said:

”The gross domestic product (GDP) growth for the first quarter was a bit slow, but that’s reflective of the economic activities which are typically slower (in this period),” Wahid said. [Liz Lee. Wahid: M’sia growth prospects still bright, will be driven by Govt identified projects. The Star. May 21 2013]

That is untrue. He has very likely confused his base.

It is true on quarter-on-quarter basis that 1Q tends to grow slower than the other quarters but the 4.1% is not measured on quarter-on-quarter basis. Instead, it is measured on year-on-year basis which pretty much controls the seasonality that bedevils quarter-on-quarter measurement (by the way, seasonality makes unadjusted quarter-on-quarter measurement unhelpful in most cases).

If you take a look for the past 11 years or so, there is not enough evidence to show that it is typical for year-on-year growth of 1Q RGDP to be slower than other quarters. You can see it for yourself:

20130522GDP1Qtypicalgrowth

In fact, the more than 10% growth that some BN politicians liked to crow without contextual understanding happened in 1Q2010.

I hope whatever he said to the media was an honest slip of the tongue mistake. Otherwise, his term as a minister will be full of statistical controversies.

Categories
Economics

[2688] Quick reaction to 1Q2013 GDP figures: bad but not that bad

The GDP growth for the first quarter in 2013 is bad. The economy in the period grew by only 4.1% from a year ago, which is a marked slowdown from 6.5% year-on-year growth in the fourth quarter. Despite the high 6.5% growth, the fourth quarter GDP figures were problematic. An anomaly pushed the growth in that quarter up.

The latest quarter has no such anomaly and so, the headline number does a better job in describing the economy this time around. Just to give context how bad the number is, the market had expected growth to be above 5.0% year-on-year with the median as compiled by Bloomberg being 5.5% year-on-year. You can compare the latest growth rate to previous rates in the chart below; 1Q growth is the lowest since the fourth quarter of 2009 which was right at the tail end of the 2009 global financial crisis.

1Q2013 real GDP

Just earlier, France officially went back into recession with Germany barely grew after having its economy contracted in the last quarter.

Indeed, the reason for the slow growth was net exports. It was down by 36.6% y-o-y in real terms:

1Q2013 net exports RGDP

Of course, this is not the first time net exports dropped like a rock from the 7th floor. With Europe and China in trouble, exports have trouble growing. If it was not for strong growing demand from Southeast Asia and the United States, it would have been far worse.

But there is some good news. Private consumption growth accelerated to 7.5% year-on-year from a low 6.2% year-on-year. Domestic consumption growth was very much supported by consumption growth; domestic consumption growth accelerated to 8.2% year-on-year from 7.8% year-on-year.

The fact that consumption has been strong is partly the reason why net exports dropped. Consumption growth means import growth and boy, did imports grow.

I am not sure why consumption grew as it had grown. The way I looked at it, imports of consumption goods and industrial production were bad. I had expected consumption to not perform as well as it had. What was it? Minimum wage? Cash transfer? I did see MIER’s consumer sentiment spiked up but that does not explain much. I hope somebody else would be able to enlighten me on this.

Another thing that came as a surprise to me is the practically non-growth of government expenditure. I had expected all those heavy electioneering to boost government spending but it did not. In fact, government spending dropped in nominal terms! It may appear that the government may be on target to reduce the deficit ratio after all. Hurrah!

It will be interesting to see the actual federal government expenditure number later on, which is different from the GDP component.

As for investment, it was high and that made it hard for it to grow any faster. There was a one-time jump and that was it:

1Q2013 GFCF RGDP

That one time jumped led to the 26.6% year-on-year jump in 2Q2012. Investment growth has been stuck at that level ever since. The next quarter… or rather this quarter, faces the risk of investment contracting, unless there is something big coming in our way. I do not see anything big coming in the second quarter, yet.

So, after all that has been said and done, the 4.1% is bad, but it is not as bad as it looks.

I mean what is not to like?

Consumption grew well and government expenditure was stable. I like this 4.1% growth better than the “fake” 6.5% growth in 4Q2012.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
p/s — federal government expenditure actually grew by 9.3% y-o-y in 1Q2013 and revenue was down 8.6% y-o-y. Fiscal deficit ratio for the quarter was 6.4%. It is an improvement from 8.7% deficit in 4Q but I am unsure about the government lowering its deficit now.

Categories
Economics WDYT

[2687] Guess the 1Q2013 GDP growth!

So, trade surplus in the first quarter of 2013 very much contracted. Net exports in current prices were down by 44%. Although imports fared considerably better than exports in the quarter (hence the big drop in trade surplus), imports of consumption goods were weak, which may suggest that consumption itself slowed. Another bad news is that industrial production also did not grow. I do not think it was mostly due to the fact that 2012 was a leap year since March y-o-y figures were weak.

I am unsure about the investment figures but those investment figures are already high, thus making faster growth unrealistic.

On the plus side, government expenditure was likely up due to electioneering. But that part of the economy is the smallest among all of the components.

Whatever it is, that quarter growth will be significantly slower than the surprising 6.4% y-o-y achieved in 4Q2012. Consensus has it at 5.4% y-o-y according to Bloomberg. I have a feeling it will be lower.

How fast do you think did the Malaysian economy grow in 1Q2013?

  • Above 6.0% (6%, 1 Votes)
  • 5.5% - 6.0% (6%, 1 Votes)
  • 5.0% - 5.4% (17%, 3 Votes)
  • 4.5% - 4.9% (33%, 6 Votes)
  • Below 4.5% (39%, 7 Votes)

Total Voters: 18

Loading ... Loading ...

The official GDP estimates will be released by the Department of Statistics on Wednesday’s evening.

Categories
Economics

[2664] More on actual weakness of the Malaysian economy in the fourth quarter

As I have written last week, Malaysia’s 6.4% real GDP growth from a year ago in the fourth quarter of the year hides actual relative weakness in the economy. Consumption growth, investment growth and government expenditure growth slowed. Trade contracted. What contributed to faster overall growth was that both exports and imports decreased in a way that made trade surplus erosion less bad.

That is from the demand side. The weakness can be also be seen from the supply side, specifically, from the labor market.

The Department of Statistics late last week released its monthly labor survey report, which does typically receive much less fanfare. The report simply backs up what I wrote, that economic growth in the fourth quarter was weaker than what the headline GDP number suggests. And definitely less of a bang than most politicians (and pro-Barisan Nasional journalists) suggest. But forgive them. It is an election year.

The average quarterly unemployment rate in the fourth quarter was approximately 3.1%, which was slightly higher than rates in the earlier quarters. Using the Department of Statistics’ seasonal adjustment method, the average quarterly rate came at 3.3%, and that created even more divergence when compared to seasonal adjusted rates in other quarters in the year. You can see the rates here:

2012DecUnemploymentRateQuarterly

It needs to be said that in the wider scheme of things, the unemployment rate is low. Just to stress on the grand-scheme-of-things perspective, here are the monthly rates which the quarterly rates are derived from (note the vertical axis and contrast it with the previous chart):

2012DecUnemploymentRateMonthly

Nevertheless, I think the actual weakness of the economy can be seen clearer in the retrenchment statistics as released by the by Ministry of Human Resources (which is an even less observed statistics in the financial industry):

2012Retrenchmentstatistics

That is a big jump. Not as big as those seen in 2009 recession. I have not run any regression to investigate this further but it does appear to say something about the economy in the fourth quarter.

Categories
Economics

[2663] A quick reaction to Malaysia’s RGDP growth for the fourth quarter: irony and non-celebration

So, the Malaysian economy grew by 6.4% from a year ago in the final quarter of 2012.

When I first saw the headline figure, I was pleasantly surprised. Upon closer inspection however, the whole growth figures appeared weird. After I figured out why it was weird, I became uncomfortable with the high growth rate.

Domestic demand growth slowed significantly (it slowed by 3.9 percentage points in fact from the last quarter). That was the first sign that something was not right. The private demand growth figure is particularly worrying. I had expected its growth to moderate slightly but it slowed by 2.4 percentage points (ppt). That is a lot.

Here comes the ultimate irony: trade saved Malaysia. Despite the bad trade numbers we saw throughout the quarter, the one that pushed growth way above market consensus in change in change was net exports. This is where the weirdness comes in: both exports and imports contracted.

So, with domestic demand down, exports down and imports down, I would not celebrate too much. Would anybody celebrate a 6.4% growth that was caused by those contractions?

The fourth quarter trade surplus is not the kind of surplus I like.

Look at the year-on-year growth and compare the 4Q growth with 3Q:

  1. government expenditure: growth slowed by 1.2 ppt. This is small because it corresponds to only RM0.1 billion change in change.
  2. private consumption: growth slowed by 2.4 ppt. This is huge chunk: RM2.2 billion change in change.
  3. investment, which I take as gross fixed capital (instead of gross fixed capital formation); growth slowed by 14.2 ppt. RM6.4 billion change in change.
  4. net exports: its rate of deterioration slowed by 44.4 ppt down. Words may fail me here. To be clear, there was a trade surplus. I am referring to the rate of deterioration of trade surplus and it has slowed down. RM11.1 billion change in change.

So, if you think in this terms, the lower rate of deterioration of net exports or in better phrase, trade surplus, provided considerable room for faster overall growth. Graphically:

20130212GDPNX

At the end of the day, the high 6.4% growth hides something worrying: the 6.4% growth was only possible because of mathematical interactions. Domestic demand and total trade did relatively badly.

On the bright side however, the future may appear to be much better than the fourth quarter. And I think it is important to emphasize that even without the improvement in change in trade surplus, the domestic economy did grow anyway.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
p/s — I just want to add that I am not accusing the statistics authority of data manipulation, which is the feeling I get some others have gotten, especially those whom are very anti-establishment. When I wrote that the number hid something worrying, I did not mean to suggest the authority was hiding something. I merely meant to say there was more story behind the headline number. I sincerely apologize if I had convinced you that there was malice involved. I do disagree with that accusation that the authority manipulated the data.

p/s 2 — you can see the net exports level although looking at the level while thinking in change in change can be difficult:

20130212GDPNXlevel