The Household Sector in the first half of 2023

A few weeks ago, the CSO published the Q2 2023 update of the non-financial institutional sector accounts. We will use those to check in on the status of the household sector for the first six months of this year (H1) and how it compares to last year and to 2008.

First, the current account.  In the prevailing environment, it is important to note that the figures in the table below are in nominal terms, i.e. not inflation adjusted.  We will look at some of the aggregates in constant prices towards the end of the post.

The start point of the current account here is Gross Domestic Product. For the household sector this is the value added produced, a large share of which is due to the imputed rents attributed to owner-occupier households with the remainder arising from the activities of the self-employed.

From there the account proceeds through a series of inflows and outflows until the bottom line is reached, Gross Savings, which is disposable income not used for consumption.

Most of the items in the table show an increase for H1 2023 over H1 2022.  One of the most significant is the continued growth of compensation of employees received.  This is up 7.3 per cent (remember in nominal terms) and stood at €64.6 billion for the first six months of the year.  Non-financial corporations are the most important source of COE and their pay outlays are up 8.0 per cent in year-on-year terms.

The largest relative changes are for the interest flows. Both interest paid and interest received are up almost 60 per cent in 2023. Taxes on income and social contributions, particularly those paid to the government sector, rose in line with the rise in income.  Social benefits received rose slightly for H1 2023 but remain lower than they were in 2020 and 2021 as COVID-19 supports were withdrawn.

All told, the national accounts estimate of household disposable income for H1 2023 was €73.8 billion.  With consumption expenditure of €64.8 billion and a €1.8 billion adjustment for the excess of contributions to private pensions over benefits received from them, the gross saving of the household sector is put at €10.6 billion for the first six months of the year. 

This is lower than each of the previous three years and gives a savings rate of 14.5 per cent for H1 2023, which remains slightly higher than the 12.1 per cent recorded for H1 2019 in pre-COVID times.

To see how that saving might be used we can turn to the capital account.

Again, the figures are in nominal terms.  The key figures in the capital account are the amount Gross Savings taken from the current account and the amount of Gross Capital Formation (investment in new capital assets) undertaken by households.  These are the main items that give rise to the net borrowing/lending of the household sector.  There are some other minor flows for capital taxes paid, investment grants received and other capital transfers.

With gross savings of €10.6 billion and with the household sector “only” undertaking €4.5 billion of gross capital formation, the household sector had €6.6 billion available for net lending. This goes on the financial balance sheet.

The CSO don’t do quarterly updates of their financial institutional sector accounts but the Central Bank do with estimates for Q1 2023 the latest available.  These show the household sector adding a further €2.7 billion to their burgeoning deposit balances. Between currency and deposits, the Central Bank estimate that the household sector had €198 billion on hand in Q1 2023, up from €154 billion in Q1 2020.  Households also used savings to make the contributions to private pensions referenced above.

On the liability side there was very little movement in Q1.  Repayments on existing loans were pretty much equivalent to drawdowns of new loans, with a net increase in loan liabilities of just €36 million in Q1.  Though it should be noted that repayments have exceeded drawdowns for the past 15 years or so.

All told, the Central Bank estimate that the household sector had €507 billion of financial assets at the end of Q1 2023, with an offsetting amount of liabilities of €143 billion.

Some Constant Price Series

The CSO also some of the main aggregates using constant prices. These series are also seasonally adjusted.  Here are the series for Disposable Income and Consumption Expenditure.

It can readily be seen that the income increase shown in the table for the current account in nominal terms is eliminated with the adjustment to constant prices. In real terms, aggregate household disposable income has been declining in recent quarters.  Real consumption has continued to rise and is not far off its pre-COVID trend.  In aggregate terms, both series are well ahead of the previous peaks reached in 2008.

To conclude, we make one additional adjustment to the CSO constant price series – put them in per capita terms.

As the population is growing fairly rapidly this shows that the decline in per capita income is more pronounced than that shown by the aggregate figures, and that per capita real consumption has essentially been flat for the past year or so.

It is also interesting to make comparisons back to the previous local maxima for each series from 2008.  Both the disposable income and consumption series are actually little different to their peaks in early 2008 – the latest readings put both series about 2 per cent above those 2008 peaks.

This might suggest a “lost 15 years”.  However, the environment on which each were achieved are wholly different.  We can see this by looking at the ‘Saving minus Investment’ of the household and government sectors.  This is each sector’s contribution to the current account of the Balance of Payments and is the Net Lending/(Borrowing) of a sector excluding capital taxes, investment grants and capital transfers.  For this we return to nominal figures and annualise them by looking at their four-quarter moving sum.

The difference between 2008 and 2023 is huge. In 2008, the household sector was in deficit to the tune of €20 billion.  Via the circular flow, this borrowing was contributing to household income.  When the crash came the borrowing was taken over by the government as tax revenues collapsed and spending on income supports increased.  Without this borrowing, income (and consumption) would have been much lower.

For 2023, there is a combined surplus of €20 billion.  There is a €40 billion difference between the positions of 2008 and that of 2023.  Now both the household and government sectors have an excess of disposable income over their consumption and capital formation expenditure.  In terms of GNI*, it is equivalent to going from borrowing 12 per cent of national income to lending 8 per cent of national income.  Simply comparing the income and consumption outcomes misses the scale of the turnaround in the borrowing/(lending) position of the economy.

We are in an income position to spend more – Corporation Tax concerns aside! But do we have the resource capacity to produce the things that we would like to buy, such as new housing units?

Tweet

The aggregate Corporate Tax calculation enters an unsettled spell

In recent years when looking at the annual update from the Revenue Commissioners of the aggregate corporate tax calculation we noted that things were relatively calm, albeit it with elevated levels of receipts.  These were for tax returns filed for financial years ending during the 2018, 2019 and 2020 calendar years.

We now have the update for tax returns filed filed for financial years ending during 2021 (the last of these returns would have been filed in September 2022).  The 2015 upheaval is a well-worn track so we will just focus on the five most recent years.

The Determination of Taxable Income

We’ll start with the determination of taxable income.

Right from the top we can see big changes for 2021.  There an increase of over €55 billion in gross trading profits recorded on tax returns for the year, reaching €250 billion.  This carries right the way down the table with the end showing that taxable income increased by over €40 billion.

However, there are some significant changes along the way. Early on, we see that after being relatively stable from 2018 to 2020 the amount of capital allowances used jumped again in 2021, coming in at just under €100 billion as a result of a €23 billion increase.

Next we see a large increase in foreign income included in the tax returns of Irish-resident companies.  For 2021, this exceeded €20 billion for the first time and was close to €10 billion more than the next highest year.  The next part of the table will show the impact of this on tax payments (answer: very little). 

Other income also saw a jump in the amount of capital gains included to reach €5 billion in 2021. This is actually a regrossed amount.  The applicable CGT rate is 33% but the gains are included in the tax return to be taxed at 12.5 per cent. Hence, the gains are regrossed and multiplied by 2.64 (= 33/12.5) to get the amount to give the necessary amount of tax.

In charges and deduction we see that trade charges, mainly certain royalty expenses, rose back to levels seen up to 2019.  This was the largest change among these items.

All told, the CT returns filed for years ending during 2021 had just over €150 billion of taxable income with €6 billion of that subject to tax at 25 per cent.  We now turn to the calculation of tax due.

The Determination of Tax Due

The starting point of this part of the calculation, Gross Tax Due is simply the amount of taxable income multiplied by the applicable rates (either 12.5 or 25 per cent).

The relative simplicity of the Irish CT regime means there isn’t a whole lot going on here.  The biggest reason for the reduction of gross tax due is because of tax already paid. 

The largest single item in the above table is double taxation relief and this was almost €3 billion in 2021.  The additional foreign tax credit of nearly €450 million can be added to this.  These reflection the foreign corporate taxes paid on the €23.5 billion of foreign income included in the top half of the table.  Little additional Irish tax is due as the amount already paid, albeit abroad, covers the gross tax due in Ireland.

The item for gross withholding tax on fees is somewhat similar but in this case it is Irish tax that has already been paid.  In some circumstances, when the buyer of services is paying them they will pay 80 per cent of the invoiced amount to the supplier and 20 per cent to the Revenue Commissioners.  The 20 per cent represents a withholding tax at the standard rate of Income Tax.  When filing their tax returns, companies will record any service fees that have been withheld from them and reduce their tax due figure accordingly.  The Revenue Commissioners will already have received the amount.

The most significant item in the table that actually reduces companies’ tax bills is the R&D tac credit.  Between the R&D credit used and the excess R&D credit refunded the total cost was just over €750 million in 2021, a slight increase on the outturn for 2021.

All told, the bottom line is a tax due figure of €15.1 billion for tax returns filed for periods ending during 2021.  There are some timing differences but we can that, in recent years, the tax due figure from the aggregate CT calculation, closely matches the CT receipts collected for the Exchequer.

We will conclude with a look at some of the tumult in the aggregate figures, with most of this seeming to concern capital allowances, in particular those for intangible assets.

Snowballing Claims for Capital Allowances

As before we will look at the total amount of capital allowances claimed, the total amount used (that is, actually offset against gross profit) and the consumption of fixed capital from the National Accounts.

Up to 2019, the most significant feature was the growth in the figures. he ratios shown were relatively stable.  Up to 2019, capital allowances used were just over 90 per cent of the amount claimed, and consumption of fixed capital (depreciation) in the National Accounts was just under 90 per cent of the amount claimed.  This stability did not continued into 2020.

In 2020, we can see that capital allowances used fell to just over 50 per cent of the amount claimed.  We also see a break in the link between capital allowances claimed and consumption for fixed capital in the national accounts.

The break of this link is interesting as it suggests that the increase in capital allowances claimed is not fully linked to assets that would be included in the capital stock for National Accounts purposes.  In the last two years, capital allowances claimed in the aggregate CT calculation have risen by over €80 billion (from €86 billion to €173 billion) while consumption of fixed capital for NFCs in the national accounts has increased by “just” €20 billion (from €78 billion to €98 billion).

A second pointer comes from looking at how the unused capital allowances, which came to almost €75 billion in 2021, show up elsewhere in the CT stats.  Typically, we might expect an increase in unused capital allowances to result in an increase in loss carried forward.  In most situations, unused capital allowances from one period are carried forward as a loss to use against income in a subsequent period.

However, changes in losses carried forward were nowhere near large enough to accommodate the scale of unused capital allowances in the above table.  The are lots of losses forward sloshing around the Irish CT system and lots of them are the result of unused capital allowances but the changes in 2021 (+€7 billion in losses forward) are of little help in explaining what is going on with capital allowances.

Of little help except it tells us where to look.  There is one instance where unused capital allowances are not carried forward as a loss but as capital allowances to be claimed again in subsequent periods (until they are eventually used).  And those are capital allowances for intangible assets.  And perhaps, unsurprisingly, this is where there have been the largest changes in recent years.

Unfortunately, the Revenue do not provide figures for capital allowances for intangible assets used but we do have figures for such capital allowances claimed.  Here they are by sector for recent years with very large growth recorded for a number of sectors notably manufacturing, wholesale and retail, and ICT.

We can see from the total (€131 billion in 2021) that, on their own, capital allowances claimed for intangible assets significantly exceed the total amount of all types of capital allowances used in 2021 (€99 billion).  We can safely conclude that capital allowances for intangible assets are the reason those ratios broke down in the previous table.

Is there cause for concern? It is hard to know.  We know that there were significant onshoring of IP assets to Ireland in 2021 and 2022.  This would have increased the amount of capital allowances claimed.  And we know that there are now legislative restrictions on the amount of such capital allowances that can be used.

Since October 2017, new claims for capital allowances for intangible assets have been restricted to offsetting 80 per cent of the profit (before deduction of interest and these capital allowances) by such capital allowances.  Prior to this the cap was 100 per cent.  Any available capital allowances above this amount cannot be used in the current year and are carried forward to be claimed as a capital allowances in subsequent years.

The reason for the cap on capital allowances for intangible assets is to ensure that losses cannot be artificially generated for use elsewhere by a company or group.  Capital allowances for intangible assets are ringfenced for use only against profits generated by the acquired intangible asset.  If unused capital allowances could be carried forward as a loss they could be used against any profits.  All that has changed in recent years is the cut-off for the cap.

The cap will likely result in a “snowball effect”, at least initially, increasing the gap between the capital allowances claimed in any year and the amount used.  In the early years a company will have capital allowances that they can claim each year (following either the accounts or fixed rate approaches).  The cap may mean they cannot use all of these in the current year.

Then they may also have unused capital allowances from previous periods that they will also claim in the current year.  These will also be unused in the current year.  Thus the amount of unused capital allowances to be carried forward grows.  This could continue until they are no new capital allowances to be claimed and the unused capital allowances carried forward will be unwound until they are fully exhausted.

We don’t have precise figures but maybe a bit of guesswork can put us in the ballpark.  Claims for capital allowances for intangible assets have skyrocketed in recent years.  For the sake of exposition, let’s say the cap means that €10 billion of the amount claimed cannot be used.  That would mean that €10 billion would be carried forward to be claimed in the next period.

In the next period let’s assume that the cap again means that €10 billion of the amount claimed for that year cannot be used.  We than also have the €10 billion from the previous period that is brought forward and again claimed.  This means there are now €20 billion of unused capital allowances.

In the next period there’s another €10 billion of that year’s claim that can’t be used and this is added to the €20 billion from previous periods that are brought forward claimed again.  We are now up to €30 billion to be carried forward and so on.

We cannot say that this is the only thing that is going on but it does seem likely to be a large part of the story. And for the IP that was onshored in 2020 and 2021 this will go on for a few years yet. The gap between the amount of capital allowances claimed and the amount used will grow ever larger.  Down the line the full amount of the capital allowances will have been claimed and the amount available in any subsequent year will only be those which have been carried forward and these will eventually be fully exhausted.

The figures are so large that there may be something else going on but it is hard to make out. What we can see are the growing claims for capital allowances for intangible assets.  Due to the snowball effect outlined above this is likely to continue. It could be some time before calm returns to the aggregate CT calculation.

Tweet

The past is a foreign country

We all like looking to the past for evidence and pointers to help understand the present.  A deterioration in the current of the balance of payments has been such a pointer for instances of economic mismanagement in Ireland. 

Following Honohan and Walsh (2002) we can see that in the last fifty years the Irish economy has gone through two loops of:

1. Imbalances building up via that deterioration of the current account,
2. Weaknesses being exposed and resulting in a shooting up of the unemployment rate,
3. A period of painful readjustment before,
4. Recoveries took hold.

These loops from 1975 to 1998 and from 2003 to 2018 are shown below using the unemployment rate (vertical axis) and the current account (horizontal axis).

The thing is though, these are not really useful for assessment the current position of the Irish economy.  2022 saw Ireland with an average unemployment rate of around 4.5 per cent while the surplus on the modified current account of the balance of payments (CA*) was equivalent to around 7.5 per cent of modified gross national income (GNI*). 

The economy had reached a near identical position in 2019 but then COVID19 reared its head.  Relative to the economic history of the State since its foundation, it is an unprecedented position: near full employment and large balance of payments surpluses. From a policy perspective, the unemployment rate could be a bigger constraint to achieving priorities. Sure, we should not forget the mistakes of the past, but they do things differently there.

Addendum: It is somewhat nonsensical but a further way of looking at it is to consider the sum of the unemployment rate and the current account deficit (thus a deficit is represented by a positive number).  This shows:

Again, we can see the imbalances building up after 1975 and 2003.  But the main thing is to highlight just how far 2022 is from even those starting points.  We know things can change quickly but we should also recognise where we are now is pretty much unprecedented.

Tweet

Still Waiting for US GDP to be Revised Up

We have been tracking the impact in Ireland’s national accounts of the structures of US MNCs for some time.  In recent years, many of those structures have changed leading to changes in several key metrics in Ireland such as the stock of intangible assets and the destination of outbound royalty payments. 

As a result of the changes in the destination of royalty payments we have been expecting revisions to US GDP.  See previous post here with an even earlier one here. 

The previous post goes through the impact of the changes introduced by Google and Facebook in 2020 when they ended their use of “double-irish” type structures.  We won’t repeat that detail here but will highlighted the updated position of the mismatch between the Balance of Payments figures for Ireland and the U.S.

One point we will reiterate is the changed nature of outbound royalty payments from Ireland.

Obviously the first thing to notice is the scale. These outbound payments are enormous. In the 12 months to the end of March they came to almost €140 billion.  What the chart also shows is the change in the destination of these royalties.

Up to 2020, most of the royalty payments from Ireland ended up in offshore financial centres such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, now the bulk of them are going to the US.  The non-US portion is still quite significant (€34 billion in the year to March) but due to suppressed data we don’t have direct insight into the destination of these. It looks like most of these payments are going to The Netherlands, Switzerland and Singapore (which would also be among the potential locations for US MNCs to locate their IP). 

Anyway our interest here is in the royalty payments from Ireland to the U.S. and these now exceed €100 billion in annual terms.

To see the mismatch (and avoid any classification issues) here are the balance of payments figures for services trade between Ireland and the US. What is shows are Eurostat figures for services imports by Ireland from the US and BEA figures for service exports from the US to Ireland. In principle these should correspond. Is that what we see? Hmmmm, no.

There is a few chart crimes going on there, most notable that the series are in different currencies, but the conversion from dollars to euro has nothing to do with the gap that has emerged since 2020 (and would actually only increase it).

We can see that Balance of Payments data on this side of the Atlantic is showing that, in 2022,  Ireland had almost $200 billion of services exports from the US.  Over on the other side of the pond, their Balance of Payments data shows that the US $85 billion of service exports to Ireland.  And as noted above, in principle these should be the same.

The chart is for all services so it cannot be a classification issue – unless the payments are accounted for by the BEA as goods exports or primary income, both of which are unlikely.

We cannot immediately assume that there is a GDP effect.  The trade could be in IP assets which, initially at least, would be GDP neutral.  There would be disinvestment (-) and exports (+) on the US side with investment (+) and imports (-) on the Irish side. 

But as might be expected given the contents of the post it is mainly a story of royalties.  Here are the royalties components from Eurostat and the BEA of the above overall services trade figures.

Mind the gap! Ireland reporting €102 billion of royalty imports from the US in Eurostat’s data becomes the US reporting just $16 billion of royalty exports to Ireland in the BEA’s data.  And as we started by looking at total services this cannot be explained by classification issues.  We have a difference of something approaching €90 billion.

For what it is worth, it can be noting that the revision to Ireland’s national accounts for 2015 (the 26% growth rate and all that) was of the order of €40 billion.  Some US commentators should perhaps be wary of skeletons in their own closets.

However, as the previous post goes through the likely GDP impact would not be the full difference shown above as a share of the royalty payments that previously went from Ireland to the like of Bermuda did subsequently flow on to the US as payments for R&D services exports.

Statements from Google and Facebook have confirmed that they are now licensing their technology directly from the US rather than offshore locations.  This should have led to a reduction in US R&D service exports and an increase in US royalty exports. 

The rise in royalty exports would be larger (reflecting the fall in profit reported in Bermuda etc.). It is possible there could be a GDP impact of $40-50 billion for 2022 – equivalent to around 0.2% of US GDP.  Not exactly headline grabbing.

Why the gap?

In part, the answer to this apparent puzzle comes down to scale. In a small economy like Ireland, the activities of companies such as Google and Facebook are relatively enormous. The Large Cases Unit (LCU) in the CSO will be in regular contact with these companies for filing updates and notice of any significant changes.  For an economy of the scale of the US, such companies are simply are not as important in and of themselves when it comes to the BEA’s production of their National and International Accounts.

In the BEA’s case they undertake “benchmark surveys” every few years of a wide number of market participants to get a deep understanding of what is going on.  Between these comprehensive “benchmark surveys” the BEA do quarterly surveys of a much smaller sample and extrapolate the data they publish from those.

The most recent benchmark survey for Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property with Foreign Persons was carried out for 2017.  The data was collected in 2018 with the results published in 2019.  As it so happens, the BEA are in the process of collecting data for the latest such survey.  In this instance the benchmark year is 2022 with the data collected in 2023 and results not due until sometime in 2024.

So it looks like the significant changes implemented by US MNCs operating in Ireland fell in the middle of the gap between the BEA’s benchmark surveys that would have picked them up.  They were too early for the survey for 2017 and while they should be picked up by the ongoing survey for 2022 the results won’t be pulled together and incorporated in the BEA’s International Accounts until 2024.  It seems our wait for US GDP to be revised up will be going on for a while yet.

Tweet

Does Ireland have the lowest per capita consumption of housing in the EU?

A couple of years ago we asked “does Ireland have the lowest per capita consumption of housing in the EU15?”  As the title to this post suggests, that question can now be put in terms of the entire EU and now just the old EU15.

Here is the full data on the consumption of housing services (including water, electricity, gas and other fuels) in Eurostat’s data on Actual Individual Consumption (AIC).  Obviously there is too much here to be useful but it gives all the elements used to give the ranking in the final column.

The start point is the consumption of housing services in national currency from each country’s national accounts.  Using the exchange rate, population and a relative price index this is transformed into real expenditure per capita on which the volume index is based.

Here is Ireland’s consumption of housing services relative to the overall figure for the EU27.

Back in 2008 Ireland was pretty much at the level of the EU27 and ranked 12th of the 27 countries.  Since then Ireland’s relative consumption has fallen and the first estimates for 2022 put Ireland’s consumption of housing services at 70 per cent of the level of the EU27 and now ranked last (joint with Estonia) across the EU.

In terms of the data, the answer to the question at the top is, yes, Ireland has the lowest per capita consumption of housing services in the EU.  Why is this?

Here is the aggregate consumption of housing services in constant prices.

In line with the significant construction of new housing this rises up to 2009 and has been essentially unchanged since then.  Ireland and Luxembourg are the only EU countries that have not had growth in the per capita consumption of housing since 2008.

In 2008, Ireland’s per capita consumption of housing was almost twice that of Bulgaria. In the years since, Bulgaria has seen per capita growth of almost 130 per cent and is now around 25 per cent higher than Ireland.

That there hasn’t been growth over the last 15 years in the per capita consumption of housing services is a surprise. We haven’t built many new dwellings and the population has grown faster than the stock of housing. Census figures show that between 2011 and 2022 the housing stock grew by around six percent. Over the same period the population grew by 12 percent.

Ireland is below the level of the EU27 for many of the categories in Actual Individual Consumption.  This is in contrast to 2006 when Ireland was above the level of EU27 for almost all categories.  Some convergence might have been expected but the fall in Ireland’s relative position goes beyond that.

Ireland is significantly below the level of the EU27 for food, alcohol and tobacco but then is also one of the highest for consumption in restaurants and hotels (including pubs).  There are a number of categories where Ireland is close to but below the level of the EU27 including health, transport and communication. Ireland is higher for education as might be expected from our relatively younger population and higher participation in third-level.

For the public/private split of AIC, it can be seen that Ireland is at the level of the EU27 for government spending on individual consumption expenditure (and has been rising slightly relative to that over the past decade).

However, for the household component of real AIC per capita, Ireland is well below the level of the EU27.  Back in 2006, Ireland was 127 per cent of the level of the EU27; now this is just 84 per cent (though with a far, far higher household savings rate!)

Yes, there have been falls in a number of categories but by far the most significant is the one highlighted at the start of the post: consumption of housing services.

Communication has gone from 146 per cent of the level of the EU27 in 2006 to just 88 per cent now, but communication makes up only two per cent of AIC.  Housing on the other hand makes up 16 per cent of AIC. It is the largest of the above categories. 

15 years ago, Ireland was middle of the road for the consumption of housing services in the EU.  The convergence referred to earlier can be seen here. But rather than holding station in the middle Ireland can now be seen poking out at the bottom.

Ireland certainly has issues with housing. And the data says we have the lowest per capita consumption of housing in the EU. But is that really how we see it?

Tweet

What did we do with €166 billion of Gross National Savings?

The last post used the sector accounts to give the steps that led to there being €166 billion of gross national savings in 2021. Here we will look at bit closer at what this €166 billion was used for.

A large chunk of it was already accounted for by one item included in the previous post – €105 billion of gross capital formation.  This left an excess of just over €60 billion of gross savings over investment. 

Accounting for net capital transfers and the proceeds from acquisitions less disposals of non-produced assets meant that the total amount available for net lending was €64.4 billion.  The sectoral split shows that almost all sectors were net lenders in 2021 with the only significant net borrowing being the €7 billion deficit recorded for the government sector.

So, that leads us to ask what did we do with that €64 billion? The answer is in the financial transactions account, though the numbers here are pretty big.  Unfortunately we are not provided with the same sector split in this account (foreign-owned etc.) that is available elsewhere.  Still the main sectors do provide some insight.

Across all sectors, total transactions in financial assets led to an increase in these assets of €644 billion while there were transactions giving a €583 billion increase in financial liabilities.  The gap between them is net financial transactions and this was €60.9 billion in 2021. 

This is not exactly equal to the €64.4 billion of net lending that was available in the capital account but given the scale of the figures it is not a surprise that they do not fully match.  What may be a surprise in 2021 is that the largest contributor to the statistical discrepancy between the two is the household sector.

That aside, the figures for the household sector are the most straightforward.  Households added almost €14 billion to their deposits in 2021.  They also put nearly €4 billion in insurance and pension schemes. 

The figures indicate the household bought nearly €6 billion of equities in 2021. Digging a little deeper into that item shows that around two-thirds of that was made up of purchases of unlisted shares.  Transactions in unlisted shares was something that piqued our interest a few years ago but the scale here is significantly smaller.

The government column shows that there were excess liabilities taken on relative to the deficit that needed to be financed.  With €20 billion borrowed versus a deficit of €7 billion this meant that €13 billion was added to the government’s financial assets, mainly deposits, which are held with the Central Bank.

The Central Bank itself is included as part of the financial corporate sector.  The numbers here are enormous (in large part due to IFSC activities) but the net figures are pretty small.  The figures for the non-financial corporate sector are also large and again it is hard to identify discernible patterns in the components but financial transactions did result in an improvement of around €44 billion in the financial position of the sector.

So what did we do with €166 billion of gross national savings?  Spending on capital formation by all sectors added around €105 billion to the capital stock and left just over €60 billion for net lending. The household sector added €22 billion to its financial position, the corporate sectors sectors €46 billion, the while the government sector had to borrow €7 billion.  The next step will be look at the impact these had on the national balance sheet.

Tweet

What to do with €166 billion of annual Gross National Savings

Over the past week the CSO have published further insights into the 2021 Annual National Accounts with additional tables on disposable income and savings and the 2021 Institutional Sector Accounts.  Here we will give a quick run through the output, income, spending and saving of the Irish economy in 2021.

The turnover of the Irish economy is probably something a touch north of €1 trillion.  Of this, some will be goods and services sold in the same condition as received (e.g. wholesaling and retailing) so do not contribute to output.  The latest estimate of the CSO is that the value of output produced in the Irish economy was around €800 billion in 2021.

And it is no surprise that the largest contributor to this was the sector of foreign-owned non-financial corporations.  The value of their output was almost half a trillion in 2021.  Of course, the value of output includes the value of intermediate goods and services used in production (e.g. flour for bread). 

Subtracting intermediate consumption (which will include imported intermediate goods and services) gets us to Gross Value Added of each sector.  Including the value of taxes less subsidies on products (which are not sectorised) gives the Gross Domestic Product of the Total Economy.

The operating surplus of each sector is got by adding subsidies on production received (such as wage support schemes) and subtracting taxes on production paid (commercial rates, water charges, motor tax for businesses etc.) and also subtracting compensation of employees paid.

There was just over €110 billion of compensation of employees paid across all sectors of the Irish economy in 2021.  The share of this coming from foreign-owned companies (financial and non-financial) was 33.4%. This is up from 27.3% in 2013.

To get from operating surplus to national income we add in the recipients of the compensation of employees and the net recipient of taxes and subsidies on products and production.  These obviously are the household and government sectors but in both cases there are some minor cross-border flows.  And then account is taken of net property income comprising dividends, retained earnings, interest and other investment income. In overall terms, these resulted in a net outflow of €103 billion from the Irish economy in 2021.

Again, there is no surprise that the largest source of these outflows was foreign-owned companies.  These companies generate significant value added and operating surplus in Ireland but the main beneficiaries of these profits are their foreign-resident shareholders.

It is the net profits that are allocated to non-residents.  In national accounts net means after depreciation.  So some of the profits of foreign-owned companies are included in Ireland’s Gross National Income to cover the maintenance and/or replacement of the capital assets used in the production process.  Their profits also contribute to national income via the corporate taxes paid on them.

The above table also includes €10 billion of net property income received by redomiciled PLCs – companies who have moved their legal headquarters to Ireland.  This inflow is mainly the difference between the retained earnings of these companies’ subsidiaries in other countries and the dividends paid out to their, mainly non-resident, shareholders.  The retained earnings of these foreign subsidiaries is counted as Irish foreign-direct investment abroad though outside of the legal headquarters Irish residents will not be the ultimate beneficiaries of that investment.

We next look at the transition from Gross Income to Gross Disposable Income which involves accounting for taxes, social transfers and other current transfers.

Here we see the Corporation Tax paid by foreign-owned firms.  Foreign-owned non-financial corporates paid €11.5 billion in 2021 with foreign-owned financial corporates paying a further €1.2 billion.  These payments contribute to Ireland’s Gross National Disposable Income.

Some cross border transfers such as foreign aid and Ireland’s contribution to the EU budget means that Gross National Disposable Income is a few billion lower than Gross National Income (€319 billion versus €323 billion).  Though EU subsidies to agriculture were counted as in inflow earlier in the sequence.

And then we come to the use of that disposable income.  On the current side, there is consumption expenditure and on the capital side there is capital formation.  There is an adjustment for the change in pension entitlements (the difference between household contributions to private pensions operated by the financial sector and household pension benefits received from the financial sector).  This only changes the sectoral balances of those two sectors and not the balance for the Total Economy.

We can see that Consumption Expenditure uses €153 billion of the €319 billion Gross National Disposable Income.  This resulted in Gross National Savings of €166 billion in 2021 that is used in the title of the post.

In principle, this is savings that is available to add to national wealth – in either financial or non-financial assets.  Of course, an immediate pause for thought is that €90 billion of it arises in foreign-owned non-financial corporations (with a further €10 billion with redomiciled PLCs).  Yes, we would like them to have savings to maintain and/or replace the capital assets they have deployed against Irish labour (factories, plant & equipment etc.) but this level of savings goes well beyond that.

The savings also coves the depreciation of assets owned by Irish-resident subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies but which are not deployed against Irish labor.  This include the aircraft fleets of aircraft leasing companies and the produced intangible assets that US MNCs have onshored here in recent years. 

These companies will seek to repair/maintain and ultimately replace these assets and the savings shown above are to cover that.  The savings can also be used to repay any debts that may have been used to acquire those assets.  These savings are not available to use by the broader economy The pilots and cabin crew who fly the aircraft and the scientists and engineers who undertake R&D for US MNCs are almost exclusively based outside of Ireland.  The assets might nominally be located, or registered, in Ireland but the activity they underpin takes place elsewhere.

The aircraft might be flying around south-east Asia but there is some activity in Ireland. That is primary related to the financing and leasing activities of the companies.  A US pharmaceutical MNC might undertake its R&D in the US but it could have significant manufacturing facilitates.  From an Irish perspective we are really on interested in the savings that can allow those activities to continue – mainly to repair and/or replace buildings and plant and equipment.

It is true that aircraft leasing companies resident in Ireland have significant savings to cover the costs of the aircraft fleets and the Irish-resident subsidiaries of US MNCs have significant savings linked to the produced intangible assets they have onshored here but these are not savings in the “national” sense.  They cannot be used for other purposes and cannot be used to add to the wealth of the resident population.  But even stripping out foreign-owned NFCs and redomiciled PLCs there was still €65.5 billion of gross savings in 2021.

As noted above, one way to add to national wealth is through capital formation.  And the table gives the gross fixed capital formation of each sector.  As it turns out, a lot of the €90 billion gross savings of the foreign-owned NFC sector, in aggregate terms at least, was used for capital formation.  The sector undertook €74 billion of capital formation in 2021.  This left a surplus of savings over investment for foreign-owned NFCs of €16 billion.

All told, the savings minus investment of the Total Economy in 2021 was €60.7 billion in 2021.  Although we have reached it using the Sector Accounts this is the equivalent of the balance on the Current Account of the Balance of Payments. 

With GDP of €426.3 billion, a current account surplus of €60.7 billion is equivalent to 14.2 per cent of GDP.  Now, we clearly know neither figure reflects the underlying position of the Irish economy.  As the previous table shows the current account includes €16.2 billion from foreign-owned non-financial corporates and €9.5 billion from redomiciled PLCs.

But even stripping those out that still leaves a surplus of savings over investment of €36.3 billion.  This is the €65.5 billion of gross savings of the domestic sectors less the €29.2 billion of capital formation they undertook.  The most notable contributions to this are the elevated savings of the household sector and the surplus of the domestic non-financial corporate sector. 

The level of the savings in the household sector has been observed since the start of the pandemic.  It is not clear why the domestic NFC sector is running such a surplus but the CSO do point out that the investment rate (to GVA) of domestic NFCs is about eight percentage points below the EU average.  It this was at the EU average it would add close to €5 billion to the capital formation of domestic NFCs (and reduce their contribution to the current account by a commensurate amount).

Here is a look at the contribution of the domestic sectors the the current account since 2013.  The chart shows the aggregate [S-I] position of the domestic sectors as well as the latest estimates of the modified current account (which is a related measure).

Whether we used the sector approach of [S-I] or the asset approach of CA* it shows a significant underlying surplus of savings over investment.  The magnitude of this is something in the order of €30 billion (and as noted that is after the domestic sectors undertook €29.2 billion of capital formation).

So, while there mightn’t be €166 billion to add to national wealth.  It looks like there is something around €60 billion to do so.  So what to do with it.  Well, we could eschew wealth and use it for consumption.  If it is to be added to the national balance sheet it could be used for capital formation such as new housing for households.  But it looks like a lot of is going on the financial balance sheet, particularly household deposits.  Perhaps there is reason for such caution but a bump in spending (current or capital) wouldn’t go amiss either.

Tweet

Corporation Tax in the Q2 2022 Institutional Sector Accounts

Ireland’s surging revenues from Corporation Tax are evident in the Institutional Sector Accounts which are now available for the second quarter of 2022.  Here is the four-quarter sum of Taxes on Income or Wealth (D.5.) paid by the non-financial corporate sector since 2004.

Obviously, we are interested in what has been happening in recent years and, in particular, the near-vertical increase seen in recent quarters.  Looking at the series there are three level changes that can be identified over the past decade: 2015, 2018 and 2022.

This is more evident if we look at the annual change of the four-quarter sum.  The three peaks correspond to the years listed above and are instances when the annual increase was 40 per cent of higher.

Of course, what is striking about the latest increase is that it is a 50 per cent increase on what was already an elevated level.  We could go back through some of the factors behind the 2015 and 2018 jumps but here will we focus on the most recent increase – though as the most recent it is the one we know least about.  It will be the first half of 2024 before the Revenue Commissioners report aggregate data for the CT returns filed with them for financial years ending during 2022.

One thing we can look at from the Institutional Sector Accounts is the indicative effective tax rate using Net Operating Surplus (NOS).  Some differences aside, NOS in the national accounting equivalent of Earnings Before Interest and Taxation (EBIT) from financial accounting.  There may also be some timing differences that distort things from time-to-time but these should wash out.

Here is the ETR on the Net Operative Surplus of Non-Financial Corporates since the start of 2014.  To help with some of those timing issues both the numerator and denominator are taken as a four-quarter moving sum.

What we see is that, bar the odd fluctuation, the ETR on NOS has been generally fairly stable over the past decade or so.  And this is a period when there have been some tumultuous changes in Ireland’s national accounts (2015 and all that).

There a small step-up evident in late 2018.  It is possible this is due to rule changes related to the claiming of capital allowances for intangible assets introduced in Budget 2018. But that is something for another day.

It can also be seen in the chart that the ETR is below the 12.5 per cent headline rate for Ireland’s Corporation Tax.  A key reason for this is likely to be differences in the treatment of the depreciation of aircraft. 

For tax purposes in Ireland, aircraft can be amortised over an eight-year period while in the national accounts a wide-body aircraft is depreciated over 25 years, which better reflects the actual lifespan of the asset.  In both cases the gross, or pre-depreciation, profits will be the same.  Due to the longer depreciation period, the net profit in the national accounts will be higher and this reduces the effective rate.  Tax accounts for aircraft leasing will have more depreciation (or at least will have more depreciation quicker) which will reduce net profits and lead to a higher ETR, probably close to the 12.5 per cent rate.  Again, this is something for another day and is not really our interest here. 

Our interest is in the ETR in the chart for the past two or three quarters which is the highest for the period shown.  At 9.6 per cent, the ETR for Q2 2022 is around two percentage points higher than the average from 2014 to 2021 (7.3 per cent).  The average in 2019 and 2020 (post the 2018 step-up) was 8.0 per cent.

Is there something that could be pointed to that could have caused this recent rise in the ETR?  There is nothing that particularly stands out.  There doesn’t appear to have been any rule or rate changes that could be pointed as contenders as explanations.

One issue could be the preliminary nature of the 2022 figures for NFCs in the latest institutional sector accounts.  The CSO will have a fair handle on gross profits - from trade data and other sources.  They can obviously see how much Corporation Tax is being paid from the monthly Exchequer statements – but the detail behind those payments may not yet be available to them.

As alluded to above, companies are currently paying Corporation Tax linked to profits made in 2022.  Companies make preliminary Corporation Tax payments in months six and eleven of their financial year – by which time it is expected that they will have 90 per cent of their expected Corporation Tax liability paid.  Companies then file their full Corporation Tax return in month nine following the end of their financial year and accompany that filing with any outstanding amount due.

So a large company with a year-end of December 31st will make its first preliminary Corporation Tax payment in June (45 per cent), make its second preliminary payment in November (90 per cent) and file its full Corporation Tax return the following September.

A similar schedule has been set out for alternative year-ends. For example, if a company has a year end of September 30th, its first preliminary payment will be due in March, its second in August with its full return to be filed by the following June.  This could be significant has 2022 has seen unusually large CT revenues reported for March and August.

Of course, the Exchequer Returns also give no reason for an increase in the ETR.  One possible explanation is that the CSO have underestimated profits and that these will be revised up in subsequent releases which will, in turn, reduce the ETR.  It’s certainly possible but the CSO have been keeping an ever-closer eye on some of the key MNCs operating in Ireland via its Large Cases Unit (LCU).

An alternative explanation is that the gross profit figure is fine but that the net profit, i.e. post depreciation, will be revised.  Companies pay Corporation Tax on their net profit.  In recent years, there have been huge claims for capital allowances for intangible assets.  However, these allowances, at least as related to the original acquisition of the intangible asset, will be exhausted.

This means a company could face a much higher tax bill even if its gross profit is unchanged.  This is because it has run out of capital allowances to use as an offset against the gross profit.  If this was to happen, the companies net profit would increase and it would have to pay more tax.

It is possible that this is the reason for some of the 2022 increase in Corporation Tax.  Of course, absent the full returns of the companies it is just supposition.  It is not clear how the tax treatment of capital allowances for intangible assets aligns with the consumption of fixed capital for those assets in the national accounts.  Both are versions of depreciation and, as set out above for aircraft, they do not have to coincide.

The Institutional Sector Accounts show no decline in the consumption of fixed capital for NFCs.  Here are the quarterly CFC figures for the NFC sector since 2012. 

The step changes linked to the onshoring of intangible assets (Q1 2015, Q1 2020 and others) are clearly visible.  The increases over the past two and a half years are more gradual and more like those that would be linked to the ongoing, and regular, increase in the stock of tangible assets (buildings, plant and machinery) owned by the sector.

Could some of the 2022 increase in CT be linked to the exhaustion of capital allowances? It could be. It certainly is something that could happen over the coming years.  But it will a while before we have evidence of that. 

How it will be treated in the national accounts will also be worth keeping an eye on.  As noted, the exhaustion of the capital allowances will not impact gross profits – so GDP won’t be directly impacted. It is net profits that will change – so the impact may be on GNP.  Higher net profits accruing to foreign-owned companies would push down on GNP.  This would reduce the gap between GNP and GNI*.

Another possibility is that the intangible assets are relocated when the capital allowances run out.  This would have a direct impact on GDP – pretty much the reverse of what we have seen with the onshoring in recent years, most notably the event in 2015.

Tweet

The Household Sector in 2022: Continued Savings

The CSO have published the Q2 2022 update of the institutional sector accounts.  They continue to show a strong performance for the household sector – at least in aggregate terms.  A previous discussion of estimates for distributional sector accounts is here.

It should also be noted that the figures are presented in nominal terms, i.e., not inflation adjusted. Here is the current account showing income, consumption and savings for the first half of the past five years.  Percentage changes relative to 2019 (pre-COVID) are also shown.

The bottom line is that the household savings rate remains elevated.  The savings rate was 13 per cent for the first half of 2019; it was 24 per cent for the equivalent period of 2022.  This is the result of strong income growth (aggregate compensation of employees is up over 20 per cent since 2019) and modest consumption expenditure growth (up five per cent over the same period).

In the first six months of 2019, households received €50.0 billion of employee compensation.  This increased to €60.6 billion in the first half of 2022.  There was an increase in pay from all sectors but the largest, and fastest increase was from non-financial corporates.  Companies to the first half of 2019, businesses paid out €7.4 billion more on their employees, an increase of 23.1 per cent.

The increase in income has resulted in an increase in income taxes paid.  These are up 36 per cent compared to 2019.  Social insurance contributions are also up with contributions to private pension schemes up nearly 40 per cent (from €3.5 billion in the first half of 2019 to €4.8 billion this year).

The last few years has seen significant changes in social benefits received from the government sector.  These were €11.8 billion in the first half of 2019 and rose to €15.1 billion in 2020 (due the lockdowns and the Pandemic Unemployment Payment).  They rose to €15.9 billion in 2021 before falling back to €13.3 billion in the first half of this year.

All told, there was a near 20 per cent rise in the gross disposable income of the household sector in the first half of 2022 compared to the same period of 2019.  As noted, the increase in consumption expenditure has been more muted with only a five per cent rise over the same period.

The household sector had €7.4 billion of gross savings in the first half of 2019.  Although 2022 saw a slightly lower level than both 2020 and 2021, at €16.1 billion it remains significantly higher than pre-COVID levels with the savings rate continuing to exceed 20 per cent.

The capital account (below) shows that these savings are not being used for capital formation (investment spending) though the household sector did have just over €1 billion of net capital formation in the first half of 2022.  This compares to negative net capital formation in the equivalent periods of the preceding three years (as depreciation – consumption of fixed capital – exceeded gross capital formation).

One notable item in the capital account is the €3 billion of investment grants received in 2022.  This is linked to the Mica Redress Scheme which was approved by Government earlier in the year.

The household sector remained a significant net lender in 2022.  Other figures suggest that most of this is going on increased deposits (though the €3 billion from the Mica Scheme will go on the financial balance sheet as an “other receivable”.  There will also have been a reduction in loans liabilities.  What is needed is an increase in capital formation – new houses.

Tweet

Downward Historical Revisions and a Large 2021 Increase in the Modified Current Account

The current account of the balance of payments is an important macro-economic indicator. For a variety of reasons Ireland’s headline current account outturns are pretty useless as an indicator of the underlying position of the economy. To that end, the CSO have been publishing a modified current account for a number of years.  The latest estimates were published last week.

Historical Revisions

The first thing we note is that the historical series has been revised down.  This is something that may have been expected given it was thought that something may be mucking up the current account and the impact of the statistical discrepancy.  Anyway, here are the revisions.

For 2022, the estimate of CA* has been revised down from €24 billion to €13 billion.  This is still a significant surplus and equivalent to around 6.5 per cent of GNI* in 2020.

Large Increase in 2021

The second thing we note from the latest estimates is the large increase for 2021.  The 2021 estimate of CA* is a surplus of €26 billion or 11.1 per cent of GNI*.  In a very timely manner, the CSO have published institutional sector accounts that are consistent with the recent National and International Accounts.  Using these we can get a sectoral breakdown of the modified current account.

The primary drivers of Ireland’s underlying position in the current account of the balance of payments are the household and government sectors.  This remains true to the large increase showing for 2021.

Household savings remained elevated in 2021 while the government deficit closed significantly - due mainly to surging revenues.  Typically taxes would not feature in a discussion of the current account.  They might impact sectoral positions but are generally internal transfers.

Corporation Tax and the Current Account 

Ireland is unusual in having a large share of Corporation Tax paid by foreign-owned companies.  Some of these have set up operations in Ireland to service the domestic market but the largest source of Corporation Tax are foreign-owned FDI companies with operations in Ireland to manufacture for or service markets abroad.

About three-fifths of Corporation Tax is based by US MNCs.  This tax is paid from the profits made on export sales and boosts Ireland’s current account.  The money is not counted as a factor outflow to foreign shareholders but goes to the government as corporate income tax payments.  Strong rises in other taxes such as Income Tax and VAT also helped improve the government’s position.  That the household sector maintained its savings at such an elevated level points to a strength in the position of that sector – albeit in aggregate terms.

The Corporate Sectors in 2021

At this stage we can’t delve too deep into developments in the corporate sectors.  That will come later in the year when a split by foreign and domestic ownership is made available.  For the moment we can see that this is where most of the revisions arise.  The “not sectorised” component of the current account for 2020 went from +€6.4 billion in the 2021 estimate to +€2.4 billion in the latest estimate. 

While the impact of the non-financial corporate sector in 2020 (though technically a residual to make the sectoral balances consistent with CA*) went from +€9.5 billion in last year’s estimates to €1.0 billion in the latest figures.  It is these two changes that led to the downward revision in CA* for 2020 shown in the opening chart.

The contribution of the NFC sector also seems to have played a role in the large 2021 increase in CA* – see the large red block in the column for 2021 in the second chart.  But, as noted above, probably best to wait until the foreign/domestic split of that is made available later in the year before drawing any conclusions on that. 

Who Should be Spending More?

Looking at the household and government sectors shows that the improvement in 2021 was more than just a measurement anomaly.  With the quarterly figures now available we can extend this to Q1 2022.  Here it is as a four-quarter moving sum.

One conclusion that could be drawn from this is that the government is (not yet) saving any of its corporate tax largesse – but the household sector is. Could we get households to spend more and the government to save a small bit?  And the increase in household spending can be greater than any saving done by the government.  We don’t need a +€20 billion outturn as currently shown in the above chart.

Events, Dear Boy, Events

If it’s extra spending we’re looking for then it may already be happening – but due to outside circumstances rather than a conscious decision to spend more. Here is national net monthly fuel imports. 

Pre-COVID these were running at around €400 million a month.  The latest figures go to May 2022 and show net imports of around €1 billion a month.  Import spending at that rate won’t be long in putting a dent in national net lending. But seems unlikely to be large enough to wipe it out.

Tweet

Ireland’s Burgeoning Current Account Surplus and the ‘Statistical Discrepancy’ in the National Accounts

The current account of the balance of payments is an important macroeconomic indicator.  As with many of Ireland’s macroeconomic statistics the underlying picture is distorted by the activities of MNCs.  The modified current account, CA*, is an attempt to overcome this and the CSO will publish the 2021 estimate over the coming weeks.

As with last year, we can look to the sector accounts to try and get a preliminary perspective on where the current account might be going.  Again, at this stage we will limit the analysis to the household and government sectors are these are the least impacted by the MNC distortions but have seen some significant pandemic-related changes in recent years.

Over the twenty years shown, this paints a picture we are pretty familiar with.  More recently, the household sector has been running a large surplus as savings soared.  On the other hand the government has seen large deficits as spending increased in response to the pandemic.  The chart shows gross savings (income not used for consumption) minus investment (capital formation). 

The preliminary figures in the quarterly sector accounts are that for 2021 the combined household plus government sectors had a surplus of savings over investment of €14.6 billion.  This will contribute to a significant current account surplus for 2021.

For 2020, the equivalent figure for the two sectors was a surplus of €8.7 billion.  However, when the contribution of the other sectors of the economy (the corporate sectors) were added, the estimate of the modified current account for 2020 was €24.0 billion.

As was considered here after the results were published this seemed a bit excessive.  There is no doubt that Ireland is running a large current account surplus, but one this is equivalent to 11.5 per cent of national income?

We can use the 2020 Institutional Sector Accounts to get some insights into the sources of this surplus.

Obviously 2020 was a tumultuous year but the increased deficit of the government sector was offset by the surplus of the household sector.  Given what was going on the changes for the domestic corporate sectors both non-financial and financial are relatively modest. 

In this chart, the category for foreign corporations/redomiciled PLCs is a residual that makes the breakout by sector consistent with the estimate of the modified current account.  Although positive, the contribution of this element to the current account fell in 2020 so doesn’t seem to tie in with efforts to explain a burgeoning current account surplus.

What may be worth looking at is the light grey segments of the bars.  This is the “not sectorised” part of the current account.  As set out here, this item arises in Ireland’s national accounts due to the discrepancy that typically exists between the income and expenditure estimates of GDP produced by the CSO.  The official estimate of Ireland’s GDP is essentially the average of the two approaches.  If the figures are close to each other this discrepancy will be small.  However, it is perhaps not a surprise that it can be large – and volatile.

The following table shows the estimates of GDP from the income and expenditure approaches for 2015 to 2020.  Start at the top of the table for the income approach (wages plus profit plus net product taxes).  And go from the bottom of the table for the expenditure approach (C + I + G + X – M).  The official GDP estimate is the midpoint of the two.

As can be seen, for 2020, the income approach gave a GDP estimate of €369.7 billion while that for the expenditure approach was higher at €376.1 billion.  This €6.4 billion difference is resolved by a €3.2 billion “statistical discrepancy” on either side.

This position was the reverse of 2019 when the estimate of the income approach exceeded the estimate from the expenditure approach.  In overall terms, the income estimate went from being €4.0 billion more than the expenditure estimate in 2020 to being €6.4 billion less than it in 2020. All told, this resulted in a €10.4 billion swing in the impact of the “statistical discrepancy” between the two years.

In most instances, given the scale of the figures involved, the statistical discrepancy is not a significant factor.  However, as we work down the accounts and get to things like the current account then it can be significant relevant to the size of those outcomes.  And if we go further again and looked at a sectoral breakdown of the current account then these changes are certainly significant.  In the previous chart, the change in the contribution of “not sectorised” to the current account from 2019 to 2010 was the €10.4 billion referred to above.

Just because something is “not sectorised” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist; it’s just that the figures don’t give any insight into what it actually is.  There is some reason why the 2020 growth of the expenditure estimate (6.1 per cent) was much stronger.  It could be that there was an underestimate in 2019 and this is something that the statistical discrepancy allows for.

Or maybe there was something missing from the income approach estimate for 2020 that dragged down its growth rate (3.1 per cent).  Again, this is something that the statistical discrepancy allows for.

Of course, if it was known what was causing the divergence between the figures it would just be included.  The statistical discrepancy arises because it is not known what is causing it.  Have we any reason to put more weight on the income or expenditure estimates of GDP? Not from this remove at any rate.

What it does do is give pause for thought where there are references to a current account surplus of close to one-eighth of national income.  For sure, there is a current account surplus and it does give scope for additional spending (by who?) but maybe we should be looking at average over a number of years rather than being fixated on the estimate for any one year. 

Over the six years shown in the table above, the annual average for difference between the GDP estimates from the income and expenditure approaches is less than €300 million, or pretty much nothing in the context of a GDP number that now exceeds €400 billion. 

This may give some credence to a view that there is nothing systematic going on.  However, it should be noted that the preliminary 2021 figures in the quarterly national accounts show a statistical discrepancy of a similar magnitude and direction to 2020.

So, what we have seen for the household and government sectors and not sectorised all point to another large CA* estimate in the forthcoming release.  Of course, these are preliminary figures and may be revised when the full National Income and Expenditure results are published.  But if measurement issues aren’t enough to dispel any complacency, don’t forget the lurking impact that corporation tax revenues are having on the current account.

Tweet

The Continuing Improvement of the National Balance Sheet

Ireland’s national balance sheet has gross amounts and a volatility that is not seen in the figures for most other countries.  The gross amounts are due to the impact of MNCs and the IFSC but do largely net out.  The volatility is partly due to the roller-coaster house prices have taken in recent decades.  When worked through this is what emerges for net worth per capita.

Housing plays a role but does not fully account for the changes shown.  The per capita value of the stock of dwellings (excluding site value) went from €35k in 2001 to €67k in 2006 and then fell to €43k in 2010 before rising back to €60k in 2020.

There are some items not included in the figures published by the CSO.  Not only is the site value for dwellings excluded but the value of all land is excluded.  The CSO does not provide figures for the stock of non-produced, non-financial assets.

The inclusion of such figures would certainly change the level in the chart and also perhaps some of the changes.  Land is the most significant non-produced, non financial asset but there are others.  This useful note from the CSO sets them out.

Most non-produced, non financial assets such as land and natural resources can’t be traded across borders.  All that can change is their ownership.  But there can be trade in non-produced assets like brand names, trademarks, logos, domain names and other marketing assets.  The IP onshoring to Ireland in recent years has included significant amounts of these.

In 2018, net acquisitions of non-produced assets exceeded €50 billion.  These acquisitions will have reduced financial net worth through either the reduction of financial assets to pay for them or, more likely, an increase in financial liabilities if debt is used to buy them.  In per capita terms, the amount is around €10,000 per person so goes someway to explaining the reduction in total economy net worth per capita shown for 2018 in the first chart.

There is a growing list of countries who provide figures for non-produced assets to Eurostat but it remains a minority.  Czechia and France provide the most comprehensive figures but all Germany, Estonia, Croatia, The Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden now provide figures for the value of land. 

For produced assets Ireland has a fairly comprehensive figures for fixed assets (some suppression issues aside) but no figures for inventories or valuables.  Most countries provide figures for inventories to Eurostat but only a small minority do so for valuables.

The following table shows the gross amounts that give rise to the per capita figures in the first chart.

The financial figures can be counted in trillions.  At the end of 2020, financial assets on the national balance sheet summed to €9.0 trillion with liabilities of €9.7 billion.  This negative net financial worth was offset by the €1.1 trillion of non-financial assets included in the figures.  That gives the total economy net worth of €464.7 billion which translates to €93,400 in per capita terms.

As set out above the inclusion of other non-financial assets such as non-produced assets like land, natural resources and brands and other things like inventories or valuables would increase the net worth figure.  In most cases this would just be a change in level and the trend in net worth per capita would be largely the same.  As discussed above the inclusion of the non-produced assets purchased from abroad would impact both changes and levels.

The figures that are provided for produced fixed assets have a breakdown by type of asset.

The total stock of fixed assets has increased significantly in recent years but the largest contributors to this increase are the suppressed categories of IP and transport equipment.  When last broken out individually, for 2014, their combined value was €117 billion.  For 2020 the equivalent figure is €630 billion.  Turmoil in the aircraft leasing sector may have an impact of the 2022 figure.

We can do a sectoral breakdown of financial net worth:

This highlights that while the gross amounts for the financial sector are enormous, running into the trillions, the net amounts are relatively modest.  Non-financial corporations have built up a large negative net worth position in recent years.  This is linked to acquisition of assets such as IP and aircraft.

The government sector also has a significant negative position but did not lead to an equivalent increase in fixed assets as much of the debt was used to cover current spending. 

There has been a remarkable improvement in the net worth position of the household sector in recent years.  In the last two years shown in the above table the financial position of the household sector improved by €70 billion. 

Figures from the Central Bank suggest there was a further improvement of almost €50 billion in the financial position of the household sector in 2021.  This was achieved through a continued rise in deposits (+€16.2 billion) and also a large increase in life assurance and pension entitlements from private schemes (combined + €22.5 billion).  The contribution of debt reduction was relatively modest (€1.5 billion).

When housing assets are included (and the Central Bank include site value) the net position of the household sector is said to have improved by €140 billion in 2021, or €28,000 per capita.

The opening chart shows net worth per capita peaking in 2006 at €104,500.  The trend, and recent data from the Central Bank, suggest a new peak will be set in 2021. Hopefully it won’t go over a cliff this time.

To conclude, here are comparable figures for the EU15.  As discussed above some countries have more comprehensive figures available but there are presented here in a like-for-like basis.

Tweet