![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Back |
![]() |
Financial crisis in August 1998 changed principally a macroeconomic environment in Russia as well as a financial situation. The overall economic condition before the crisis was characterized by a stable exchange rate, low inflation, and significant amount of the foreign investments, mainly portfolio investments. Systemic financial crisis that consisted of foreign currency, external payments, banking and financial markets crises destroyed almost all interrelation within the economy. Moreover, an uncertainty of the future economic development had increased and created additional difficulties for a short-term forecasting. Spreads in macroeconomic estimates produced by governmental institutions as well as independent centers were extremely large. This led to obstacles in a realization of government budgetary and private corporation plans. However, high uncertainty in Russian macroeconomic developments strengthened interests to economic forecasts – quantitative and qualitative.
F T Information Used
The author is well acquainted with econometric activities and recognizes all the obstacles in macroeconomic forecasting. It is naturally, that under social, political and economic uncertainties scenario analysis goes along with the high risk for investigator's reputation and demands high skills of economic experts.
I C
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Real GDP (% change YOY)
-5
-14.5
-8.7
-12.4
-4.1
-3.5
0.8
-4.6
3.1
Private Consumption (% change YOY)
-6.1
-5.2
-1
-3.1
-2.7
-2.1
1.8
-5
-9.6
Government Consumption (% change YOY)
-20.6
0
-2
0.1
-0.5
Investments (% change YOY)
-15
-40
-12
-24
-10
-18
-5
-6.7
4.5
Industrial Production (% change YOY)
-8
-18
-14
-20.9
-3.3
-4
2
-5.2
8.1
Unemployment rate(% to EAP)
4.8
5.6
7.4
8.5
9.6
10.8
11.9
12.4
Prices, Interest, Exchange Rates
CPI (% change YOY)
160.4
2509
839.9
215.1
131.3
21.8
11
84.4
36.5
PPI (% change YOY)
987
235
180
25.6
7.5
23.2
67.3
Exchange Rate (RUB/USD eop)
0.415
1.247
3.55
4.64
5.56
5.96
20.65
27
Exchange Rate (% change YOY)
200.77
184.68
30.70
19.83
7.19
246.48
30.75
Monetary Base (% change YOY)
1179
645
178
115
26.7
25
27.90
54.10
M2 (% change YOY)
696
407
192
127
34.2
29.9
20.8
57.2
Fiscal Balance
Consolidated Budget Deficit (% GDP)
4.6
10.7
3.2
4.4
5.2
5.7
1.2
External Balance
Exports (bln. USD)
67.5
81.1
88.6
88.2
74.2
74.3
Exports (% change YOY)
20
20
9.3
-0.4
-15.9
0.2
Imports (bln. USD)
50.6
60.9
68.8
73.7
59.1
41.1
Imports (% change YOY)
13
21
12.9
7
-19.8
-30.5
Balance or Trade (bln. USD)
16.9
20.2
19.8
14.5
15.1
33.2
Current Account balance (bln. USD)
7.9
12
3.3
1.6
20.5
International reserves (including gold, bln. USD, eop)
17.2
15.1
17.8
12.2
11.8
International reserves (excluding gold, bln. USD, eop)
14.4
11.3
12.5
7.7
7.6
Source: Goskomstat, the Central Bank, EU "Vedi"
Directly after the August 1998 crisis the main task that analysts faced was an estimation of consequences of inflation and devaluation shocks. In other words, the question was whether a relation between moderate inflation and devaluation rates and industrial production was positive or negative. The majority of experts supported the opinion that the financial crisis would stimulate fall in production and discussions on real sector concerned only the rates of this decline.
Source: EU "Vedi".
In the second half of 1998experts suggested that GDP would fall by 3-9% in 1999. When some stabilization steps had been realized some assessments were corrected. However, all estimates produced before October 1999, including official, were significantly lower than the actual data. First of all, the production activity and export revenues were underestimated, and households real disposable income and private consumption were overestimated.
F T S
Source: EU "Vedi".
Directly after financial crises in August 1998 all analysts suggested the fall in industrial production by 3-15%. Those assumptions based on negative effect of high inflation rates, banking crisis, depression on financial markets. All that assessment were revised in the II half of 1999, but also were significantly less than actual data.
1998 | 1999 | |||
PPI Growth | Output Growth | PPI Growth | Output Growth | |
Industry | 23.0 | -5.2 | 67.3 | 8.1 |
Electricity | 3.0 | -2.5 | 14.4 | 0.2 |
Fuel | 0.8 | -2.5 | 135.0 | 2.4 |
Including | ||||
Oil extracting | -10.0 | -1.0 | 149.2 | 0.4 |
Oil refining | 12.4 | -7.4 | 242.3 | 2.5 |
Gas | 10.5 | 0.8 | 22.1 | 4.1 |
Coal | 6.1 | -5.0 | 32.2 | 8.8 |
Ferrous metallurgy | 11.0 | -8.1 | 89.0 | 14.4 |
Non-ferrous metallurgy | 76.0 | -5.0 | 116.0 | 8.5 |
Chemical and Petrochemical | 22.7 | -7.5 | 51.1 | 21.7 |
Machinery | 29.0 | -7.5 | 50.0 | 15.9 |
Forestry | 43.0 | -0.4 | 68.0 | 17.2 |
Building construction | 13.0 | -5.8 | 37.0 | 7.7 |
Light | 44.0 | -11.5 | 56.0 | 20.1 |
Food | 53.0 | -1.9 | 63.0 | 7.5 |
Source. Goskomstat RF. |
After sharp increase of the natural monopoly prices in the second half of last year the low cost of the energy will not be the factor of economic growth in the year 2000. Moreover, the fuel-energy sectors' output will be depending on the world prices, because domestic demand will be limited. It is possible to expect the scenario that the volume of exports will be stable cause the payments will be in cash and the sales of such products on the domestic market traditionally will be through the inter enterprises' arrears. The consequences of such scenario are well-known due to the past years experience: fall of investments, growth of the customers' debt, wage and taxes arrears and as a result fall of output. Taking this proposal into consideration the most of the scenarios of the fuel-energy production growth in the current year seems to be overoptimistic and oriented on the best-case variant of the world market development. The probable crisis scenarios didn't consider by experts, mainly by the governmental agencies.
E
I* | II** | III*** | |
Industry | 4 | 5 | 4.7 |
Electricity | 2 | 3.8 | 0 |
Fuel | 2 | 0.2 | 1.3 |
Including | |||
Oil extracting | 1 | ||
Oil refining | 4 | ||
Gas | 3 | ||
Coal | 2 | ||
Ferrous metallurgy | 2 | 10.9 | 15.3 |
Non-ferrous metallurgy | 2.5 | 9.7 | 5.1 |
Chemical and petrochemical | 5 | 3.2 | 10.4 |
Machinery | 6 | 7 | 7.2 |
Forestry | 5 | 5 | 5.2 |
Building construction | 2 | 3.9 | 4.7 |
Light | 6 | 9 | 13.1 |
Food | 4 | 2.4 | 2.5 |
* - specify forecast of the Ministry of Economy RF
** - forecast of the Bureau of Economic Analysis *** - forecast of the Center of Macroeconomic Analysis and short-term forecast |
EU "Vedi" experts suppose that published forecasts are too inertia that means both an underestimation of key tendencies in 1999 and an overestimation them in 2000. EU "Vedi" expects the industrial output growth on the level of 1-3%.
Fixed capital investments increased by 4.5% in 1999. The growth of the investment activity had happen not directly after financial crisis, but at the end of the I quarter of 1999. As the main source of investments was the enterprises funds the growth in investments was marked only after an increase in enterprises gross profits.
H W I Loans to the Real Sector
The growth in investment activity occurred along with some increases in loans to enterprises. Banking loans to the real sector rose by 51.4% in 1999, including loans in rubles - on 140%, the loans in foreign currency dropped on 21%. The notable extension of the banking loans was marked only at the end of I quarter of 1999, which coincided with the investment activity growth. Russian banks expand their investment activity toward real sector due to the next factors:
Source: EU "Vedi" calculations, CBR.
The key questions connected with the amount of banking loans to the real sector are the dynamics of interest rates and risks. Because of the financial markets crisis, high mistrust of the Russian population to the banking system and non-growing and expensive banking liabilities interest rates remain high and unpredictable. Credit risks of investments in Russian enterprises are traditionally high, but also include a devaluation risk. Commercial banks provide loans in rubles, but principal and interest payments are tied with an exchange rate. We should also note that real loans to enterprises adjusted to a PPI has fallen.
Forecasts of the households' income and expenditures for 1999 were relatively stable and fluctuated insignificantly during last year. The key factors, which defined the households' income, were the next. First, in what extent the legal entities would recover a wage rate that dropped by several times after the crisis. Second, in what extent the government would decrease wage arrears. The recovery of the real wage rate in fact was with the lower than expected rates.
Source: Goskomstat RF, EU "Vedi"
The most probable scenario corresponds with the tendency of recovery households' income in the current year. This tendency implies the growth of the real private consumption and retail turnover. According to the specify forecast prepared by the ministry of economy RF the real disposable income will rise on 2-4% and retail turnover will rise on 2%. Thus, the official scenario suggests that all the real income increment will go on the recovery of the private consumption level.
H T Fiscal Policy
Note that the basis parameters of the federal budget for 1999 were calculated in the middle of 1998 - directly after financial crisis. The official forecast was formed under the great uncertainty concerning with the future of the government and stabilization measures. As a result the official assessments turned to be far from actual. Moreover, the key parameters assisted the overfullfil the budgetary plan. For example, the planned exchange rate had been 21 RUB/USD and actual was 24 RUB/USD, CPI should be 30% and actual 36.5%. The industrial production should fall on 3-5%, but it rose on 8.1%, PPI rose on 67.3%, but planned value should be 26%.
Budgetary plan on 22.02.99 | Actual data on 1999 | ||||
bln. RUB | in % to GDP | bln. RUB | in % to | ||
GDP | the planned data | ||||
Revenues | 473.7 | 11.9 | 611.7 | 13.7 | 129.1 |
of which: | |||||
Tax revenues | 399.5 | 10 | 509.5 | 11.4 | 127.5 |
Including | |||||
Business profit tax | 36 | 0.9 | 81 | 1.8 | â 2.2ð. |
Private income tax | 25.2 | 0.6 | 19.9 | 0.4 | 79 |
VAT | 143.7 | 3.6 | 221 | 4.9 | 153.8 |
Excise | 87.1 | 2.2 | 84.2 | 1.9 | 96.6 |
Tax on the foreign trade | 91.3 | 2.3 | 86.3 | 1.9 | 94.5 |
Tax on mineral resource using | 9.5 | 0.2 | 10.5 | 0.2 | 110.6 |
Non-tax revenues | 33 | 0.8 | 47 | 1.1 | 142.4 |
of which: | |||||
Foreign trade | 23.3 | 0.6 | 34.7 | 0.8 | 149 |
State property operation | 7.9 | 0.2 | 6.8 | 0.1 | 85.6 |
Revenues from non-budgetary funds | 41.6 | 1 | 55.2 | 1.2 | 132.8 |
Expenditures | 575.1 | 14.4 | 664.7 | 14.9 | 115.6 |
of which: | |||||
State operation | 13.7 | 0.3 | 14.8 | 0.3 | 107.9 |
State security | 51.3 | 1.3 | 55.4 | 1.3 | 108 |
Industry, energy and construction | 14.6 | 0.4 | 16.9 | 0.4 | 116 |
Agriculture | 9.3 | 0.2 | 9.1 | 0.2 | 97.7 |
Social transfers | 78.1 | 2 | 85.1 | 1.9 | 108.9 |
Defense | 93.7 | 2.3 | 116.1 | 2.6 | 123.9 |
Public debt service | 166.8 | 4.2 | 162.6 | 3.6 | 97.4 |
Transfers to the local budgets | 43.4 | 1.1 | 62.1 | 1.4 | 143 |
Expenditures of the non-budget funs | 44 | 1.1 | 55.3 | 1.2 | 125.5 |
Deficit | 101.4 | 2.5 | 53 | 1.2 | 52.2 |
Memorandum | |||||
bln. RUB | in % YOY | bln. RUB | in % | ||
YOY | to the planned | ||||
GDP | 4000 | -2 | 4476 | 3.2 | |
Industrial Production | 2180 | -3 | 8.1 | ||
CPI (Dec. to Dec.) | 30 | 36.5 | 121.7 | ||
PPI (Dec. to Dec.) | 26 | 67.3 | 258.8 | ||
Annual Average Exchange Rate (Rub/USD) | 21 | 110 | 24 | 137.6 | 114.3 |
Source: Ministry of Finance RF. |
Federal budget was executed on 128% in 1999. The VAT revenues was 4.9% GDP (planned value was 3.6%), the business profit tax revenues were 1.8% GDP (0.9%). The revenues on private income tax was less than planned on 21%, the excise revenues were also lower the planned value. It means, that the industrial output growth was more significant factor for budget revenues than world price growth.
T
The key directions of the monetary policy occupied the central place in the governmental stabilization economic program. The official forecast contained three scenarios, the most optimistic was in the basis of the budgetary planning. The main parameters of this scenario were:
T Money Supply
The most of the assessments assumed the fall of the real money supply in 1999. The analysts suggested that under the slight increase of the households' real disposable income the real private savings would be stable and real enterprises' working capital would fall. This suggestion meant that the fight with inflation would be through the tough monetary policy and administrative control over the exchange rate. Note that such assumption contradicted the necessity to stimulate production and money transaction between enterprises.
Source: EU "Vedi"
The money supply growth in 1999 was the most significant during last decade. M2 increase did not provide the inflationary and devaluation effects, as it was assumed by the most of the analysts. The main factor, which had been defined the growth of money supply, was the enterprises current accounts. The producers invested their profits into working capital and the replacement of the old equipment. Banking system used all the enterprises' deposits for the loans to the real sector. Households' deposits in the real term remained the same.
Components of the Money Supply
Money supply (M2) had been increased on 57.2% during 1999, including the cash in circulation outside the banking system (M0) - on 42.0%, the non-cash money (deposits) - on 68.2%. As the main channels of the money supply should be centralized loans to the federal budget and purchases of the foreign currency by the monetary authorities. The principal variables were the amount of the loans from the international financial organization and external debt payments. Actually near all the increment of the monetary base was provided by foreign currency purchase of the Central Bank RF, which net amount was $3.8 bln, or about 102 bln. RUB (the increment of the monetary base was 114 bln. RUB in 1999).
Source: CBR, EU "Vedi" calculations
The actual growth rates of as the aggregate money supply as monetary base were significantly higher, than previously had been estimated. At the same time the inflation and devaluation rates were lower, than assumed. Such phenomenon has the follow explanations:
Source: EU "Vedi", CBR.
There is a great probability that the same tendencies will be kept in the current year. First of all, the households' real disposable income and savings will increase. Taking into consideration the mistrust of the population to the banking system we can suggest that all extra saving will be targeted to the cash foreign currency.
The assessments of the inflation rate were calculated under high uncertainty of the future economic developments. If the official forecast was provided as the governmental targets for 1999, than alternative scenarios were defined to stress the existence of the set of threats to the financial stability. The key parameters of governmental program suggested CPI growth on 30%, PPI - on 26%, and the money supply should rise on 22-30%. The average exchange rate should be 21 RUB/USD. Alternative forecasts assumed the high rates of CPI (from 50 to 150%). But all assessments supposed that as a price anchor the government would use the tough control on the naturally monopoly prices and money supply rates.
Source: EU "Vedi"
The most important task for the governmental stabilization program directly after the financial crisis in August 1999 was to cut the inflation and devaluation rates. The preliminary official assessments assumed that CPI would be 30%. The majority of the alternative assessments assumed CPI on the level of 50-150%. Later the assessments had been corrected, but the new data presented in the second half of 1999 suggested the consumer's inflation as 45% or higher.
T
Source: EU "Vedi"
All the forecast assessments assumed the lower PPI growth compare with consumer's prices in 1999. According to the basis hypothesis the tough monetary policy and stabilization measures should be targeted to money supply limitation, including PPI. But the producer's prices grew with the rates, which had been higher compare with CPI. And if in the beginning of the last year the rapid producer's price growth considered as compensatory effect after sharp devaluation, than in the middle of the 1999 such growth pointed to the cost-push inflation potential forming.
Interest Rates
The forecast of the interest rates for 1999 was quite awkward, because of the crisis on the Russian financial markets - in the most of the surveys the interest rates assessments were absent. This fact also connects with the impossibility to identify the term "interest rates" after financial crisis. It means the low identification of the financial risks, interest rates, liquidity and markets' turnover. The key problem is to define the minimal cost of the money in the national economy and the minimal interest rates in the context of the market economy.
T U Exchange Rate
All the assessments of the exchange rate exceeded the 27 RUB/USD for 01.01.2000. Such assumptions were justified according to the next suggestions. Firstly, the access of the Russia to the foreign loans was indefinite along with the high level of external debt service payments. This meant, that the Central Bank of RF should buy the significant amount of the foreign currency and issue the correspondent amount of the rubles. The new money would form the demand on foreign currency. Secondly, the foreign currency is traditionally the most attractive savings for the domestic economic agents. The major assessments suggested that in the case of the households' disposable income growth all the private savings would be targeted to the foreign currency. Thirdly, the capital outflow is high and the official attempts to cut it entail the great doubts. Fourthly, the households' disposable income would stimulate the imports increase. Fifthly, the necessity to reach agreements with the foreign investors about profit repatriation from the domestic debt markets meant the additional capital outflow.
Source: EU "Vedi".
The major of the experts assumed the stable real exchange rate in 1999. Theoretically the fall of the world oil prices and the negative results on the Russia external debt talks can affect on the exchange rate dynamics. The scenario, under which the effect of listed factors is postponed and will realize later also possible in the current year.
Î AÌ
The condition of the Russian balance of payments was significantly improved in 1999. If the current account balance was $1.6 bln. in 1998, than this value was $20.5 bln. in 1999. The balance of trade was $30.2 bln., balance of non-financial services - -$2.0 bln., balance of the investment income was -$8.6 bln. according to the Central Bank of RF data. Moreover, Russian State Statistic Committee (Goskomstat) data the balance of trade was $33.2 bln. in the last year.
T
Source: EU "Vedi"
The scatter of the assessments of the current account balance was not significant, but all the forecasts were lower than actual data.
C T Foreign Trade
The volume of the Russian exports was quite stable and defined by as the external market capacity as the productivity of the national industry, taking into consideration the lack of investments and poor condition of the assets in fuel-energy and metallurgy sectors. The sharp ruble devaluation should stimulate Russian exports, but it had not happen, including because of output limitations.
Source: EU "Vedi"
The structure of the Russian exports remained the same and the share of fuel-energy commodities was 42.4% in 1999 (40.2% in 1998), metals - 15.1% (16.9%). Respectively the assessments, which suggested the increase of the exports in 2000, looks not validate, because of evident downward trend of the world oil prices and the capacity of the domestic production. But according to the official data, prepared by the ministry of economy, the growth of the Russian exports will be 3% YOY. Independent experts are even more optimistic and their forecasts pointed to the export increase on 5-7% YOY. Experts from EU "Vedi" assess the volume of exports on the level of the last year, because even under negative scenario the export efficiency will stimulate redistribution of the products from domestic to external market.
Source: CBR, EU "Vedi"
The export exchange rate is calculated as the ratio between the producer prices and the export prices of commodities, which are consisted 55-60% of the total exports under the zero export profitability.
T
Source: Goskomstat RF, EU "Vedi"
The assessments of Russian imports were higher than actual, what could be explained by the overestimation of the households' real income. The majority of the experts converged that the import substitution effect is over now. Thus the key factors for import dynamics will be real exchange rate and real disposable income. The ministry of economy assessments suggest the import growth on 9% YOY in the current year and independent experts - on 3-5%.
Source: EU "Vedi"
The volume of Russian imports depended on real exchange rate appreciation and households' real disposable income growth. Because of the actual data of the disposable income was less than forecasted the volume of imports turns to be overestimated.
Conclusions
The results of Russian economic development in 1999 confirm that the current tendencies are difficult for understanding and forecast. The main methodological difficulty was to assess the financial flows between the enterprises and households as the economic agents after financial crisis in 1998. The financial balance of the consolidated government was stable, as the exogenous defined balance with the rest of the world. All the estimates suggested the more rapid recovery of the households' income compare with enterprises' revenues. The key threats were the high inflation and devaluation rates. Thus as the main stabilization measures were considered the tough monetary policy and administrative exchange rate control.
R
Source: EU "Vedi", Russian Government
The plan of the federal budget for the year 2000 can be fulfilled or overfulfiled, because the key macroeconomic parameters have been already revised by the government. For example, the GDP, industrial production and investments will be higher, than projected. The conclusion can be that the government doesn't understand the processes in the national economy or it uses the wrong approach for forecast's calculations.
B T A T T F Copyright © 2000 VEDI