Tag: #ukeconomy

ICAEW chart of the week: Q4 retail sales

Chart: 2018 Q4 retail sales £121.3bn + inflation (1.4%) £1.7bn + sales growth (0.9%) £1.1bn = £124.1bn 2019 Q4 retail sales.

Concerned about the state of the UK economy? Then the latest retail sales numbers will not have helped, with fourth quarter sales in the UK mainland just 0.9% higher after inflation over a year earlier, as illustrated by the #icaewchartoftheweek.

With population growth still estimated to be running at around 0.6% a year, this implies that retail sales per capita in Q4 (at around £635 per month) were just 0.3% higher after inflation than the same period in 2018.

Sales in Q4 of £124.1bn comprised £41.3bn on food, drink and tobacco, £21.3bn on clothing and footwear, £19.6bn on household goods, £11.5bn on automotive fuel and £30.4bn on other non-food purchases. On a per capita basis, this is equivalent to approximately £210 per person per month on food, drink and tobacco, £110 on clothing and footwear, £100 on household goods, £60 on automotive fuel and £155 on other non-food purchases.

This low level of growth on a year earlier reflects a slow-down in retail activity in the fourth quarter of 2019, with the Office for National Statistics reporting that Q4 sales were 0.9% lower than the third quarter on a seasonally-adjusted basis.

This will feed into fourth quarter GDP, which will not be good news for the Chancellor as he puts together what is being rumoured to be a radical first Budget in March – a weak economy will reduce his room for manoeuvre to reform the tax system while boosting public spending at the same time.

ICAEW chart of the week: monthly GDP estimates to September 2019

Chart: Monthly GDP estimates. Sep 2018 +0.02%, +0.25%, +0.20%, -0.29%, +0.48%, +0.28%, +0.04%, -0.49%, +0.21%, +0.11%, +0.31%, -0.16%, Sep 2019 -0.07%.

The ONS announced today that the real-terms change in quarterly GDP for Q3 (July to September 2019) was +0.3%, a turnaround from the contraction of -0.2% seen in Q2.

The #icaewchartoftheweek looks instead at the seasonally adjusted monthly changes in GDP over the last year. This is a view that the ONS tends not to highlight because it highlights one of the issues with GDP, which is the inherent difficultly in estimating it accurately. It prefers to remove the rockiness in the monthly numbers by averaging the results over longer periods, such as its headline three-month rolling estimates reported in the media today; a number that is still subject to revision, but to a lesser extent than that for individual months.

The monthly contraction of -0.07% in September may therefore not make the headlines, but it is the principal reason why expectations of 0.4% for quarterly growth were 0.1% too high. Most economists expected the economy to be flat this month, rather than the small contraction in the statistics released this morning.

Revisions may have a significant impact on the October monthly GDP estimates scheduled to be released two days before the general election on 10 December 2019. A flat October with no revisions would see the three-month rolling GDP number fall to 0.0%, while a further contraction could see quarterly growth turn negative, a potentially significant contributor to the public debate in the couple of days before the polling booths open.

Perhaps the main conclusion that can be drawn is not about the specific monthly changes themselves, but rather how the economy is so weak that a very small change either in actual economic activity, or in statistical data collection, can easily move the numbers from positive to negative or vice-versa.

A rather dismal perspective to hold onto as the debate rages and claim and counterclaim are made.

ICAEW chart of the week: Balance of payments

Chart: Balance of payments 2018. Current account -£93bn (trade -£38bn, primary income -£29bn, secondary income -£26bn), capital account -£3bn, financial account +£96bn (investment +£77bn, errors and omissions +£19bn).

Although most of the focus on the balance of payments is on trade, i.e. imports and exports of goods and services, it is not the only element in the balance of payments equation, as the #icaewchartoftheweek illustrates.

Based on the 2019 Pink Book published by the Office for National Statistics last week, the balance of payments between the UK and the rest of the world in 2018 comprised a current account deficit of £93bn and a capital account deficit of £3bn, balanced by net inward investment of £77bn and errors and omissions of £19bn.

The current account deficit remains high by historical standards and was equivalent to 4.3% of GDP in 2018, up from 3.5% of GDP in 2017.

The current account deficit incorporates a trade deficit of £38bn, with imports of £680bn exceeding exports of £642bn. This reflects a surplus in services of £104bn that was more than outweighed by a deficit in goods of £142bn.

The primary income deficit of £29bn reflected £242bn in outflows – mainly investment income paid to foreign investors – less £213bn coming into the UK, while the secondary income deficit of £26bn reflects contributions to international institutions (including the EU), international development assistance, remittances and other net transfers.

Capital flows of £3bn reflect both sales of non-financial assets, and capital grants to other countries.

Inward investment of £178bn comprised direct investment in UK businesses of £28bn and £151bn of equity and debt investments, less a net £1bn movement in other forms of investment. Outward investments amounted to £101bn, with direct investments in foreign businesses of £29bn and £204bn in other movements (including currency changes), less net sales of £132bn of equity and debt investments.

Unfortunately, getting the balance of payments to actually balance is quite difficult and so the ONS has plugged the difference between the current, capital and financial accounts with £19bn in ‘errors and omissions’. The ONS will continue to revise the statistics over time, with the aim of improving the accuracy of the components reported.

Although the precise numbers will continue to be refined, the overall picture presented by the ONS is unlikely to change. The UK continues to buy more than it sells, pays out more to foreign investors than is earned from foreign investments, and transfers money to the rest of the world; with finance provided by foreign investors.

For more information about the Balance of Payments, visit UK Balance of Payments, The Pink Book: 2019.

Table: Balance of payments 2018

ICAEW chart of the week: Housing sales

The ICAEW chart of the week this week is on the topic of the residential housing market, one of the swathe of economic statistics published by the Office for National Statistics last week. 

While there is often great interest in what is happening to house prices, data on the number of transactions tends to get less publicity – despite perhaps being more important to the economy. After all, people moving home often generate a great deal of additional economic activity, such as redecorating and buying new furniture.

There were 856,000 housing sales in the year ended 30 September 2018, down from 948,000 in 2016 and 36% lower than the pre-crisis peak of 1,340,000 in 2007.

Much of the decline in the volume of transactions has been put down to the weak economic recovery, with low real family incomes making it difficult for many to buy, despite extremely low mortgage rates. Another culprit may be stamp duty, a friction in the housing market as it significantly increases the cost of moving home.

The total value of the transactions in 2018 was £253bn, meaning that the average price paid for house in England & Wales was £296,000.

The statisticians prefer to focus on the median value, which was £232,000 in 2018. The ONS uses this to calculate affordability, with the ratio to gross annual earnings at 7.83 in 2018, up from the 7.77 seen in 2017. Surprisingly this is higher than the 7.17 calculated for the peak in 2007, which in turn was significantly higher than the ratio of 4.13 back in 2000.

With politicians of all parties keen to increase housing supply, the hope is that more people will be able to get on the housing ladder and the volume of transactions will start to increase again. Whether that will actually happen remains to be seen.