In an article published on Friday in the Financial Times, Professor Fridrik Mar Baldursson and Professor Richard Portes defended the Icelandic economy against a highly critical article which appeared in the same publication two days previously.
In the article the pair argue that Iceland’s current economic slowdown is actually welcome news, given the fact that the country’s annual growth rate was an average of 5.2 percent between 2003 and 2007, and that unemployment is still running at just one percent.
A correction is necessary to relieve pressure on the economy; but with Q1 2008 showing growth of 1.1 percent over Q1 2007, the slowdown is very real, “but hardly a catastrophe,” the professors state.
They go on to say that Iceland’s over-valued currency has weakened to a point considerably lower than it perhaps should be – a point of view echoing the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this month. But the professors believe it to be a normal fluctuation that will right itself.
In the meantime, the current account deficit will probably fall below 10 percent of GDP this year – welcome news for treasury and Central Bank alike.
Many Icelanders on the street feel like they are having a hard time, but nonetheless they remain the fourth wealthiest nation per capita, according to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development). In short, they will survive, the professors say.
With the completion of aluminium smelters in Iceland, exports grew by 22 percent in 2007 and future financial returns should be “excellent”, as aluminium and energy prices are at all-time highs.
On the subject of foreign debt: “External debt figures that omit returns on portfolio investments and count direct investments at book value greatly exaggerate Iceland’s negative net international investment position,” professors Baldursson and Portes write. “On IMF definitions, that was 120 percent of GDP at end-2007. The Central Bank of Iceland, no fan of spendthrift ways, reckons that a reasonable estimate of the market value of direct investments brings it down to a negative 27 percent of GDP, which is not exceptional.”
The previous FT article had criticised Iceland for the precarious position of its household debt (over 200 percent of disposable income); but apparently failed to take into account that assets, including fully funded pension funds, are over 750 percent of disposable income. The professors therefore argue that Icelanders’ debt is actually considerably less than the Americans or British, for example.
The professors close by defending the Icelandic banks, saying that the allegedly lax regulation imposed on them and their gung-ho attitude towards foreign debt are just rumour. As Iceland is a member of the EEA (European Economic Area), the country’s banks are subject to the same rules and regulations as any EU bank, and Iceland’s Financial Services Authority is “very professional”.
The fact that Iceland’s banks had “almost no exposure to the toxic securities that almost all other banks did buy,” should be a better-distributed fact, the professors believe. Nordic bank Glitnir has included this fact in a number of Icelandic market research reports distributed this year.