A World Cup of Economics

Guest Blog Post by Ronan Lyons

We all know the 2010 World Cup is on and at this stage we're down to the last sixteen. But what would a World Cup of economics look like? How would the sixteen countries that are left fare, if they were competing on economic factors, not football ones? Below is the Last 16 with a twist... each match is decided by a country's economic defence, midfield and attack.

Defence is getting the basics right, the platform for the rest of the performance. In economic terms, that's inflation. A quick review of economic history will show that in a world with fiat currencies, getting inflation down to a steady 2% or thereabouts is the equivalent of having a world-class defence. Too far above that and you're essentially giving things away for free. Too much below that and you start stifle yourself.

Midfield is the engine and a good economy, like a good football team, needs balance: enough both going forward and getting back. In economics, that means looking at a country's current account balance. This is essentially a measure of how much a country is in balance and living within its means. A large current account deficit is a big warning sign that an economy is unbalanced.

Attack is all about going forward. Economically, going forward means looking at a country's growth prospects. The higher GDP growth, the greater a sense of opportunity and adventure an economy has. To measure the strength of a country's attack, IMF estimates of GDP growth over the period 2008-2015 have been used. For the inflation rate and the current account balance, the same source and time period are used. And with that out of the way, let the games begin...

1. Uruguay vs. South Korea
In defence, this is no contest really. The Uruguayans still suffer from relatively high inflation (averaging 6% over coming years), while the Koreans at 3.2% are much closer to the "dream rate" of 2%. In midfield, While the Uruguayans are quite close to having a balanced account, the South Koreans have a very desirable current account balance, the average balance for 2008-2015 being just over 2%.

It's only up front where the Uruguayans start to shine. From 2000 to 2007, the Koreans grew three times as fast, but out to 2015 the Uruguayan economy is expected to grow by 4.6% on average, compared to a still very respectable 3.5% average growth in Korea.

Result: A strong attack is not enough for Uruguay. 3-1 to Korea.

2. USA vs. Ghana
The Americans have a strong advantage in defence, with Ghana still grappling with double-digit inflation while the US is expected to have the dream rate 2% on average. Neither midfield is up to much, to be honest. Both countries have large current account deficits - an average of 3.6% in the US and 8.8% in Ghana, so the edge goes to the US.

Up front, however, Ghana have by far the best attack in the competition. Average growth in Ghana is expected to top 7% over 2008-2015, compared to less than 2% in the US.

Result: Weak at the back, delightful up front, Ghana go out in style. USA win 3-2.

3. Argentina vs. Mexico
At the back, perhaps it's Mexico's membership of NAFTA but it looks to be in a different league. Inflation rates in Mexico of 4% are far better than the 9% or more predicted for Argentina.

In the middle of the park, Argentina have the edge, though, with a surplus of 2% compared to a small deficit in Mexico. Up front, things are tighter but again Argentina has the slight edge. It is expected to grow by an average of 3.3%, compared to 2.8% for Mexico.

Result: A very tight game, with Argentina's midfield and attack eventually unlocking Mexico's defence. 2-1 after extra time to Argentina.

4. Germany vs. England
Two teams that give practically nothing away at the back. England, with inflation at just 2.2%, are top drawer, but Germany, averaging 1.4%, take it to a different level. With defence like that, it's probably not a surprise that neither sets the world alight with their attack. England have the slight edge, with growth prospects of 1.3%, a little bit above Germany's 0.8%.

Therefore, this is a match that's decided by the midfield battle - and, in the middle of the park, it's not really much of a contest. England have a small deficit, 1.5%, which just can't match Germany's huge surplus of 5%.

Result: Not particular exciting. 0-0, with Germany winning on penalties.

5. Netherlands vs. Slovakia
Netherlands are almost a carbon copy of Germany, with a very tight defence (inflation of just 1.4%), world-beating midfield (surplus of 5.2%) and a relatively dull attack (growth of just 1%).

All this makes it tough for a Slovakian side with a solid defence (2.4%) and great attack (growth of 3.4%) but a soft middle (deficit of 2.8%). Nonetheless, the rate at which Slovakia is improving, plus the paucity of the Dutch going forward, means a shock may just be on the cards.

Result: One for the underdog - 1-1 after 90 minutes, and in extra time the Slovaks sneak a winner.

6. Brazil vs. Chile
Easily the most entertaining for the neutral. Here are two sides with cavalier defences (average inflation of 4.8% and 3.4%) and very potent attacks (both are expecting growth to average 3.9%), meaning lots of goals. This is probably helped in the middle of park by relatively weak midfields, with both countries facing a current account deficit (2.8% for Brazil, 1.6% for Chile).

In each of the three areas, though, Chile has the slight advantage, while add up to prove decisive.

Result: Great fun to watch, and Chile just about have the edge. 4-3 after extra time.

7. Paraguay vs. Japan
Two very different teams again. At the back, Japan are so tight as to be stifling themselves, let alone the opposition (0% inflation). As a result, they don't have much up front (growth of 0.6%), even if they're solid enough in the middle (surplus of 2.4%).

Facing them are Paraguay, a typically Latin American side with weak defence (inflation of 4.1%) but a very strong attack (3.9%) and a midfield that's not too shabby (a 1% deficit).

Result: Against a team happy to pass to themselves at the back for 90 minutes, Paraguay have to take their chances - but once they take their lead, Japan can't recover. 1-0.

8. Portugal vs. Spain
The Iberian clash features two very similar economies. Both with defences that are getting better - inflation of 1.3% and 1.5% respectively - and attacks that are getting worse (growth set to slow to 0.4% and 0.6%). Both also with hopeless midfields, thanks to large current account deficits.

Nonetheless, that said, Spain has the edge in all three departments.

Result: Probably the dullest of the fixtures. 1-0 to Spain.

Which leaves the quarter-final line-up looking like:
Slovakia vs. Chile, the winners of whom play the winners of...
S. Korea vs. USA

Germany vs. Argentina, the winners of whom play the winners of...
Paraguay vs. Spain

Guest Blog Post by Ronan Lyons

AIB Bank Charges

I received two letters from AIB on the 18th of March (both dated 30th April) informing me that the 'agreed fee arrangement' on the accounts expired on the 28th May. They went on to inform me that their 'Standard Rate of Fees and Charges' would apply from the 28th of May. A copy of their 'Business Fees and Charges' booklet was supposed to be enclosed, it wasn't.

I rang the local branch on the 18th to speak with my 'Relationship Manager' and got to talk with the person that had signed the letter on their behalf. I asked for a copy of the original agreed fee arrangement and the charges booklet. There was no sign of these a week later, so I called again. The guy that was supposed to send out the information would ring me back 'in a few minutes' - he didn't. I got to speak with the 'Relationship Manager' on the 27th, after another call to the branch. He was not aware of the previous calls.

To cut a long story short, I'm none too happy about the bank increasing the charges on my accounts. Under the existing agreement - I managed to find my copy - I pay 25% of the standard charges and, to me, this represents a fair arrangement as I'm not in and out of the branch every day. In fact, I have been in it just 7 times this year.

What's really bugging me about this effort by the bank to squeeze account holders for the errors of the banks ways, is that the letters I received were written without even bothering to look at the original agreement. They have assumed that I do not have a copy and are reluctant to furnish me with theirs.

The old agreement, dating back to 2006 and signed by the same 'Relationship Manager', states that it 'is for a specific period of time' but the expiry date is down as 'Ongoing'. It also states that I will be 'advised by letter of the expiry of the agreement one month prior to the expiry date'.

So, it seem that the expiry date of the agreement has been made up by the bank. It is also underhand to date a letter that implies that it was issued a month before a fictitious expiry date when it received by me 10 days before said expiry date.

What would you do?

The Life & Pension Industry's Vicious Circle

The Life and Pension Industry is starved of 'new' business. Economic woes have led to folk reducing or stopping their contributions for Life Insurance, Pensions and long-term Savings and Investments plans. Others have simply put off their decision to buy these products because of all the uncertainty. The Government decision to slap a 1% Levy on Life Insurance and Savings and Investment Policies has not helped matters either.

One would assume that this would lead to Life & Pension Companies introducing innovative consumer friendly ways of enticing punters to buy their products. Instead of bending-over-backwards to acquire 'new' business, it would appear that they have resigned themselves to a policy of 'rob your competitor'. I am defining 'new' business, as transactions that are not set up with another provider already and have not reached their maturity/end date.

The industry standard at the moment is to offer incentives to advisors to move their book of business from one provider to another. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the companies are even entertaining this zero-sum game. The exercise is fraught with danger, in particular, from a consumer perspective.

In my humble opinion it is a disaster waiting to happen. The company that receives the transfer of business gets to report magical and illusory 'new' (to them at least) business figures at the end of the year. If you're a manager and you are rewarded on 'gains' in market share, then you are going to be quids in at the start of next year. If you are an advisor, you will also have received some incentive payment. Let's face it, you are not doing it for no reward. However, if you are a consumer, you are going to be caught in the cross-fire.

There may be genuine cases where transferring a transaction from one product provider to another is in the best interest of the policyholder but I would argue that, in the majority of situations the reasons for the transfers are spurious and incentive driven.

Something needs to be done. The Life & Pension Companies need to cop themselves on and stop encouraging the transfers of business from one provider to another. Otherwise, they will be mired in a mis-selling scandal and the business models that they currently employ will implode, as the same transactions are passed around from Billy to Jack every few years. They have to acknowledge that the consumer is the most important person to the survival of their business.

To the consumer, I say : 'If a proposal is presented to you to transfer from one product provider to another, make sure that the reasons for the transaction are in your best interest. Get a second opinion. Ask for confirmation, in writing, that there will be no entry or exit penalties/charges on the 'new' transaction and that you receiving a more favourable annual management charge. Ask for written confirmation from the company that the business is being transferred to that the advisor has no 'deal' with them that stipulates a required minimum level of business.'

It's very disheartening to be watching this from within the industry.

Caveat Emptor.