Sentences with phrase «nominal gdp growth»

Here's the question: what do you think nominal GDP growth will be on average forever?

At lower rates of nominal GDP growth, the security will have a finite value that declines rapidly with lower nominal GDP growth.

This has gotten too long, but one thing that I will try over the next few days is estimate Nominal GDP growth rates for nations in the «ring of fire,» and their Government's financing rates.

And, dividends may also provide a modest potential hedge against changes in nominal GDP growth, should the economy decelerate unexpectedly.

«If you instead deflate the nominal GDP growth of 3.0 percent with the 4.3 percent increase in the gross domestic purchases deflator, then growth was -1.2 percent,» he wrote on his blog.

Perhaps 5 % of the US has truly prepared for retirement, given the faulty assumption that portfolios can grow much faster than nominal GDP growth plus 2 %.

In 1991, the nominal GDP growth rate hit a low of 2.9 %.

Maybe we will get some who say it never has to be balanced, or that we just have to get deficit growth below nominal GDP growth, or that we can do an external default that sabotages the rest of the world, while we get our house in order.

Historically, nominal GDP growth, corporate revenues, and even cyclically - adjusted earnings (filtering out short - run variations in profit margins) have grown at about 6 % annually over time.

Over the last 100 years, nominal GDP growth has averaged 6 %.

All the while it was paying interest and growing sales at rates above nominal GDP growth.

The 6 % nominal GDP growth is made up of 3 % inflation + 2 % productivity gains + 1 % population growth.

Alternatively, the Fed could wait for nominal GDP to double and «catch up» to the present level of base money, which would take about 14 years, assuming 5 % nominal GDP growth.

In stodgy old Britain, nominal GDP growth has averaged just 4.9 %, but investment returns have been 6.1 % per annum, more than nine percentage points ahead of booming China.

Since the recovery began in the middle of 2010, nominal GDP growth has averaged 3.9 percent in a range between 3.3 percent and 4.7 percent.

Assuming 3.4 % average nominal GDP growth, the coupon doubles every 21 years, forever.

Despite delivering forty four consecutive quarters of nominal GDP growth, Labour's embrace of 1980s neo-liberalism guaranteed neither economic stability nor the sound productive base necessary to sustain long - term social investment.

Now add the nominal GDP growth rate of 3 % real plus 2 % inflation.

So I'm not sure it's even reasonable to assume 6.3 % nominal GDP growth going forward, unless most of it is inflation (in which case the prospective nominal return may be the same, but the prospective real return would be lower).

Annual growth in household credit in Australia has exceeded growth in nominal GDP by an average of 8 1/2 percentage points since the mid 1990s and currently exceeds nominal GDP growth by around 15 percentage points (Graph 66).

There is no firm benchmark as to what constitutes a «normal» relationship between credit growth and nominal GDP growth.

Our model indicates that going forward, long - term yields will likely be subject to three upward pressures: (1) Our forecasted increase in inflation will boost nominal GDP growth; (2) As forward guidance is replaced by a data - dependent monetary tightening, volatility in short rates will increase; and (3) As the impact of QE on the Treasury market fades, long - term yields will trend back to their historical link with nominal GDP growth.

In 1991, the nominal GDP growth rate hit a low of 2.9 %.

In addition, private sector forecasts have been revising upwards their forecasts of real and nominal GDP growth.

This could include setting targets for nominal GDP growth rather than inflation, investing in a wider range of risk assets, making plans to allow base rates to turn negative, and underscoring the importance of avoiding a new recession.

If nominal GDP growth is going to be «lower for longer» then so will bond yields.

To prefer 5 % to the current 4 % nominal GDP growth going forward, and a fortiori to ask for a burst of money creation to get us back to the previous 5 % bubble path, is to ask for chronically higher monetary expansion and inflation that will do more harm than good.

Despite the risks to the debt burden, Moody's baseline scenario is that the debt - to - GDP will remain below 60 %, mitigated by the strong nominal GDP growth due to high inflation and the existence of government financial buffers (around 14 % of GDP).

Corporate profit growth has accelerated, supported by stronger nominal GDP growth (domestic demand pick - up) and receding headwinds from the EM adjustment and commodity price shock of 2014 - 16.

In the November 214 Update, Oliver forecast nominal GDP growth at 3.7 % for 2015.

In that case, it is very possible that, with the right set of productivity - enhancing reforms, credit growth begins to decline sharply while nominal GDP growth remains constant or even rises.

Everyone agreed that debt in China is still growing far too quickly relative to the country's debt - servicing capacity, but the pace of credit growth seems to have declined in 2017, even as real GDP growth held steady and, more importantly, nominal GDP growth increased.

But I really was convinced of my math, which connected iron ore prices inexorably with the extraordinarily large gap between China's Nominal GDP growth and interest rates set by the PBoC, and it was clearly impossible to maintain this gap.

The previous government reduced the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) escalator from 6 % per year to a three - year moving average in nominal GDP growth, with funding guaranteed by at least 3 % per year, starting in 2017 - 18.

China's debt problems, in other words, can not be resolved administratively, by fixing the shadow banking system, by imposing discipline on borrowers, or indeed by eliminating financial repression (much of which, by the way, has already been squeezed out of the system by lower nominal GDP growth).

While there are some signs of recognition such as the Fed's reduction in its estimated neutral rate from 4.5 percent to 3.0 percent during the last 2 years, the IMF's explicit use of the term secular stagnation in its World Economic Outlook, ECB president Mario Draghi's call for global coordination and greater use of fiscal policy, and Japan's indicated interest in fiscal - monetary cooperation, policymakers still have not made sufficiently radical adjustments in their world view to reflect this new reality of a world where generating adequate nominal GDP growth is likely to be the primary macroeconomic policy challenge for the next decade.

Reported nominal GDP growth is around 5 %, but the growth in debt servicing capacity is probably lower.

It is only when credit growth begins to decelerate much more rapidly than nominal GDP growth that we can begin to talk hopefully about China's moving in the right direction, and it is only when credit growth falls permanently below the growth rate of the economy's debt - servicing capacity that China will have adjusted.

Because I think China's nominal GDP growth has been overstated by a substantial amount because of its systematic failure to write down bad loans, I usually have subtracted 2 - 4 percentage points from the nominal GDP growth rate before I did my very rough calculation.

For many years nominal GDP growth in China was 18 - 21 % and the official lending rate was around 7 %.

Their studies suggested that among developing countries nominal lending rates had on average been around two - thirds on nominal GDP growth rates (although China, at around one - third, was still well below anyone else's at the time).

One of the ways Beijing seems to be reducing the pain of more expensive borrowing (relative to nominal GDP growth) is to loosen credit in a targeted way.

Because low - risk investments return roughly 20 % on average in a country with 20 % nominal GDP growth, financial repression means that the benefits of growth are unfairly distributed between savers (who get just the deposit rate, say 3 %), banks, who get the spread between the lending and the deposit rate (say 3.5 %) and the borrower, who gets everything else (13.5 % in this case, assuming he takes little risk — even more if he takes risk).

Nominal GDP growth also picked up in Q1, advancing 4.8 % vs. the year - earlier level — the strongest annual gain since 2015's first quarter.

Before the financial crisis, nominal GDP growth of 5 % was considered normal in America.

But regardless of the debate, the point to remember is that when the nominal lending rate is much below the nominal GDP growth rate, two very important things happen.

As long as this government debt is rolled over continuously at non-repressed interest rates, which will be low as nominal GDP growth drops, China can rebalance the economy without a collapse in growth.

The more appropriate measure of financial repression is not the deflator, whichever one we choose to use, but rather very roughly the gap between the nominal lending rate and the nominal GDP growth rate, the latter of which broadly represents the return on investment within the economy.

TD is also now forecasting nominal GDP growth of only 1.1 % in 2015 considerably less than the almost 4 % growth forecast by the government last November.

«The marginal cost of that debt is far above nominal GDP growth in respective nations.