US ECONOMICS

FED. May 30, 2017. Speech. Navigating the Different Signals from Inflation and Unemployment. Governor Lael Brainard. At the New York Association for Business Economics, New York, New York

For the first time in many years, we are seeing signs of synchronized economic expansions at home and abroad, and the balance of risks globally has become more positive. Recent data suggest that the underlying momentum of the domestic expansion remains solid. While U.S. consumption was weak in the first quarter of 2017, the data so far are consistent with a rebound in the current quarter. Moreover, financial conditions remain supportive of continued economic expansion despite some recent volatility.1

The ongoing progress in bringing Americans back into productive employment is especially heartening. With continued strength in the labor market, economic activity regaining momentum, and a brighter outlook abroad, it would be appropriate soon to see the federal funds rate moving closer to its neutral level. If the economy evolves in line with the March Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) median path, normalization of the federal funds rate is likely to be well underway before too long, setting the stage for a gradual and predictable running off of the balance sheet.

Even so, I see some tension between signs that the economy is in the neighborhood of full employment and indications that the tentative progress we had seen on inflation may be slowing. If the tension between the progress on employment and the lack of progress on inflation persists, it may lead me to reassess the expected path of the federal funds rate in the future, although it is premature to make that call today.

Different Signals from the Labor Market and Inflation

Let me start by reviewing the conflicting readings we are getting from the labor market and from inflation.

The labor market has continued to strengthen. Payroll growth has averaged 175,000 over the past three months, more than sufficient to absorb new entrants into the labor market. Although earlier in the recovery, it appeared that the U-3 unemployment rate was running ahead of broader indicators of slack, more recently, it has been encouraging to see other margins of slack being drawn down. The labor force participation rate has held stable, against what many believe to be a downward trend based on demographics, and the employment-to-population ratio has reached a new post-recession high. Moreover, the share of employees who work part time for economic reasons has recently moved down close to its pre-crisis level, after a long period of remaining at elevated levels.

The most commonly used U-3 measure of the unemployment rate moved down to 4.4 percent in April. This happens to be the cyclical low reached in 2006-07, although unemployment was at or below this level much of the time from the middle of 1998 to the middle of 2001. Relative to recent decades, the unemployment rate is now quite low. In fact, some have voiced concerns that the economy has proven unable to sustain its expansion when the unemployment rate has fallen below these levels. With that in mind, it is worth asking whether we should be worried that history will inevitably repeat itself.

The truth is, we cannot know for sure. Although rising inflation often heralded the death knell of economic expansions in earlier decades, inflation expectations have been well anchored and rising inflation has presented less of a risk in the most recent business cycles.2 From 1998 to 2001, for instance, core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation never exceeded 2 percent on a four-quarter basis. Core PCE inflation did reach as high as 2.4 percent in the period from 2006 to 2007, but, at the time, this higher inflation was viewed as reflecting the pass-through of a significant run-up in energy and non-energy import prices.3

Today, there is little indication of an outbreak of inflation--rather, the latest data on inflation have been lower than expected. If anything, the puzzle today is why inflation appears to be slowing at a time when most forecasters place the economy at or near full employment.

Even wage inflation, which is most tightly connected to labor market slack, shows little sign of heating up by most measures. Overall, wages are increasing a bit more rapidly than they were a few years ago, but the latest data on wages do not show much progress over the past year. Average hourly earnings rose only 2-1/2 percent in the 12 months through April, the same as a year earlier. Similarly, the employment cost index was up only 2-1/4 percent in the 12 months through March. While that is up from a year earlier, it is lower than two years ago. The Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker tells a similar story: Upward movement in wage gains was observed until about a year or so ago, but there has been little acceleration recently.

Turning to overall inflation, earlier this year, reports indicated that the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) preferred measure of inflation--the headline measure of consumer price inflation on a national accounts basis--had, on a 12-month change basis, risen close to the FOMC's objective, but the latest figures have edged down somewhat as the rebound in energy prices has abated. I tend to place greater weight on the core measure of inflation, which abstracts from the transitory movements in energy prices and is a better predictor of future inflation. In the April report, the core measure--that is, excluding food and energy prices--had increased only 1.5 percent on a 12-month change basis. That reading marks a considerable shortfall from the Committee's 2 percent objective. And there does not seem to have been any progress over the past year or so: Core PCE inflation is about the same over the past 12 months as over the preceding period. Although the past two monthly readings of core inflation have been held down in part by idiosyncratic factors, including upgrades to cell-phone plans, the apparent lack of progress in moving core inflation back to 2 percent is a source of concern.

Traditionally, economists assessed that as labor market slack diminished and the economy approached full employment, upward pressure on inflation would result, in the statistical relationship known as the Phillips curve. But I am not confident we can count on the Phillips curve to restore inflation to target in today's economy. Since 2012, inflation has tended to change relatively little--both absolutely and relative to earlier decades--as the unemployment rate has fallen considerably.4 At a time when the unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 percent to 4.4 percent, core inflation has undershot our 2 percent target for 58 straight months.5 In other words, the Phillips curve appears to be flatter today than it was previously. This is also true in a number of advanced foreign economies, where declines in unemployment rates to low levels have failed to generate significant upward pressures on inflation.

With the Phillips curve appearing to be a less reliable guidepost than it has been in the past, the anchoring role of inflation expectations remains critically important. Here, recent developments are mixed. The May reading of the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers' measure of longer-term inflation expectations remained near its all-time low, while the New York Fed's measure of three-year inflation expectations edged up in its latest reading to the highest level in more than a year. And although market-based measures of inflation compensation have improved relative to their lows in the middle of last year, they are still below the average level in the period from 2010 to 2014.

Attaining the Committee's symmetric target for inflation on a sustainable basis is especially important in the current environment, with the neutral real interest rate at historically lower levels, in order to ensure conventional policy has room to respond to unexpected adverse developments. Underlying fundamentals, such as import prices and diminishing slack, should lead inflation to resume moving closer to its goal. Nonetheless, currently I see more signs that progress on inflation is slowing than of a breakout of inflation to the upside, as might be the case with a nonlinearity in the relationship between inflation and unemployment when unemployment is very low.6

But as noted earlier, a breakout in inflation also was not a primary concern following the past two times the unemployment rate dropped as low as it is now, in 1998 and 2006, when recessions followed within two or three years. One notable feature of both episodes was that they were preceded by sharply elevated financial imbalances. In the late 1990s, equity prices had reached very high levels, according to common measures of stock market valuations. And the period from 2006 to 2007 coincided with a house price bubble, along with extreme leverage at a number of large financial institutions and widespread use of exotic financial products.

Broadly speaking, financial conditions today appear to be more balanced: In most markets, house prices seem fairly well aligned with rents. Large banks are much better capitalized than before the crisis and appear to be managing their risk exposures and liquidity much more carefully. While today's equity market valuations appear somewhat elevated, they do not seem to be near the dizzying heights reached in 1999 and 2000. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, importantly including critical financial reforms as well as changes in risk appetite, leverage and maturity transformation are at much lower levels than they were before the crisis.

One area that merits ongoing vigilance is corporate indebtedness, which remains at a high level and where investor appetite still seems strong. Another area of concern is auto lending--particularly in the subprime segment--where underwriting appears to have become quite lax last year and, consequently, delinquency rates indicate more borrowers struggling to keep up with their payments. Eight years into the recovery, it is important to recognize that financial conditions can change rapidly and bear special vigilance. Nonetheless, risks to the U.S. financial system do not appear to be flashing red in the way they did in the run-up to previous downturns.

It is also possible that the natural rate of unemployment has moved lower or that the unemployment rate still may be overstating the strength of the labor market. While it is encouraging that the share of employees who work part time for economic reasons has continued to move down, there may well be slack remaining along this margin. And another key measure--the prime-age employment-to-population ratio--remains more than 1 percentage point below pre-crisis levels, and further improvement there would be welcome.

The Outlook

Looking at economic activity more broadly, although first-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) was soft, the data so far suggest a rebound in the second quarter. The weak Q1 reading follows a recurring pattern in recent years, with the first quarter of the year often weaker than subsequent quarters. Moreover, below the top-line number, there were some encouraging signs of strength: Residential construction posted a double-digit increase and contributed 1/2 percentage point to first-quarter GDP growth. Drilling for oil and natural gas is rebounding sharply, and nonresidential construction contributed 3/4 percentage point to first-quarter GDP growth. Business spending on equipment and intangibles, which fell slightly in 2016, rebounded to a 7 percent annualized increase in the first quarter and contributed another 3/4 percentage point to the overall increase.

A key reason overall GDP was so weak last quarter was consumer spending, which rose only 0.6 percent at an annual rate. Nonetheless, there are good reasons to think that the first-quarter weakness in consumer spending will not persist. Household incomes should continue rising with the continued strengthening in employment and wages, home prices should be contributing through improved household balance sheets, and consumer sentiment remains upbeat.

Recent changes in financial conditions have, overall, been supportive of further gains in the real economy. The S&P 500 index is up almost 8 percent since the start of the year. At the same time, a broad measure of the exchange value of the dollar is down about 4 percent so far this year, which should help boost net exports. After moving up sharply late last year, long-term interest rates have moved down somewhat so far this year.

In addition, the balance of risks has shifted over the past two quarters, with a number of downside risks receding and some upside risks emerging. In particular, the latest international economic data have suggested waning downside risks from abroad, while continued labor market strength and the prospect for fiscal stimulus in the United States present a possible upside risk to domestic demand.

Importantly, we are seeing synchronized global growth for the first time in many years. Growth forecasts for both advanced and emerging market economies are being marked up, breaking a pattern of repeated downward revisions from 2013 to 2016. Recent political developments significantly enhanced the prospects for policy continuity in the euro area, and there has been continued growth in euro-area employment and economic activity. While Italy continues to face political, economic, and financial risks, recent developments augur well for the resilience of the broader euro area.

China's first-quarter growth came in above 7 percent at an annual rate, although there appears to have been some moderation since then, and capital outflows slowed notably. China's economy bears watching in the medium term, especially given financial-sector risks and elevated debt levels. Although Mexico's growth may moderate this year, both the Mexican equity market and the exchange rate have strengthened, along with confidence, following sharp falls late last year.

Along with the favorable shift in foreign risks, recent announcements on fiscal policy suggest some upside risk to U.S. aggregate demand. The Administration has proposed deep tax cuts, which, if implemented, could amount to about 2 percentage points of GDP in the first few years according to independent estimates. Most estimates suggest that the supply-side effects of these policies would be fairly small, so, if enacted, the net effect could well be a boost to U.S. aggregate demand at a time when the economy could be at full employment. Nonetheless, there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of any policy changes. There is also important uncertainty about the deliberations over the debt limit, which are likely to garner increasing attention in the early fall and will factor into my considerations of risks to the outlook.

The Path of Policy

On balance, when assessing economic activity and its likely evolution, it would be reasonable to conclude that further removal of accommodation will likely be appropriate soon. As I noted earlier, the unemployment rate is now at 4.4 percent, and we are seeing improvement in other measures of labor market slack, such as participation and the share of those working part time for economic reasons. There are good reasons to believe that the improvement in real economic activity will continue: Financial conditions remain supportive. Indicators of sentiment remain positive. The balance of risks at home has shifted favorably, downside risks from abroad are lower than they have been in several years, and we are seeing synchronous global growth.

The time for a change in balance sheet policy is coming into clearer view as normalization of the federal funds rate approaches the range that can be considered "well under way." If the outlook and the expected federal funds rate path evolve in line with the median projection of FOMC participants reported in the March SEP, the federal funds rate will soon approach midway to its expected long-run equilibrium value.

I shared my framework for thinking about the change in balance sheet policy in early March, and today I will elaborate on the approach that seems most appropriate to achievement of our goals.7 Consideration that normalization of the federal funds rate is well underway was the criterion the Committee adopted in its December 2015 decision to continue to reinvest principal payments. In my view, that "well under way" standard has served an important purpose.8 With asymmetry in the scope for conventional monetary policy to respond to shocks, maintaining reinvestments provided an important benefit by enabling the federal funds rate to rise more quickly than would have been possible with a shrinking balance sheet and sooner reach a level that allows for reductions if conditions deteriorate. This approach has ensured that our most proven tool, the federal funds rate, will have reached a level at which it can be cut if needed to buffer adverse shocks, thus helping to guard against the asymmetric risks associated with the effective lower bound. With the federal funds rate projected to be in the range that is midway to the Committee's projection of the long-run value of the federal funds rate later this year, I would consider it reasonable to assess that this threshold will have been attained before too long.

As we shrink the size of our balance sheet, the public's holdings of Treasury securities will rise, and that will tend to boost longer-term interest rates. In particular, most studies conclude that increases in central bank holdings of longer-maturity assets chiefly affect interest rates by reducing the quantity of longer-term securities held by the public and putting downward pressure on the term premium--that is, the difference between the yields on longer-dated assets and the path of expected short-term interest rates over the holding period. By some estimates, the effect is modestly above 90 basis points currently.9 Thus, balance sheet normalization should be associated with higher term premiums, which in turn, other things held equal, should be associated with higher long-term Treasury yields. Most studies find that higher Treasury yields also affect yields and prices of other securities: increasing interest rates faced by private-sector borrowers, making dollar-denominated assets more attractive, which tends to boost the exchange value of the dollar, and making fixed-income assets more attractive relative to stocks, tending to depress share prices. Together, these channels contribute to a tightening in financial conditions.10

These effects are, of course, in many respects, similar to the effects of increases in short-term interest rates.11 Thus, away from the zero lower bound, the two tools are, to a large extent, substitutes for one another. As a result, the FOMC will be in the unfamiliar posture of having two tools available for adjusting monetary policy. It is, therefore, important to clarify how they will be used in relation to each other. While, under most circumstances, the two tools are largely substitutes for one another in terms of their effects on the economy the federal funds rate is the tool with which we have the most experience. And using two tools at once could easily foster confusion. Thus, in my view, predictability, precision, and clarity of communications all argue in favor of focusing policy on the federal funds rate as the single active tool. In this framework, the balance sheet essentially would remain subordinate to the federal funds rate.

Under the subordinated balance sheet approach, once the change in reinvestment policy is triggered, the balance sheet would essentially be set on autopilot to shrink passively until it reaches a neutral level, expanding in line with the demand for currency thereafter. I favor an approach that would gradually and predictably increase the maximum amount of securities the market will be required to absorb each month, while avoiding spikes. Thus, in an abundance of caution, I prefer to cap monthly redemptions at a pace that gradually increases over a fixed period. In addition, I would be inclined to follow a similar approach in managing the reduction of the holdings of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), calibrated according to their particular characteristics.

The Committee's policy normalization principles have made clear that the Federal Reserve "will, in the longer run, hold no more securities than necessary to implement monetary policy efficiently and effectively."12 Over time, the gradual reduction in our balance sheet should result in a gradual decline in reserves to a longer-run level that is well below today's level but likely somewhat higher than in the pre-crisis regime. It is difficult to know in advance with any precision how low reserves can be allowed to drop. That minimum level will depend on the structural demand for reserves and the short-term variability in the demand for and supply of reserves. During the process of balance sheet normalization, I favor an approach of monitoring money markets carefully to gauge the appropriate longer-run level of reserves consistent with efficient and effective policy implementation.

Finally, while subordination of the balance sheet to the federal funds rate should be our baseline policy, in my view, there may be circumstances when we may need to rely on the balance sheet more actively. During the period when the balance sheet is running down, if the economy encounters significant adverse shocks, it may be appropriate to commence the reinvestment of principal payments again in order to preserve conventional policy space.

Conclusion

In recent quarters, the balance of risks has become more favorable, the global outlook has brightened, and financial conditions have eased on net. With the labor market continuing to strengthen, and GDP growth expected to rebound in the second quarter, it likely will be appropriate soon to adjust the federal funds rate. And if the economy evolves in line with the SEP median path, the federal funds rate will likely approach the point at which normalization can be considered well under way before too long, when it will be appropriate to adjust balance sheet policy. I support an approach that retains the federal funds rate as the primary tool for adjusting monetary policy, sets the balance sheet to shrink in a gradual and predictable way for both Treasury securities and MBS, and avoids spikes in redemptions.

While that remains my baseline expectation, I will be watching carefully for any signs that progress toward our inflation objective is slowing. With a low neutral real rate, achieving our symmetric inflation target is more important than ever in order to preserve some room for conventional policy to buffer adverse developments in the economy. If the soft inflation data persist, that would be concerning and, ultimately, could lead me to reassess the appropriate path of policy.

References

• Blanchard, Olivier (2016). "The U.S. Phillips Curve: Back to the 60s? (PDF)" Policy Brief PB16‑1. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics, January.
• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2007). "Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, March 20-21," press release, April 11.
• Bonis, Brian, Jane Ihrig, and Min Wei (2017). "The Effect of the Federal Reserve's Securities Holdings on Longer-Term Interest Rates," FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 20.
• Brainard, Lael (2015a). "Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," speech delivered at "North America's Place in a Changing World Economy," 57th National Association for Business Economics Annual Meeting, Washington, October 12.
• -------- (2015b). "Normalizing Monetary Policy When the Neutral Interest Rate Is Low," speech delivered at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford, Calif., December 1.
• -------- (2017). "Transitions in the Outlook and Monetary Policy," speech delivered at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., March 1.
• Ihrig, Jane, Elizabeth Klee, Canlin Li, Brett Schulte, and Min Wei (2012). "Expectations about the Federal Reserve's Balance Sheet and the Term Structure of Interest Rates (PDF)," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2012-57. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July.
• Kiley, Michael T. (2015). "Low Inflation in the United States: A Summary of Recent Research," FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 23.
• Nalewaik, Jeremy (2016). "Non-Linear Phillips Curves with Inflation Regime-Switching (PDF)," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016‑078. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

1. These remarks represent my own views, which do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.
2. In the period from 1950 to 2000, inflation often rose late in the business cycle. In response, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, which in turn led to a weaker economy.
3. For example, the FOMC minutes for March 2007 expressed "concern" about the rate of inflation but noted that increases in energy and non-energy imports could explain some of the upward pressure on core prices (see Board of Governors, 2007, paragraph 23). The outlook was for a gradual decline in core inflation.
4. See Blanchard (2016), Kiley (2015), and Brainard (2015a). Similarly, inflation did not fall very much as the unemployment rate climbed to 10 percent during the Great Recession.
5. The inflation information refers to core PCE inflation measured on a 12-month average basis.
6. See Nalewaik (2016).
7. See Brainard (2017).
8. This rationale is in Brainard (2015b).
9. Bonis, Ihrig, and Wei (2017) estimate that the cumulative effect of the Federal Reserve's asset purchases results in a reduction in the 10-year Treasury yield term premium moderately in excess of 90 basis points currently.
10. It seems likely that many investors have developed an expectation of the likely path of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet once the process of normalization is well underway, and these expectations are already priced into asset prices. See, for instance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York May 2017 Responses to Survey of Primary Dealers (PDF), and Responses to Survey of Market Participants (PDF).
11. There may be differences in the specific ways changes in short-term rates and the balance sheet transmit to different asset prices and the exchange rate, although estimates are limited and lack precision.
12. See the Committee's Policy Normalization Principles and Plans, available on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917c.htm.

FULL DOCUMENT: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/files/brainard20170530a.pdf

G7. BLOOMBERG. 2017 M05 30. Trump Blasts Germany Again for Trade Deficit and NATO Support
by Arne Delfs  and Patrick Donahue

• On ‘MASSIVE’ German trade surplus, ‘This will change:’ Trump
• German official says chancellor is simply reflecting reality
• Trump, Merkel Trade Barbs in Post-G-7 Dispute

President Donald Trump blasted Germany anew over trade and defense, ratcheting up a dispute with Chancellor Angela Merkel that risks getting personal and undermining a trans-Atlantic bond that is the bedrock of U.S.-European relations.

Trump’s comments came in an early-morning tweet on Tuesday issued just as Merkel hosted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Berlin, where they held a joint cabinet meeting and signed cooperation agreements. Modi suggested that India will adhere to the Paris climate accords, while Trump makes up his mind.

“We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military,” the U.S. president posted on Twitter. “This will change.”

The message came minutes after Merkel and Modi held a joint press conference in which the German leader called India a “reliable partner with respect to big projects.” That contrasted with her comments on Sunday that Europe needs to step up as trans-Atlantic ties, which have underpinned German foreign policy since World War II, become “to some extent” less dependable.

“That’s great,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday in reaction to Merkel’s remarks. “That’s what the president called for. The president is getting results and more countries are stepping up their burden sharing.”

Merkel regards her speech on Europe becoming more active internationally as a reflection of the reality during the Ukraine conflict and the refugee crisis, according to a senior German government official with knowledge of her thinking. Her comments may have been interpreted differently in the U.S., causing an uproar, but that’s not her fault, said the official, asking not to be named discussing private deliberations.

Spicer said that Trump feels he and Merkel have a “fairly unbelievable” relationship.

“They get along very well,” he told reporters at the White House. “He has a lot of respect for her.”

Modi to Li

Trump’s tweet underscored the deterioration of links with a key NATO ally, yet his timing also highlighted Germany’s web of relations with international partners who broadly share Merkel’s free-trade outlook and conviction on combating climate change. After hosting Modi, Merkel is due to meet with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Thursday. She’s also looking to French President Emmanuel Macron as an ally in strengthening the euro area.

In a speech to a German-Indian business forum later on Tuesday, Merkel took another tilt at a president elected on a ticket of “America First,” referring to “a whole series of protectionist tendencies” emerging worldwide. She said “it’s necessary to be open to achieve fair trade conditions.”

Merkel, who’s campaigning for a fourth term in September elections, stuck to her message at her party bloc’s weekly parliamentary caucus meeting. While trans-Atlantic relations remain of paramount importance, disagreement shouldn’t be swept under the carpet, a party official quoted her as telling the closed-door session.

‘This Man’

While it’s unclear whether Merkel has deliberately picked a fight with Trump or misspoken and bitten off more than she can chew, challenging his stance is popular in Germany.

Polls suggest that Merkel has overwhelming backing among German voters, and even among her political opponents, for taking a stand. It’s the “calling of our times to stand up to this man with everything that we represent,” Social Democrat Martin Schulz, Merkel’s main election challenger, said in a campaign speech late Monday.

It’s also not the first time a German chancellor has clashed with a U.S. president. Merkel’s Social Democratic predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, publicly disavowed George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in a trans-Atlantic rift that Merkel worked to repair upon her election in 2005.

Forging Own Path

Alongside Modi, Merkel said that while trans-Atlantic relations are of “paramount significance,” the European Union had to forge its own path in the world “considering the current situation.”

“What I said was simply to indicate that, here are even more reasons beyond those we already have that Europe needs to take its destiny into its own hands,” she said.

Modi, the prime minister of the world’s largest democracy, welcomed a stronger global role for the EU and expressly lauded the bloc’s most powerful leader.

“We always want that the European Union should be stronger, should be more active,” Modi said. “Through Chancellor Merkel, we will be able to work with the European Union. It’s very easy for us.”

G-20 Summit

Modi’s comments contrasted with Trump’s meeting with EU leaders in Brussels last week, when he said that Germany is “very bad” for flooding the U.S. with cars, hectored NATO allies on military spending and refused to explicitly back the principle of collective defense. At the Group of Seven summit that followed, Trump’s first, passages on free trade and on immigration were substantially altered compared to previous years, while the U.S. was alone in failing to commit to the global Paris climate agreement.

After failing to sway Trump, Merkel has turned her attention to forging consensus among other G-20 nations at a summit meeting she’s hosting in Hamburg in July.

Modi signaled that India will move forward on its climate agenda even if the U.S. exits the Paris agreement, saying politicians have “absolutely no right” to put in jeopardy the environment for future generations. He praised Merkel’s experience and Germany’s economic example to India.

“We are meant for each other,” Modi said.

_________________

APEX-BRASIL. PROMOÇÃO COMERCIAL. 30/05/2017. BRASIL INVESTMENT FORUM (FÓRUM DE INVESTIMENTOS BRASIL) - 2017

O Brasil Investment Forum 2017 (Fórum de investimentos Brasil) será uma ocasião para fomentar novos negócios e oportunidades de investimentos no Brasil. O evento vai reunir líderes políticos, empresariais, acadêmicos e de mídia em um ambiente de interação e colaboração. Durante o fórum, os investidores terão oportunidade de avaliar as melhorias no ambiente de negócios no País.
O evento será realizado em 30 e 31 de maio no Grand Hyatt Hotel, localizado na Av. das Nações Unidas, Vila Cordeiro, São Paulo.

INVISTA NO BRASIL

Com área de 8,5 milhões de quilômetros quadrados e mais de 200 milhões de habitantes, além de um território rico em recursos naturais, uma indústria sólida e democracia consolidada, o Brasil é um dos países mais atraentes para investimentos estrangeiros.

Um sistema financeiro estável e um enorme mercado interno tornam o Brasil um destino seguro para investimentos e dão ao país a força para resistir a crises internacionais.

O Brasil é hoje o sexto maior destinatário de IED no mundo, de acordo com a UNCTAD.

As reformas econômicas de ajuste fiscal formam a base para o realinhamento macroeconômico atual, garantindo a previsibilidade e a sustentabilidade dos investimentos estrangeiros.

O Brasil também trabalha para aumentar a competitividade e produtividade das suas empresas, adotando medidas para melhorar as condições de negócio.

Algumas das principais vantagens competitivas do país são:

• Ambiente de investimento sólido
• Enorme mercado interno
• Celeiro de inovação
• Grandes projetos de infraestrutura 
• Potencial energético e agricultável - Principal economia da região 
• Porta de entrada para a América Latina
• Player global

PÁGINA OFICIAL: http://www.brasilinvestmentforum.com/

OECD. Increased international co-operation on financial and corporate issues essential to making globalisation work for all

30/05/2017 - Globalisation has failed to create a level playing field in trade, investment and corporate behaviour, being one of the factors contributing to a backlash against openness in many countries and a decline in confidence in government institutions. Only by stepping up international co-operation and improving and ensuring global markets, companies and institutions play according to the same rule book can productivity growth be restored, excess capacity avoided and public confidence improved, according to a new OECD report.

The OECD Business and Finance Outlook 2017 says that strengthening global governance and co-operation on corporate and financial issues involves establishing “rules of the game” which are both fair and perceived by all to be fair.

The report argues that countries participating in globalised markets need to commit to a common set of transparent principles that are consistent with mutually beneficial competition, trade and international investment. This would reduce the problems left to be dealt with by domestic policy. It would also help improve resource allocation through promoting productivity growth and reducing the extraction of rents that harm consumers.

“The backlash against globalisation has grown in many countries and too little has been done to help more people cope with the inter-related impact of trade, foreign direct investment and technological change,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “In addition to developing more effective domestic policies, it has become essential for all nations to work together to ensure a level playing field in trade, investment and corporate behaviour to better address the downsides of globalisation while preserving the benefits of economic openness. This will ensure that the growth it fosters is inclusive and sustainable, and that globalisation works for all.”

Greater fairness in cross-border interactions reinforces policies to help workers affected by globalisation and technological change. These should include: increased infrastructure investment, structural reforms, safety nets, worker retraining and education, and kick-start adjustment support for trade-exposed workers.

The report also addresses other areas where action is needed to level the playing field. These include:

The impact of state-owned enterprises: these companies grew from 9.8% of the Fortune global 500, to close to 23% in recent years. Importantly, they include large financial companies which can play a key role in funding other SOEs on favourable terms across most business sectors. In light of this growing importance in the global scene, it is critical that SOEs governance and ownership respect best practices and prevent government support or subsidies that distort competition.

Collusion through cross-border cartels is raising prices for consumers and in particular low-income families: two hundred and forty cartels were detected and fined between 1990 and 2015, affecting USD 7.5 trillion in sales. Countries need to enforce rules around bid rigging and reduce barriers to collecting information and sharing investigations between authorities in different countries.

Stricter enforcement of bribery and corruption laws is needed to improve the face of globalisation in the world economy. Rent-seeking behaviour is estimated to be 2% to 3% of world GDP, equivalent to the size of the French economy. The report reveals that strong bribery laws consistent with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention cause adhering countries to invest less in corrupt regimes and more in countries with sound property rights and accountability.

Competition in equity finance markets needs to be strengthened. The Outlook says that in the case of IPOs of less than USD 100 million, the average cost is 9 to 11% of the transaction. This increases the cost of equity and works against long-term productive investment.

International organisations like the OECD have an important role to play in developing these rules, says the report. More needs to be done to broaden adherence to standards such as the Anti-Bribery Convention, the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance and the OECD Guidelines of Multinational Enterprises. Governments also need to step up their implementation and enforcement to level the globalised playing field.

OECD Business and Finance Outlook 2017


The OECD Business and Finance Outlook is an annual publication that presents unique data and analysis that looks at what might affect and change, both favourably and unfavourably, tomorrow’s world of business, finance and investment. Using analysis from a wide range of perspectives, this year’s edition addresses some forces influencing economic developments that have contributed to recent surprises in elections and referendums. A common theme of these surprises has been voter discontent with globalisation and immigration that are perceived to be causes of unemployment and falling living standards for substantial segments of society in a number of OECD Countries. This Outlook’s focus is on ways to enhance “fairness”, in the sense of strengthening global governance to ensure a level playing field in trade, investment and corporate behaviour, through the setting and better enforcement of global standards. A brief review of important developments contributing to post-war globalisation is provided and a number of policy domains are covered. These include exchange rates and capital account management, financial regulation since the global financial crisis, the rising weight of state-owned enterprises in the world economy, competition policy to deal with international cartels, the cost of raising capital, responsible business conduct and bribery and corruption.

FULL DOCUMENT: http://www.oecd.org/finance/oecd-business-and-finance-outlook-2017-9789264274891-en.htm

OCDE. AGÊNCIA ESTADO. 29/05/2017. Brasil registra maior salto de exportação do G-20 em 2017. Variação das vendas do País para o exterior foi de 21,5%; na média mundial, expansão foi de 3%
Jamil Chade, correspondente
O Estado de S.Paulo

GENEBRA – O Brasil registrou o maior salto em exportações entre todos os países do G-20 no primeiro trimestre de 2017. Dados divulgados nesta segunda-feira pela Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE) indicam que a variação das vendas do País para o exterior foi de 21,5% nos primeiros três meses do ano. Na média mundial, a expansão foi de 3%.

De acordo com a OCDE, o início de 2017 registrou uma retomada do comércio exterior e a expansão nos fluxos já acumula quatro trimestres de alta. O período entre janeiro de março deste ano, segundo a entidade, foi o mais positivo desde 2011.

Exportação
Por sete trimestres, vendas brasileiras estavam sofrendo contração Foto: Fabian Bimmer|Reuters
No caso brasileiro, a taxa de 21,5% superior por ampla margem o aumento de 13,6% registrado na Rússia. Por sete trimestres consecutivos, as vendas brasileiras estavam sofrendo uma contração ou não passavam de um aumento pífio de 1,8%.

Em valores, ela atingiu US$ 56 bilhões, puxadas pela alta nos preços de commodities e a volta da importação da China em um ritmo acelerado. A recuperação, ainda que frágil, da economia europeia também ajudou.

No restante do mundo, a média de expansão foi de 3%, comparado a 1,5% no ultimo trimestre de 2016. Já as importações aumentaram em 4%, bem acima da média do final do ano passado, com uma expansão de apenas 1,2%.

“O comércio de bens entre o G20 quase atingiu os níveis pré-crise. Mas eles continuam cerca de 10% abaixo do pico atingido entre 2011 e 2014”, indica a OCDE.

De acordo com a OCDE, todas as economias do G20 registraram alta em exportações, com a exceção da França. No caso de Paris, a contração foi de 2,4%.

Sem contar com os Brics, o melhor desempenho entre as economias da OCDE foi a da Austrália, com alta de 7,2%. O crescimento também foi considerado como robusto na Coreia, com 5,7%, e 3,3 no Reino Unido. Nos EUA, a expansão foi de 2,7%, contra 2,5% no Japão e apenas 1,3% na Alemanha.

Mas a OCDE admite que a expansão comercial voltou a ser liderada por alguns emergentes. A China voltou a registrar uma alta de quase 4%, melhor resultado desde 2015. Na Índia, a taxa foi de 5,2%, contra 6,8% na África do Sul.

Importações. No que se refere às importações, a alta também foi importante no caso brasileiro. Ela atingiu 9,1%, contra uma média global de 4%.

A China voltou a liderar, com uma expansão de 9,6% no primeiro trimestre. Isso acabou reduzindo o superavit chinês para US$ 94 bilhões no período, o menor desde 2014. O governo de Donald Trump tem insistido na necessidade de um maior equilíbrio entre o que Pequim vende e compra.

Um salto considerado como “forte” também foi registrado pela OCDE na Argentina (5,1%), India (6,5%) e Coreia (8,2%).

Os dados da OCDE se contrastam com o raio-x publicado no mês passado pela OMC sobre o comércio exterior brasileiro. De acordo com a entidade, a recessão no Brasil levou o País a sofrer a maior queda de importações entre as grandes economias do mundo em 2016. A contração, segundo a OMC, já havia começado em 2014 e 2015, mas foi mantida em 2016.

No ano passado, a queda foi de quase 20% nas importações, bem acima da média de uma redução de 3% no mundo. O resultado, de US$ 143 milhões, levou o Brasil a despencar no ranking dos maiores importadores.

Em 2013 e 2014, o Brasil aparecia na 21a posição entre as economias que mais importavam. Ao final de 2016, o País estava na 28a posição, superado até mesmo pela pequena economia da Áustria.

No lado das vendas ao exterior, o Brasil também registrou uma queda em 2016, com uma contração de 3% em valores e colocando o País na 25a posição entre os exportadores. Hoje, os produtos nacionais representam apenas 1,2% do mercado mundial e mesmo a Polônia e Malásia já exportam mais que o Brasil ao mundo.

Entre suas previsões, a OMC estima que 2017 terá um melhor resultado para o comércio internacional. De uma taxa de 1,3% de expansão em termos de volume em 2016, o crescimento pode chegar a 2,4% neste ano, com uma margem de variação de 1,8% a 3,6%. Para 2018, o comércio pode se expandir entre 2,1% e 4%.

FGV. IBRE. 30/05/2017. IGP-M registra novo recuo em maio



O Índice Geral de Preços – Mercado (IGP-M) variou -0,93%, em maio. Em abril, o índice variou -1,10%. Em maio de 2016, a variação foi de 0,82%. A variação acumulada em 2017, até maio, é de -1,29%. Em 12 meses, o IGP-M registrou alta de 1,57%. O IGP-M é calculado com base nos preços coletados entre os dias 21 do mês anterior e 20 do mês de referência.

O Índice de Preços ao Produtor Amplo (IPA) apresentou taxa de variação de -1,56%. No mês anterior, a taxa foi de -1,77%. O índice relativo aos Bens Finais variou 0,06%, em maio. Em abril, este grupo de produtos mostrou variação de 0,36%. Contribuiu para este recuo o subgrupo alimentos in natura, cuja taxa de variação passou de 5,13% para -1,06%. Excluindo-se os subgrupos alimentos in natura e combustíveis para o consumo, o índice de Bens Finais (ex) registrou variação de 0,12%. Em abril, a taxa foi de -0,08%.

O índice referente ao grupo Bens Intermediários variou 0,06%. Em abril, a taxa foi de -0,77%. O principal responsável por este movimento foi o subgrupo materiais e componentes para a manufatura,cuja taxa de variação passou de -0,79% para 0,01%. O índice de Bens Intermediários (ex), calculado após a exclusão do subgrupo combustíveis e lubrificantes para a produção, variou -0,03%, ante -0,72%, em abril.

No estágio inicial da produção, o índice do grupo Matérias-Primas Brutas variou -5,26%, em maio. Em abril, o índice registrou variação de -5,22%. Os itens que mais contribuíram para este movimento foram: minério de ferro (-5,24% para -18,20%), cana-de-açúcar (0,11% para -3,86%) e leite in natura (3,68% para 0,93%).Em sentido oposto, destacam-se: soja (em grão) (-9,38% para 3,25%), milho (em grão) (-14,52% para -6,13%) e bovinos (-2,79% para 0,33%).

O Índice de Preços ao Consumidor (IPC) registrou variação de 0,29%, em maio, ante 0,33%, em abril. Quatro das oito classes de despesa componentes do índice registraram decréscimo em suas taxas de variação. A principal contribuição partiu do grupo Alimentação (0,90% para -0,13%). Nesta classe de despesa, vale citar o comportamento do item hortaliças e legumes, cuja taxa passou de 14,86% para -0,05%.

Também apresentaram decréscimo em suas taxas de variação os grupos: Educação, Leitura e Recreação (0,16% para -0,44%), Saúde e Cuidados Pessoais (1,07% para 0,93%)e Despesas Diversas (0,37% para 0,25%). Nestas classes de despesa, os destaques foram: passagem aérea (4,31% para -14,23%), artigos de higiene e cuidado pessoal (1,50% para -0,34%) e cigarros (0,31% para 0,00%), respectivamente.

Em contrapartida, apresentaram acréscimo em suas taxas de variação os grupos: Habitação (0,02% para 0,80%), Vestuário (-0,65% para 0,51%), Transportes (-0,25% para -0,08%) e Comunicação (0,21% para 0,73%). Nestas classes de despesa, destacaram-se: tarifa de eletricidade residencial (-1,73% para 4,57%), roupas (-0,73% para 0,73%), gasolina (-1,75% para -0,79%) e tarifa de telefone residencial (-1,05% para          -0,09%), respectivamente.

O Índice Nacional de Custo da Construção (INCC) registrou, em maio, taxa de variação de 0,13%. No mês anterior, este índice variou -0,08%. O índice relativo a Materiais, Equipamentos e Serviços registrou variação de -0,04%. No mês anterior, a taxa havia sido de -0,18%. O índice que representa o custo da Mão de Obra registrou variação de 0,27%. No mês anterior, este índice não variou.

DOCUMENTO: http://portalibre.fgv.br/main.jsp?lumPageId=402880972283E1AA0122841CE9191DD3&lumItemId=8A7C82C5593FD36B015C58E8FDE671AB

FGV. IBRE. 30/05/2017. Confiança de Serviços avança e confirma tendência de melhora gradual

Índice de Confiança de Serviços (ICS) da Fundação Getulio Vargas subiu 0,5 ponto em maio, recuperando parte da queda de abril (-1,1 ponto). Na métrica de médias móveis, o índice registra a primeira queda do ano (-0,3 ponto).

“Os indicadores de maio, apoiados sobretudo na percepção sobre o ambiente corrente de negócios do setor, confirmam a tendência de melhora gradual e suave da confiança das empresas de serviços que vem sendo observada ao longo dos cinco primeiros meses do ano. A avaliação sobre a situação corrente reage  há três meses consecutivos e  sustenta o avanço da confiança em maio. No entanto, cabe lembrar  que os resultados deste mês não captam inteiramente os possíveis efeitos sobre o humor empresarial decorrentes do recrudescimento da incerteza no campo político” avalia Silvio Sales, consultor do FGV/IBRE.

O avanço da confiança em maio foi setorialmente concentrado: apenas 5 das 13 atividades pesquisadas acompanharam o movimento. Além disso, a alta foi motivada por comportamentos  distintos em seus dois componentes. Houve melhora da percepção sobre a situação atual e piora das expectativas, assim como havia ocorrido no mês anterior. O Índice de Situação Atual (ISA-S) subiu 1,3 ponto, para 77,9 pontos, e o Índice de Expectativas (IE-S) recuou 0,4 ponto, para 91,7 pontos.

A principal contribuição para a variação do ISA-S em maio foi dada pelo indicador de percepção sobre a Situação Atual dos Negócios, com alta de 2,7 pontos, para 79,0 pontos. Entre os indicadores integrantes do Índice de Expectativas (IE-S), a maior influência veio do indicador de otimismo com a Tendência dos Negócios nos seis meses seguintes, que variou -0,6 ponto, para 93,6 pontos. O NUCI do setor de serviços caiu 0,1 ponto percentual (p.p.) em maio, para 82,4%.

Ameaças à retomada de contratações no setor

Assim como ocorre com o Indicador de Confiança, o indicador de perspectivas para o emprego no setor, que havia dado sinais de melhora ao final do primeiro trimestre, consolidou os ganhos no segundo trimestre. A diferença em pontos entre a proporção de empresas que pretendem  aumentar o quadro de pessoal e a das que preveem reduzi-lo nosmeses seguintes (-2,5 pontos em médias trimestrais) é a menos negativa desde fevereiro de 2015 (-1,2 ponto). Esta aproximação do saldo de respostas do nível neutro (zero) mostra que o ritmo de cortes de vagas no setor vem perdendo fôlego. Mas a desaceleração do indicador de Emprego Previsto na ponta, associada ao aumento de incertezas com os eventos políticos de maio, apontam riscos para a retomada de contratações líquidas pelo setor nos próximos meses.

A edição de maio de 2017 coletou informações de 1991 empresas entre os dias 2 e 26 deste mês.

DOCUMENTO: http://portalibre.fgv.br/main.jsp?lumPageId=402880972283E1AA0122841CE9191DD3&lumItemId=8A7C82C5593FD36B015C58F0C37C1E65

FGV. IBRE. 30/05/2017. IIE-Br avança com o com o crescimento da incerteza política no país

O Indicador de Incerteza da Economia (IIE-Br) da Fundação Getulio Vargas subiu 9,3 pontos em maio, ao passar de 118,8 pontos, em abril, para 128,1 pontos.

“A elevação de incerteza da economia em maio inverte a tendência de queda do indicador, que vinha ocorrendo nos meses anteriores. Essa mudança de trajetória pode ser creditada quase que totalmente à crise política deflagrada pela divulgação da gravação de conversa do Presidente Temer com o empresário Joesley Batista, ou seja, incerteza política gerando incerteza econômica. A ligação direta entre incerteza política e econômica neste caso deve-se, em grande parte, à conexão que especialistas e a mídia econômica fazem entre a estabilização da economia e a aprovação de reformas, principalmente a previdenciária”, afirma o economista Pedro Costa Ferreira da FGV\IBRE.

O aumento do IIE-Br em maio de 2017 ocorreu nos componentes Mídia e Mercado. O componente que mais influenciou o aumento foi o IIE-Br Mídia, com alta de 8,5 e contribuição de 7,6 pontos para a evolução do IIE-Br no mês. Já o IIE-Br Mercado aumentou 14,9 pontos, contribuindo com 1,9 ponto para o crescimento do indicador agregado de incerteza. O IIE-Br Expectativa foi o único componente a apresentar queda, de 0,8, e impacto de -0,2 ponto ao IIE-Br.

DOCUMENTO: http://portalibre.fgv.br/main.jsp?lumPageId=402880972283E1AA0122841CE9191DD3&lumItemId=8A7C82C5593FD36B015C58FC57176687

MF. PORTAL G1. 29/05/2017. Meirelles admite que atraso na reforma da Previdência pode afetar o PIB. Ele voltou a defender a aprovação da reforma e disse que rapidez da votação faz diferença para melhorar expectativa da economia e seu crescimento.
Por Darlan Alvarenga, G1

O ministro da Fazenda, Henrique Meirelles, admitiu nesta segunda-feira (29) que um atraso na aprovação da reforma da Previdência pode afetar o resultado do PIB no ano. Ele reafirmou, no entanto, que está otimista com a votação da proposta do Congresso e negou a possibilidade de um plano B para garantir a aprovação de ao menos parte das mudanças defendidas pelo governo.
“Não é real [a existência de um plano B]”, resumiu Meirelles, durante fórum da revista Exame sobre reforma da Previdência, em São Paulo. Aos jornalistas, ele descartou a possibilidade de alterar as regras da Previdência por meio de medida provisória. A informação de que o governo estuda alternativas para reforma foi publicada pelo jornal "O Globo".
Durante o evento, Meirelles voltou a defender a aprovação da reforma da Previdência pelo Congresso Nacional. Ele disse que espera que a votação ocorra na primeira quinzena de junho, seguindo cronograma apresentado pelo presidente da Câmara, Rodrigo Maia.
Ele afirmou que um eventual atraso na votação não fará diferença para os cofres públicos, mas para a formação de expectativas da economia brasileira.
"Se houver atraso de alguns meses, não será isso que vai fazer uma diferença enorme do ponto de vista fiscal a longo prazo. No entanto, para formação da expectativa, para continuar aumentando o grau de confiança para as pessoas investirem, produzirem, consumirem, é importante que a reforma seja aprovada o mais rápido possível", afirmou em entrevista a jornalistas em SP.
Questionado se o atraso afetaria também o resultado do PIB, Meirelles admitiu a chance do Brasil crescer menos do que o previsto. "Pode afetar a taxa de crescimento, sim. Na medida em que se atrasa [a aprovação da reforma], pode crescer um pouco menos", disse.
Retomada do crescimento
O ministro voltou a ressaltar, entretanto, que o país já voltou a crescer e que espera um "crescimento forte durante o ano", chegando no quarto trimestre a uma taxa de 2,7% na comparação com o quarto trimestre de 2016. Na comparação com o trimestre anterior, Meirelles disse que espera crescimento de 0,7% no PIB do primeiro trimestre, repetindo projeção anunciada anteriormente.
Questionado se há clima para avançar com as votações em meio à crise política envolvendo o presidente Michel Temer, Meirelles voltou a afirmar que a reforma da Previdência é uma agenda do país e não do governo.
"A nossa perspectiva é de aprovação", disse o ministro, acrescentando ter confiança de que "na hora do voto" o apoio de parlamentares à reforma "será muito maior do que parece".
Substituto de Temer?
Questionado se é um possível substituto de Temer na possibilidade de uma eleição indireta, Meirelles foi evasivo. “Eu não trabalho com hipóteses. Eu não gasto tempo pensando nesse assunto”, disse Meirelles. “O meu cenário base é que o presidente Temer vai concluir seu mandato em 2018.”
Questinado sobre os outros cenários possíveis, embora tenha mais uma vez evitado falar sobre o seu papel e possível candidatura numa eventual saída de Temer, o ministro fez duras críticas a política econômica dos governo anterior e avaliou que não há espaço "para voltar atrás".
"Não vejo possibilidade de voltar o Brasil a uma política econômica que fracassou, que levou o Brasil à recessão", afirmou.
Ele disse ainda que está focado no seu trabalho, que é “botar o Brasil para crescer”.

MF. REUTERS. 29/05/2017. PIB do 1º tri deve mostrar expansão de cerca de 0,7%; não há plano B para Previdência, diz Meirelles

SÃO PAULO (Reuters) - A economia brasileira deve ter crescido cerca de 0,7 por cento no primeiro trimestre em relação ao anterior e provavelmente terminará o ano em território positivo, apesar de uma piora no segundo trimestre, disse o ministro da Fazenda, Henrique Meirelles, nesta segunda-feira.

Em declarações concedidas para jornalistas estrangeiros, Meirelles disse que o governo não tem um plano alternativo para a reforma da Previdência, negando informações da mídia de que o governo poderia reduzir os benefícios de aposentadoria por meio de decreto se a proposta for rejeitada no Congresso.

"Não é uma alternativa para aprovar a reforma da Previdência por decreto. Não existe um plano B", disse Meirelles a repórteres. "Há apenas um plano A."

Meirelles disse que os dados oficiais do Produto Interno Bruto do primeiro trimestre, que serão divulgados na quinta-feira, devem mostrar um crescimento de aproximadamente 0,7 por cento em relação ao trimestre anterior, equivalente a uma taxa anualizada de 2,5 por cento a 3,0 por cento.

No entanto, Meirelles disse que o crescimento provavelmente pioraria no segundo trimestre, quando o governo do presidente Michel Temer foi atingido por uma crise desencadeada pelos acordos de delação premiada feitos por executivos da empresa JBS.

"Nossa expectativa é que haverá uma desaceleração da taxa de crescimento no segundo trimestre e que alcançaremos o final de 2017 com a economia crescendo um pouco mais rápido", disse Meirelles. "A economia deve entrar em 2018 crescendo a uma taxa de cerca de 3 por cento".

(Reportagem de Daniel Flynn)

MF. REUTERS. 29/05/2017. PIB do primeiro trimestre deve mostrar expansão de cerca de 0,7%, diz Meirelles

SÃO PAULO (Reuters) - O ministro da Fazenda, Henrique Meirelles, afirmou nesta segunda-feira que o Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) do primeiro trimestre deve mostrar crescimento de cerca de 0,7 por cento ante os três últimos meses de 2016.

O PIB do primeiro trimestre será divulgado pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) na quinta-feira.

De acordo com o ministro, na comparação com o primeiro trimestre do ano passado, o crescimento deve ficar entre 2,5 por cento e 3 por cento. Se a projeção de Meirelles se confirmar, a economia brasileira terá saído de uma recessão que se arrastou por dois anos.

Os analistas consultados pelo Banco Central, segundo o relatório Focus, estimam que a economia brasileira deve crescer 0,49% este ano e 2,48 por cento no ano que vem.

Em conversa com jornalistas estrangeiros, o ministro também afirmou que não existe um plano B para aprovar a reforma da Previdência por decreto.

A reforma da Previdência é fundamental para colocar as contas públicas em ordem. A aprovação da medida, no entanto, deve atrasar no Congresso por causa da crise política que atinge em cheio o governo Michel Temer.

Segundo o ministro, do ponto de vista fiscal, não importa muito se a reforma da Previdência for aprovada neste ano ou no próximo.

(Reportagem de Daniel Flynn)

REUTERS. ENTREVISTA. 29/05/2017. Economia brasileira seguirá em "banho-maria" até 2019, diz Nelson Marconi
Por Luiz Guilherme Gerbelli

SÃO PAULO (Reuters) - A economia brasileira vai ficar estagnada até 2019, quando um novo presidente da República deve assumir o cargo e terá condições e força política para implementar mudanças capazes de fazer o Brasil crescer de forma mais robusta novamente.

A opinião é do professor da Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) e presidente da Associação Keynesiana Brasileira, Nelson Marconi, para quem o presidente Michel Temer não conseguirá se manter em seu cargo até o final do mandato, em 2018. E mesmo quem o substituir, acrescentou, não conseguirá andar com as reformas e colocar o país em rota de crescimento.

"A economia vai ficar em banho-maria", afirmou Marconi à Reuters. "A economia brasileira deve se comportar mais ou menos como o último ano do governo (José) Sarney (presidente entre 1985 e 1990), só que sem a hiperinflação, quando todo mundo esperava o resultado da eleição de 1989", acrescentou.

Marconi, que também é coordenador do Fórum de Economia da FGV, que reúne anualmente importantes economistas e integrantes da equipe econômica, acredita que, se a troca de Temer se confirmar, a equipe econômica deve ser mantida, mas não terá força política para aprovar a agenda de reformas diante da proximidade do pleito no próximo ano.

A principal delas, a da Previdência, é considerada fundamental para colocar as contas públicas em ordem e tem grande apoio do mercado financeiro.

O governo sempre vendeu a reforma da Previdência como peça-chave para a retomada do crescimento, mas diante do impasse político, avalia o Marconi, vai ser obrigado a alterar o discurso de que, mesmo sem ela, o Brasil pode crescer.

"Nesses dias, Meirelles já disse que atrasar a reforma da Previdência não seria nada de outro mundo. Vai ser difícil, mas vão ter de mudar o discurso", disse ele, referindo-se ao ministro da Fazenda, Henrique Meirelles.

Temer corre o risco de perder seu mandato depois de delações de executivos do grupo J&F, levando o Supremo Tribubal Federal (STF) a abrir inquérito contra o presidente por crimes, entre outros, de corrupção passiva.

A crise política, afirmou Marconi, só piorou o cenário econômico brasileiro, que já vinha mostrando sinais de fraqueza.

O crescimento esperado para o Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) do primeiro trimestre, diz o economista, será puxado somente pelo desempenho do agronegócio e pela mudança metodológica na pesquisas de serviços e comércio do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE).

A projeção de estagnação econômica feita por Marconi é mais pessimista do que a do mercado. No relatório Focus, do Banco Central, que colhe a previsão de uma centena de analistas todas as semanas, a expectativa é que a economia cresça cerca de 0,5 por cento este ano e 2,5 por cento em 2018.

SEM VÁLVULAS

Para Marconi, o Brasil tem poucas válvulas que possam permitir a volta do crescimento robusto. Na avaliação dele, a recuperação teria de vir por meio da retomada das exportações de produtos manufaturados, o que ajudaria na recuperação do setor industrial e dos investimentos, criando efeito positivo em toda a economia. Hoje, ele diz, o canal das exportações só tem funcionado para o agronegócio.

As exportações de manufaturados, avalia o economista, foram prejudicadas por causa da desvalorização do dólar desde que Temer assumiu a Presidência. No período, o dólar deixou o patamar de 4 reais para a faixa de 3,25 reais.

"O que ajudaria a puxar o crescimento é a exportação de produtos industrializados, mas que foi prejudicada pela valorização do real", diz.

Para Marconi, o governo optou por permitir a desvalorização do dólar para ajudar no combate a inflação. O ideal seria a equipe econômica levar a taxa de câmbio para um patamar entre 3,80 reais e 3,90 reais.

(Edição de Patrícia Duarte)

________________

LGCJ.: