MACROECONOMIC BALANCE INDEX (MBI): AN .../media/com/downloads/...ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND MARKETS...

SEE & EGYPT ECONOMIC REVIEW MACROECONOMIC BALANCE INDEX (MBI): AN EVOLVING STANDARD

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & MARKETS

Executive Summary:

In the current issue of our SEE & Egypt Review, we update and expand our Macroeconomic Balance Index (MBI), which is our primary country scoring tool. As all of you must have realized by now, the MBI has proven to be an evolving standard given that we have never stopped tweaking and improving it (for previous versions see SEE & Egypt Review: April 2012 and March 2010).

Keeping up with this tradition, we have now extended our MBI in two directions. First, we have expanded the informational set used in the estimation of the index. As a result the MBI is now based on a Macroeconomic dimension, which consists of Real GDP annual growth rate, GPD per capita in the country’s national currency, Unemployment Rate and Inflation. A Fiscal dimension based on Fiscal Balance and Public Debt both as a percentage of GDP. An External Balance dimension based on Current Account Balance, Foreign Direct Investments and Gross External Debt expressed as a percentage of GDP and International Reserves in months of imports. A Banking dimension based on Banking Liquidity (Loans to Deposits) and Non-Performing Loans as a percentage of total Loans and finally a Political Assessment dimension, based on the ICRG Political Risk Indicator.

Even more important from the increased information set is the introduction of a dynamic aspect in our index construction methodology. Up to now the MBI ranking for each economy depended on its score relative to the score of all other economies under examination. Hence, this was essentially a cross-sectional exercise (without a time dimension) and as such it failed to recognise each economy’s annual performance (improvement or deterioration) relative to its past average performance.

AUGUST 2013

1. Introduction

2. The Data

3. MBI Construction

4. Statistical Methodology

5. The Results

Ilias Lekkos [email protected] Dimitria Rotsika [email protected] Konstantina Margariti [email protected] Piraeus Bank 4 Αmerikis Street, 105 64, Athens, Greece, Tel: (+30) 210 328 8187 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND MARKETS AUGUST 2013

Macroeconomic Balance Index 1

This has now been rectified by splitting the MBI into two components,

i) the Static MBI, which is - in all means and purposes – based on the old methodology and

ii) the Dynamic MBI, which assesses each economy’s relative performance, but now the metric of comparison is not the macroeconomic variables per se (i.e. GDP growth), rather the deviation of the macro variables from their medium-term averages (i.e. GDP growth 2012 – average GDP growth 2006-2009).

Based on our new MBI the economic performance of the countries in SEE & Egypt is as follows:

The 2012 Macroeconomic Balance Index

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cyprus Serbia Egypt Ukraine Romania Albania Bulgaria

Dynamic

Static

MacroeconomicBalance Index

Source: Piraeus Bank Research, National Sources ILIAS LEKKOS Chief Economist, Economic Analysis & Markets



1. Introduction As global economic conditions remain adverse, the need for a thorough examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the emerging countries we analyze becomes more urgent. In this note, we estimate a MBI for each of the countries we examine (Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine). The substantial diversity of the structure of these economies creates a necessity to identify what are each country’s advantages and weaknesses when compared to its peers. At the same time, we answer questions such as: Which country stands out and which country faces the most challenges? What is the evolution of each country’s scorecard? This in turn will offer valuable information on what one should focus on when examining the economy of each country. In this issue we also introduce different scores for the countries based on the Static Scoring Methodology (examined in our previous issues: April 2012 and March 2010), a Dynamic Scoring Methodology and the MBI, which combines the aforementioned two scoring methodologies. 1.1 Background Information In 2012, the South-Eastern European (SEE) economies attempted to redefine their growth models which for the last decade had been based on credit growth and foreign investments. Economic recovery and financial stability were key priorities, but the ongoing economic crisis in the European Union stalled these efforts. Last year we observed a recovery in domestic demand though the adverse weather conditions had a greater than expected effect on agricultural production.

Real GDP Growth Non-Performing Loans & Unemployment Rate

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Mar

-05

Jun-

05S

ep-0

5D

ec-0

5M

ar-0

6Ju

n-06

Sep

-06

Dec

-06

Mar

-07

Jun-

07S

ep-0

7D

ec-0

7M

ar-0

8Ju

n-08

Sep

-08

Dec

-08

Mar

-09

Jun-

09S

ep-0

9D

ec-0

9M

ar-1

0Ju

n-10

Sep

-10

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11S

ep-1

1D

ec-1

1M

ar-1

2Ju

n-12

Sep

-12

Dec

-12

Mar

-13

% YoY

Albania Bulgaria Cyprus Egypt Romania Serbia Ukraine 0

5

10

15

20

25

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

%

% of Total Loans

Serbia

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Romania

Ukraine

Albania

Source: Piraeus Bank Research, National Sources

Governments and national central banks turned their attention to correcting the widening budget deficits, managing the substantial depreciations of their currencies, strengthening economic activity and reducing external imbalances. Within this context, the majority of the countries achieved a fiscal deficit reduction, maintained sluggish but steady economic growth and limited inflationary pressures.



Inflation 2012 Fiscal Balance

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Apr

-07

Jul-0

7O

ct-0

7Ja

n-08

Apr

-08

Jul-0

8O

ct-0

8Ja

n-09

Apr

-09

Jul-0

9O

ct-0

9Ja

n-10

Apr

-10

Jul-1

0O

ct-1

0Ja

n-11

Apr

-11

Jul-1

1O

ct-1

1Ja

n-12

Apr

-12

Jul-1

2O

ct-1

2Ja

n-13

Apr

-13

Jul-1

3

% ΥοΥ

Albania Bulgaria Cyprus Egypt Romania Serbia Ukraine

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

M1

M1-

2

M1-

3

M1-

4

M1-

5

M1-

6

M1-

7

M1-

8

M1-

9

M1-

10

M1-

11

M1-

12

% GDP

Albania Bulgaria Cyprus RomaniaSerbia Ukraine Egypt

Source: Piraeus Bank Research, National Sources

However, it was not only the negative external environment that proved important; a significant number of countries in the region, such as Romania, Serbia, Ukraine and Egypt, had to tackle ongoing political uncertainty in conjunction with the presidential elections that were held in 2012. Nevertheless, the presence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a key component of restoring confidence at home and abroad, correcting imbalances and implementing the necessary reforms. Also essential is the governments’ commitment to implementing the proposed reforms in order for the countries to remain on a growth trajectory. In the case of Egypt, the key drivers are the fight against poverty, political uncertainty and the country's exit from the technical recession. At this point, we must highlight the case of Cyprus which, although not belonging to the emerging economies, joined the European Support Mechanism with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), as international financial help from alternative sources did not materialize, and the country entered another recessionary quarter with the domestic financial system radically restructured.

Current Account Deficit & its Financing Banking Sector Liquidity (Loans to Deposits)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

% GDP

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Current Account Balance FDIs

Albania Bulgaria Cyprus Romania Serbia Egypt Ukraine

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

Jan-

08A

pr-0

8Ju

l-08

Oct

-08

Jan-

09A

pr-0

9Ju

l-09

Oct

-09

Jan-

10A

pr-1

0Ju

l-10

Oct

-10

Jan-

11A

pr-1

1Ju

l-11

Oct

-11

Jan-

12A

pr-1

2Ju

l-12

Oct

-12

Jan-

13A

pr-1

3

%

Albania Bulgaria Cyprus Romania Serbia Ukraine Source: Piraeus Bank Research, National Sources



2. The Data In this issue we have significantly extended our data selection variables in an attempt to capture the most important aspects of the countries’ strengths and vulnerabilities. Our focus is not only macroeconomic but also on the fiscal, external and banking sectors, and we have also added a political risk variable. The pool of the countries is the following: (Ni=7) countries: Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. The scores are derived from the following (X=13) characteristics: Real GDP annual growth rate, GPD per capita in the country’s national currency, Unemployment Rate, Inflation, Fiscal Balance as a percentage of GDP, Public Debt as a percentage of GDP, Current Account Balance as a percentage of GDP, Foreign Direct Investments as a percentage of GDP, Gross External Debt as a percentage of GDP, International Reserves in months of imports, Banking Liquidity (Loans to Deposits), Non-Performing Loans as a percentage of total Loans, Political Risk Indicator (ICRG). The above list contains a balance of variables measuring macroeconomic, banking-prudential and political vulnerabilities subject to data availability for all of the countries we examine. The data used are on an annual basis from 2006 to 2012, as these years contain the years of rapid growth, the impact of the 2008 financial crisis and consequent recovery up to 2012. In order to remain consistent, the data has been retrieved from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Institute of International Finance, National Statistical Sources, National Central Banks and Ministries of Finance and ICRG.



3. MBI Construction 3.1 Static MBI In the Static MBI for each particular year, the countries are assigned a score value based on their performance relative to all other countries under comparison in the same period. This is very useful in that it allows us to rank each economy in relation to its peers over a wide range of economic indicators. On the downside though, it fails to take into account cases where an economy may still lagging (outperforming) its peers but its performance has improved (deteriorated) relative to its own past performance. 3.2 Dynamic MBI The Dynamic MBI comes to complement the Static Index by ranking the economies under examination based on the improvement (deterioration) of their performance based on their own track record. In our case each country’s track record is evaluated over the period 2006-2009 that incorporates both the peak and downturn of economic activity. A difference between the two indices is that in terms of economic growth in the Static MBI we are using the Real GDP growth rate, while in the Dynamic MBI we actually use the GDP per Capita and its deviation from its Long-Term average. 3.3 Total MBI The final ranking of our SEE & Egypt economies is based on the Total MBI, which is the average of the Static and Dynamic Indices. The aim of the MBI is to provide a more rounded view of each country’s performance by combining its relative position in the group with its momentum relative to a specified historical period.



4. The Statistical Methodology For the Dynamic Score we calculate the mean for each variable for the years 2006-2009 and then from this mean we calculate whether the variable for a certain year is above or below its long-term average. That is for a variable X, we calculate:

_X i = X y/y(i) – X y/y(2006/09)

Each of the variables used in both the Static and Dynamic Scores are expressed in different units and have a different range. For instance, GDP is expressed as an annual growth rate, the unemployment rate as a percentage, the current account balance as a percentage of GDP and the international reserves as months of imports. Therefore, all variables are standardized by dividing the value of the variable for each country by the standard deviation of the variable. Based on the standardized values, we then normalize them, where if an increase in the variable is a positive development then the normalization formula is the following:

X i - X min

p i = X max - X mi

While in the case where a decrease in the variable is a positive development then the normalization formula is:

X max - X i

p i = X max - X min

The range of the values is: 0-1 Where: pi: the value of the variable following the normalization

Xi: the variable value prior to the normalization Xmin: the variable value with the lowest performance across the sample countries Xmax: the variable value with the highest performance across the sample countries

The first formula is applied for the following variables: Real GDP annual growth rate, GPD per capita in the country’s national currency, Fiscal Balance as a percentage of GDP, Current account Balance as a percentage of GDP, Foreign Direct Investments as a percentage of GDP, International Reserves in months of imports and Political Risk Indicator (ICRG).



The second formula is applied to the following variables: Unemployment Rate, Inflation, Public Debt as a percentage of GDP, Gross External Debt as a percentage of GDP, Banking Liquidity (Loans to Deposits), Non-Performing Loans as a percentage of total Loans. Both the Static and Dynamic MBIs are estimated as the sum of the relevant normalized variables, while the Total MBI is the simple average of the two sub-indices. Finally, for the case of presentation and interpretation of our results we have grouped all underlying variables into five dimensions:

a. Macroeconomic Dimension: this includes the real GDP growth rate (Static Model) or the GDP per Capita (Dynamic Model), the Unemployment Rate and Inflation Rate

b. Fiscal Dimension: this includes the Fiscal Balance and Public Debt c. External Dimension: this includes the Current Account Balance, Foreign Direct Investments,

Gross External Debt and International Reserves d. Banking Dimension: this includes the Banking Liquidity ratio and Non-Performing Loans e. Political Dimension: this is the ICRG Political Risk Rating



5. The Results 5.1 The Static MBI Looking first at the results of the Static MBI, we note that, from 2010 to 2012, Bulgaria has been the best performer in fiscal and external terms and has one of the highest scores among its peers for each of the remaining dimensions. Romania has the second best performance in 2011 and 2012, improving from 2010 due to higher macroeconomic and fiscal scores. Albania has the third highest static score in all three years due to a high macroeconomic score. Cyprus is behind Albania in 2011 and 2012, falling one place from 2010 as its macroeconomic and banking scores deteriorate. Ukraine is the fifth best macroeconomic performer in 2011 and 2012, improving its ranking when compared to 2010 due to a higher score in the fiscal and political groups. Egypt is behind Ukraine in 2012 in terms of the macroeconomic score, while there is a significant deterioration in the political score compared to 2010 and 2011. Serbia has the worst macroeconomic performance in 2012 in the pool of countries we analyze as its scores are lower than in previous years.

2010 2011

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Serbia Ukraine Egypt Romania Albania Cyprus Bulgaria

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Egypt Serbia Ukraine Cyprus Albania Romania Bulgaria

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score

2012

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Serbia Egypt Ukraine Cyprus Albania Romania Bulgaria

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score

Source: Piraeus Bank Research



5.2 The Dynamic MBI The picture and rankings are different when we look at the Dynamic Model. In this case we evaluate whether the variables’ performance is above or below the long-term average trend. Hence, we observe that in 2011 and 2012 Albania is the best performer in macroeconomic and fiscal terms and gets some of the highest scores among its peers for the rest of the group scores. Ukraine improves and has the second best performance in 2011 and 2012, with its ranking improving when compared to 2010 as it recorded higher macroeconomic, banking and political scores. Romania has the third highest dynamic score in 2012 due to an improvement in its fiscal score, while Bulgaria is behind Romania in 2012, as its fiscal and external scores improve. Egypt is the fifth best macroeconomic performer in 2012, with its performance deteriorating compared to 2011 and 2010, when it held the third and first place respectively, due to lower scores in all of the groups. Serbia is behind Egypt in 2012, falling two places due to the deterioration in its fiscal and external scores. Cyprus has the worst performance in 2012 and 2011 in the pool of countries we analyze as its banking, fiscal, macroeconomic and political scores are all lower than in 2010.

2010 2011

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Bulgaria Cyprus Romania Ukraine Serbia Albania Egypt

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Cyprus Bulgaria Romania Serbia Egypt Ukraine Albania

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score

2012

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Cyprus Serbia Egypt Bulgaria Romania Ukraine Albania

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score




5.3 The Macroeconomic Balance Index In our MBI, we note that, as expected from our analysis, the best performer is Bulgaria, while Cyprus, Serbia and Egypt are the bottom three. Bulgaria is the best performer in 2012 as there was a significant improvement and stabilization of the country’s macroeconomic, fiscal, external and banking scores, while political risk remains low. Albania has the second highest MBI for 2012 with relatively stable group scores. Romania is third, improving when compared to the previous years due to improvements in both its fiscal and macroeconomic score. Ukraine is the fourth best performer in 2012; however, its external and banking scores are lower than in 2011 when the country had managed to limit the extreme macroeconomic and political imbalances that prevailed in 2010. Egypt has the fifth highest score in 2012, as its macroeconomic, political and fiscal scores are low. Serbia is behind Egypt in 2012 as its fiscal sector has weakened, while Cyprus has the worst performance in 2012 and 2011 in the pool of countries we analyze because its macroeconomic, fiscal and banking scores are poor.

2010 2011

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Ukraine Romania Serbia Cyprus Bulgaria Egypt Albania

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Egypt Cyprus Serbia Romania Bulgaria Ukraine Albania

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score

2012

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Cyprus Serbia Egypt Ukraine Romania Albania Bulgaria

Political

Banking

External

Fiscal

Macroeconomic

Country Score




In summary:

2010 2011 Change 2012 ChangeAlbania 6.5 6.8 6.9Bulgaria 5.9 6.6 7.0Cyprus 5.9 5.3 4.6Egypt 6.3 5.2 5.3Romania 5.7 6.2 6.4Serbia 5.8 5.4 4.7Ukraine 5.4 6.6 6.2

Macroeconomic Balance Index

2010 2011 2012Albania Albania BulgariaEgypt Ukraine Albania

Bulgaria Bulgaria RomaniaCyprus Romania UkraineSerbia Serbia Egypt

Romania Cyprus SerbiaUkraine Egypt Cyprus

denotes an increase in the ranking compared to the previous yeardenotes a decrease in the ranking compared to the previous year

Macroeconomic Balane Index



One additional way to exploit the information contained in the MBI analysis is to examine not only the total MBI score for each economy under consideration, which defines the country ranking, but also the composition of its score which provides an idea about each country’s relative strengths and weaknesses. 5.4 Albania Looking at Albania, we see that its score is strongly supported by its real GDP growth, low unemployment, strong fiscal balance and FDI and low Gross External Debt. On the other side the country scores low in the current account balance and NPLs.

2012

Static MBI Dynamic MBI

10%

13%

0%

8% 1%

9% 12%

9%

14%

5%

12%

7%

14%

4%

0%

6%

1%

13%

7%

15%

14%11%

4%

11%

Total MBI

12%

9%

0%

6%

7%

9%

10%

12%

13%10%

2%

10%

5%14%

9%

2%

7%

8%

3%

13%

2% 17%9%

11%

Real GDP Unemployment Rate Inflation

Fiscal Balance Public Debt CAB

FDI GED Reserves

Banking Liquidity NPLs ICRG Political Risk




5.2.2 Bulgaria For Bulgaria, we note that its score is strongly supported by the high Current Account Balance and low Public and Gross External Debts. On the other hand, the country scores low in the FDIs, NPLs and Real GDP.

2012


11%

8%

5%

8%

9%

11%

9%

8%

8%8%

12%

3%

7%8%

2%

0% 18%

8%0% 5%

15%

19%

7%

11%

Total MBI

8%

10%

4%

2%14%

8%5%

7%

11%

14%

8%

9%

5%14%

9%

2%

7%

8%

3%

13%

2% 17%9%

11%



FDI GED Reserves





5.2.3 Cyprus In Cyprus, we see that its score is strongly supported by the high FDIs and adequate International Reserves, whereas the country scores particularly low in Real GDP, Public Debt and Gross External Debt.

2012


8%

9%

7%

15%

9%

15%

0%11%

0%

0%

11%

15%

1%

36%

18%

0%

37%

0%8%

Total MBI

6%

5%

9%

21%

12%

11%

0% 7%

0%

0%

7%

22%

5%14%

9%

2%

7%

8%

3%

13%

2% 17%9%

11%



FDI GED Reserves





5.2.4 Egypt Looking at Egypt, we see that its score is strongly supported by its low Gross External Debt and NPLs. On the other side, the country scores low in the increased political risk, the falling international reserves and the high inflation.

2012


18%

0%

2%

18%

12%

18%

0%

14%

18%

6%

20%

9%

0%

4%

19%

20%

12%

1%

1%

8%

Total MBI

19%

3%14%

4%

8%

10%

12%

18%

10%

2%

0%

5%14%

9%

2%

7%

8%

3%

13%

2% 17%9%

11%



FDI GED Reserves





5.2.5 Romania In the case of Romania, we note that the score is strongly supported by its low unemployment rate and fiscal deficit. On the other side, the country scores low in the FDIs and high NPLs.

2012


14%

9%

11%

9%

1%

12%

4%

5%

10%

8%

8%9%

2%

18%

7%

9%

9%

1%

17%

9%

5%

4%

7%

Total MBI

14%

7%

14%

4%

11%

6%

4%

8%

10%5%

8%

9%

5%14%

9%

2%

7%

8%

3%

13%

2% 17%9%

11%



FDI GED Reserves





5.2.6 Serbia Looking at Serbia, we note that the score is strongly supported by high reserves and low political risk, while the country scores low in the unemployment rate, inflation and current account balance.

2012


8%

19%

4%

7%

19%

23%

3%9%

8%

7%

4%

8%

4%

8%

10%

1%

20%21%

10%

7%

Total MBI

4%

4%

4%

4%

14%

8%

11%4%

16%

12%15%

4%

5%14%

9%

2%

7%

8%

3%

13%

2% 17%9%

11%



FDI GED Reserves





5.2.7 Ukraine Looking at Ukraine, we see that its score is strongly supported by its low inflation and unemployment rate. On the other side, the country scores low in the current account balance and international reserves.

2012


15%

17%

10%

4%

4%

4%

12%

14%

11% 9%

2%

8%

16%

10%

2%

13%

8%7%

16%

4%

Total MBI

3%

2%

17%

9%

11%

14%

5%

2%

7%

8%

9%

5%14%

9%

2%

7%

8%

3%

13%

2% 17%9%

11%



FDI GED Reserves





Disclaimer: This note constitute an investment advertisement, is intended solely for information purposes and it cannot in any way be considered investment advice, offer or recommendation to enter into any transaction. The information included in this note may not be construed as suitable investment for the holder, nor may it be considered as an instrument to accomplish specific investment goals or relevant financial needs of the holder and may neither be reckoned as a substitute to relevant contractual agreements between the Bank and the holder. Before entering into any transaction each individual investor should evaluate the information contained in this note and not base his/her decision solely on the information provided. This note cannot be considered investment research and consequently it was not compiled by Piraeus Bank according to the requirements of the law that are intended to ensure independence in the sector of investment research. Information comprised in this note is based on publically available sources that are considered to be reliable. Piraeus Bank cannot be held accountable for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this note. Views and estimates brought forward in this note represent domestic and international market trends on the date indicated in the note and they are subject to alteration without previous warning. Piraeus Bank may also include in this note investment research done by third parties. This information is not modified in any way, consequently the Bank cannot be held accountable for the content. The Piraeus Bank Group is and organization with a considerable domestic and international presence, and provides a great variety of investment services. In cases where conflicts of interest issues should arise while Piraeus Bank or the rest of the companies of the group provide investment services in relation to the information provided in this note, Piraeus Bank and the companies of the Group should be underlined that (the list is not exhaustive): a) No restrictions apply in dealing for own account, or with regards to trading in relation to portfolios managed by Piraeus Bank or companies of its group before the publication of this note, or with regards to trading before an initial public offer. b) It is possible that investment or additional services are provided to the issuers included in this note against a fee. c) It is possible that Bank or any of its subsidiaries participate in the share capital of any of the issuers included in this note or may attract other interests financial or not from them. d) The Bank or any of its subsidiaries may act a market maker or an underwriter for any of the issuers included in the note. e) Piraeus Bank may have issued similar notes with different or incompatible content with the content of this note. It should be explicitly noted that: a) Figures refer to past performances and past performances do not constitute a safe indication for future performances. b) Figures constitute simulation of past performances and they are not a safe indication of future performances. c) Any projections or other estimates are not safe indications for future performances. d) Taxation treatment of information provided in this note may differ according to the rules that govern each individual investor. Therefore the holder should seek independent advice in relation to taxation rules that may affect him/her. e) Piraeus Bank is not under any obligation to keep data and information provided herein updated.

MACROECONOMIC BALANCE INDEX (MBI): AN .../media/com/downloads/...ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND MARKETS...

Documents

Transcript of MACROECONOMIC BALANCE INDEX (MBI): AN .../media/com/downloads/...ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND MARKETS...