Fynsa
We have seen a great deal of optimism regarding activity in recent days. The first indication was provided by the Imacec for January, which, after a disastrous December, showed an important, generalized and unprecedented growth compared to what had occurred during the last few months. This was ratified with the publication of the National Accounts for 2023, which not only confirmed the data, but also corrected it upwards, at least in its seasonally adjusted advance. Statements from all sides affirmed that, in this way, activity started off on a good footing in 2024, with increases in growth estimates.
However, our position has been more cautious. It is not that we do not believe the indicator, but we cannot ignore that it has shown unusual volatility in recent times, the best example of this being the dichotomy suggested between December and January, which projected forward would expose two completely different realities. Additionally, contrasting with other indices, sectors and markets, it seems that not all of them allow us to draw the same conclusions, especially if we are on the optimistic side. Examples of this are the labor market, capital goods imports, automobile sales, etc.
Thus, the latest sectorial figures from INE, corresponding to February 2024, would provide us with evidence to start defining one of the two paths or, failing that, to continue without much certainty about what was happening. In our opinion, the numbers give us a picture closer to stagnation than to buoyant growth.
First, although manufacturing production showed a year-on-year variation of 8.8%, explained by an increase of 0.5% m/m seasonally adjusted, it should not be forgotten that this is a leap year and that the additional day has a significant impact. On the other hand, both mining, retail trade and supermarket sales showed falls in the margin, being for the latter, the highest since last August.
Secondly, although the unemployment rate only increased by 0.1 pp with respect to the immediately preceding quarter (from 8.4% to 8.5%), the fact is that complementary labor market indicators continue to deteriorate. Thus, the unemployment rate that includes potentially active inactive workers increased again, from 16.3% to 16.9%, especially due to a worsening of the rate that only includes women, which went from 18.8% to 19.7%. Thus, the pressure on the labor market is increasing, The pressure on the labor market increases, in a context in which vacancies are at historically low levels, only surpassed by the rates seen in the peak period of the pandemic.
Therefore, the evidence continues to show that a conservative view on the dynamics of activity is the most prudent in light of the data. In this sense, we must be particularly careful with the Imacec for February, since, as mentioned above, the additional day of the leap year may bias the readings towards an optimistic reading, the additional day of the leap year may bias the readings towards unrequited optimism. All in all, we stand by our 2024 growth projection of 1.8%.
