MALTA. where high education combine Medsea lifestyle

maltaway surf

After Brexit, MALTA place 1st in computing and science graduates

In the context of a strong investment in the global market of EDUCATION, which has seen for a long time the leadership of the United Kingdom, Malta looks like the new and competitive alternative, thanks to infra-structural investments and more and more extended and qualified international community present on the island….now MALTAway offers great solutions for Individuals and Corporations as well with MBA Full & Executive & English Courses … from Brexit to MALTA to keep anglo-saxon way in EU

From MALTAwinds …. With 15% of Computing and Science graduates, Malta is technically at the top of the pile in the whole of the EU in this sector since the UK, which placed first with 17% is now no longer an EU member having voted for Brexit a week ago. Malta also registered a large share of female graduates as regards Education with 80% of graduates being women although this was just about the EU average.

Almost 5 million tertiary education students graduated in the European Union (EU) in 2014: 58% were women and 42% men.

Male dominated education fields are Engineering, manufacturing and construction (where men account for 73% of the graduates in this field) and Science, mathematics and computing (58%).

On the other hand, four out of five graduates in Education are women (80%). Another field where women are largely over represented is Health and welfare, with 75% female graduates.

One in three graduates studied social sciences, business or law

The largest share of graduates in all Member States studied Social science, business and law. In Bulgaria, this field was followed by nearly half of all graduates (49%). It accounted for a large share also in Luxembourg (46%), Cyprus (44%) and Lithuania (43%).

One in five graduates in Romania, Austria, Finland (all 21%) and Germany (20%) received their diplomas in Engineering, manufacturing and construction.

The share of graduates in Health and welfare was particularly high in Belgium (25%), where one in four graduates was in this field, and exceeded 20% also in in Sweden (23%), Denmark (21%) and Finland (20%).

Humanities and arts were popular in the United Kingdom and Italy (both 16%). In the United Kingdom, 17% graduated in Science, mathematics and computing. This field had a relatively large share also in Malta (15%) and Germany (14%). By far the largest share of Education graduates was in Luxembourg (26%).

80% of Education graduates are women

In all Member States, there were more women among tertiary education graduates than men (58% of graduates were women at EU level). The share of female graduates was particularly high in Estonia and Poland (both 66%). The most balanced gender distribution was observed in Germany (51%) and Ireland (52%).

Engineering, manufacturing, and construction is clearly dominated by men at the EU level (73% of the graduates in this field are men) and in all the Member States. The share of male graduates in this field ranged from 61% in Poland to 85% in Ireland. Science, mathematics and computing is another male field in most Member States – apart from Romania (41% of the graduates in this field are men), Portugal (43%), Cyprus (46%), Italy (47%) and Bulgaria (50%). The highest share of male graduates in Science, mathematics and computing was in Netherlands (73%), well above the EU level (58%).

Women are over represented in Education in all the Member States – their share in this field in the EU was 80% and ranged from 62% in Luxembourg to 97% in Romania. Also in Health and welfare, female graduates dominated both on the EU level (75%) and in all the Member States, with the highest share in Estonia (90%) and the lowest in Cyprus (65%).


CEO’s Guide to Navigating Brexit

CEO’s Guide to Navigating Brexit

maltaway brexit

MALTAway advise you for Corporate and Assets Governance from a unique perspective offered in Malta inside EU and Commonwealth as well

The Leave campaign’s victory, with a margin of 3.8 percentage points, has likely ushered in a protracted phase of uncertainty for the UK, EU, and global economies. A systemic shock cutting across industries and borders, Brexit poses significant strategic challenges for business leaders as they navigate the fallout. Judging by our interactions with CEOs around the world to date, some of their burning questions are:

  • What are the elements of uncertainty created by Brexit?
  • How can leaders develop a specific view of the industry- and firm-level implications?
  • What are the first-response imperatives for corporate leaders?
  • What structural changes to the business environment are triggered by Brexit, and how do we adapt to them?

This is how we recommend CEOs approach these difficult questions:

Identify the sources of uncertainty

The uncertainties that come with Brexit can be ordered into four categories. While the overall directional impact is generally clear, it’s the magnitude, duration, and differential that are more critical to determine.

Political process. There are significant drivers of uncertainty domestically and abroad. At home, the UK faces dissolution pressures if Scotland seeks to salvage its EU membership, while the EU has every incentive to make Brexit a painful experience to deter other defectors, making the outcome of negotiations difficult to predict. These unknowns have the potential to influence the evolution of the financial, institutional, and real economies.

Financial economy. The directional impact on key prices was widely predicted — and strong corrections to the pound (-11% verses the dollar) and to equities (-13.6% FTSE250) were indeed recorded in the first two sessions after the vote. The Bank of England will likely lower policy rates, or even adopt negative interest rates. What drives uncertainty are the magnitude and duration of these corrections; as prices guide resource allocation, their volatility and uncertainty interferes with planning and investment decisions.

Trade regime. The reconstruction challenge for the UK’s trade regime is clear. The EU represents 47% of UK exports, facilitates an additional 13% through non-EU trade deals, and currently negotiates with countries worth an additional 21% of UK exports. While the UK would need only eight bilateral trade agreements to cover 80% of its current exports, there is a long tail of 18 additional countries worth more than $1 billion in UK exports and an additional 132 countries to cover all existing exports. Both internal and external factors drive uncertainty about the duration and outcome of the reconstruction challenge — for example, the UK’s ability to negotiate agreements, having outsourced this task to Brussels for 40 years, or trade partners’ willingness to engage with Britain in a constructively and timely manner.

Real economy. The transmission mechanism to the real economy is primarily via delayed or canceled investment decisions or the anticipatory redeployment of employment or production assets. Here, too, the directional impact has been analyzed credibly, with estimates ranging from 3%–9% of GDP loss. Here it is the speed, depth, and duration of these effects — on demand, consumption, and employment across industries — that drive uncertainty.

Determine the specific industry- and firm-level implications

Industries and individual companies vary widely in terms of the impact on the uncertainties outlined above, due to their differential dependence on UK and EU production, demand and trade, global trade, regulation, and integration into EU structures (e.g., R&D subsidies, EU norms and standards, etc.). Therefore each company needs to carry out (or take to the next level) its own specific impact analysis.

It is impossible to forecast precise impact with confidence, given that exit terms, timing, and knock-on implications are all uncertain. A scenario-based approach to planning, modeling, and preparing for multiple outcomes is therefore recommended. This can be done in four steps:

  1. Attach a “value” to each source of uncertainty — strong vs. light currency depreciation, high vs. low future EU market access — along with your perception of likelihood (plausible, likely, unlikely) to build an “uncertainty map.”
  2. From the map, combine various values to develop multiple scenarios. The scenarios should be made internally consistent by avoiding contradictions (e.g., by combining political uncertainty with lower volatility).
  3. Consider the industry- and firm-level sensitivities to these scenarios. The key questions are about the impact on your firm’s business model, operating model, EU institutional arrangements and financial structures, and performance.
  4. Use the scenarios and sensitivities that you’ve identified to test the resilience of your current plans, highlight risks, formulate response options, build capabilities, and reflect the results in strategies and initiatives and in risk management.

For example, a U.S. industrial conglomerate with a strong market presence in the UK and a spatially fragmented value chain may find its strategic sensitivity is highest to the UK’s potential failure to replicate the EU’s global trade access. Expecting growing protectionism, a plausible strategic response could be aggressively defragmenting its value chain and concentrating production in the UK (so as to counteract the rising cost of trade). In some cases companies will feel confident enough to bet on particular scenarios; in others they may wish to diversify measures to become scenario-agnostic or to create options and boost agility to be able to move decisively when matters become clearer.

Turn thoughts into action

In addition to initiating the strategic impact assessment outlined above, it is important that business leaders translate their insights into action. Immediate actions include:

  • Inform employees and stakeholders of the industry- and company-specific facts (e.g., liquidity, stability of existing trading arrangements, and so on). Create confidence by showing that issues are being carefully considered, and define the process.
  • Confirm that the impact will take time to play out. Emphasize that little is likely to change in the short term in legal and trading arrangements, although markets may be jittery until negotiation outcomes are clear.
  • Continually update the industry and company assessment as events unfold. Run scenarios. Design contingency plans and reflect any insights in your strategies for growth, geographical footprint, global supply chain, and risk management.
  • Don’t let a communication vacuum open up. Keep talking about progress against goals.

Adapt to the new post-Brexit business environment

Once a response to Brexit has been initiated, forward-looking business leaders will ask themselves, What’s the bigger picture? What structural changes does Brexit signal? How has the business environment changed and how must business practices be adapted for short-term survival and long-term advantage?

Brexit appears to be consistent with structural changes to the business environment that were already under way. While business has already become more sensitive to geopolitics, the politics of discontent and populism may prove to have an even bigger impact. Brexit highlights the plausibility of similar uncertainties unfolding in the U.S. and in other countries.

This calls for two conclusions as business leaders strive to make sense of the new environment. The first is a renewed emphasis on strategy under uncertainty, with a focus on flexibility, adaptiveness, and resilience. The second is that many businesses now need enhanced capabilities to effectively capture and translate the macroeconomic and political developments for industry- and firm-level implications. Conditions will likely be very different for different parts of any business, especially for large and global companies, making it even more imperative to select the right approach to strategy and execution for each segment.

Radical Board of Directors for Mad Time

Radical Board of Directors for Mad Time, re-balance the strategy-governance scaleradical board director

MALTAway is your way to Corporate & Assets Governance, World Class, MALTA, Worldwide

What’s a typical independent director’s worst nightmare? My guess is that while a poor balance sheet might cause restless sleep, it’s the thought of an incorrectly reported balance sheet that brings on night terrors. It’s not surprising. Remember the public shaming – and heavy sentences — heaped on Enron and Worldcom for their accounting (and more importantly, ethical) failures?

In the years that followed these and other corporate lapses, our networks of C-level executives report that many boards have become far more focused on minimizing risk than on seizing opportunity.  This is not surprising:  Growing regulation, increased investor focus on governance issues, and scary new categories of corporate risk (e.g. cybersecurity) create two notable challenges for the modern board.  First, directors face a real challenge in making sure that protection and alignment of key governance and risk management issues doesn’t crowd out equally important dialogue around strategy and operations.  And second, they need to ensure that – even with respect to strategy and operations – board scrutiny doesn’t result in an over-emphasis on conforming to benchmarks and industry norms.

I’m not against benchmarking and norming. In fact, since our business is a global leader in assembling rich data sets that allow companies to benchmark almost every imaginable driver of corporate performance, we’d argue that there is too little analytic rigor in most areas of corporate management – particularly those which involve teams and people. Most boards would benefit from richer data sets that compare their company to others.  But in an era where governance and risk agendas are driving board conservatism, there is real risk that these data sets will be used to drive conformity, not evaluate strategy.

The best companies do things differently by using data and benchmarks not to aspire to the median, but to ensure radical deviations that are consistent with core strategies.

Let’s take pay. While benchmarks are useful inputs for compensation decisions, they shouldn’t be a straitjacket. Applying them broadly without reference to your talent strategy could make it impossible to source or retain the people you need to achieve goals. If your strategy relies heavily on aggressive M&A, for example, do you really want a CFO who doesn’t command a salary higher than the norm?  Or if your success relies heavily on IP protection or patents, it may make sense for your general counsel’s pay to be the highest in the C-suite.

And what about tax rates? If you have a stated strategy of growing in the government sector, or a vocal commitment to social and civil society vital to your brand, it may make strategic sense to have an effective tax rate significantly higher than the norm. Letting your ETR slip to the benchmark could risk your customers’ trust. But a relatively unknown, unbranded intellectual property company – with far less to lose – might be much more aggressive in minimizing taxes.

Benchmarking and norming won’t always lead to the right decision. Company strategy – and what makes the organization distinctive – has to come first.

Now is the time for directors and executive committees alike to re-balance the strategy-governance scale. They need to ensure that the right decisions are being made and that every director can defend those decisions when investors come calling with strategies of their own.

The understandable growth of risk management functions and their ascendancy in influencing strategy is important, but only part of the story here. Something more basic is at play, highlighted by Larry Fink’s annual Blackrock shareholder letter, where he called for better partnership between corporate leaders and their boards in setting a viable long-term course together. While this may seem like something that should be table stakes for any competent C-Suite and board, anyone who has sat in on a “strategic planning session” knows how often these sessions get derailed into short-term, operational discussions focused on the current “fire.”

I think the reason this happens is a misunderstanding over what constitutes the biggest threat to a company’s future. Obviously, no one wants to miss a short-term forecast or sales goal. More costly, however, is diverting resources to overcorrect near-term headaches at the expense of the time and energy needed to plan for the long term. In fact, investors are far more likely to assert themselves when they sense a lack of a coherent long-term strategy rather than a single missed sales forecast.

To keep their leaders centered on this reality, the strategy team at a prominent software and technology firm does the legwork upfront to educate its executives on the nature of long-term, strategic planning. By developing a protocol that allowed executives to evaluate their own proposed agenda items against a checklist of strategic goals (one-year-plus time horizon, relevance to major strategic initiatives, cross-functional impact, etc.) the firm measured a 75% increase in time spent on relevant subject matter during long-term, strategic planning meetings. Our research found companies with effective long-term planning processes are three times more likely to perform in the top 20% of their industry.

While boards have an opportunity to partner with executive teams to position for the long-term success of a company, unfortunately data show that directors are often more persistently focused on short-term issues than even the most assertive investors. Forty-six percent of executives and directors surveyed by the think-tank Focusing Capital on the Long Term noted that the board was a major source of demands for short-term results, more than 2.5 times those who mentioned investors in the same manner.

For an organization’s governance model and its business strategy to be in lock step, CXOs need to help directors understand and meaningfully engage in setting the company’s strategic direction. This means the C-suite must be able to develop productive relationships with board members—even have the skills to ‘coach’ directors on how to manage conversations with shareholders. Directors in turn need to monitor the company’s operational heartbeat closely so they can make informed decisions about when to play it safe and when to dare to deviate.

Labour costs growing fast in Malta in 1Q 2016

Labour costs growing fast in Malta – up by more than 11% where Malta has clearly a skills’ shortage

maltaway woman 06

When economy heats up, the desire for the best heats up as well…..

WHY MALTAWAY ? is the key question indeed!

Corporate & Assets Governance, World Class, MALTA, Worldwide

We believe that many Corporations and Individuals  seek what we have found , and we want to share , we need only starting to think and act differently … and our contribution



Contatta Maltaway per la tua relocation a Malta


Labour costs in Malta appear to be consistently on the rise with increases ranging from 1.1 per cent quarter to quarter up to an impressive 11% in certain sectors such as non-wage costs. Malta was well above the average for wage cost rises at just under 3% or in 11th place where nominal labour hourly costs were concerned.

Hourly labour costs rose by 1.7% in both the euro area (EA19) and the EU28 in the first quarter of 2016, compared with the same quarter of the previous year. In the fourth quarter of 2015, hourly labour costs increased by 1.3% and 2.0% respectively.

The two main components of labour costs are wages & salaries and non-wage costs. In the euro area, wages & salaries per hour worked grew by 1.8% and the non-wage component by 1.5%, in the first quarter of 2016 compared with the same quarter of the previous year. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the annual changes were +1.5% and +0.7% respectively. In the EU28, hourly wages & salaries rose by 1.7% and the non-wage component by 1.6% for the first quarter of 2016. In the fourth quarter of 2015, annual changes were +2.1% and +1.3% respectively.

Breakdown by economic activity

In the first quarter of 2016 compared with the same quarter of the previous year, hourly labour costs in the euro area rose by 2.0% in industry, by 1.4% in construction, by 1.7% in services and by 1.6% in the (mainly) non-business economy. In the EU28, labour costs per hour grew by 1.9% in industry, by 2.6% in construction, by 1.6% in services and by 1.5% in the (mainly) non-business economy.

Member States

In the first quarter of 2016, the highest annual increases in hourly labour costs for the whole economy were registered in Romania (+10.4%), Bulgaria (+7.7%), Estonia (+6.9%), Lithuania (+6.1%) and Latvia(+4.7%). Decreases were recorded in Italy (-1.5%) and Cyprus (-0.3%).

New Crypto tech: risks, opportunities, solutions

New Crypto tech: risks, opportunities, solutions with Colored Coin

By Anton Golub, Likke Corp

maltaway board lykke architecture

The financial system architecture has grown organically over the last decades – individual steps of settlement of financial transactions have been computerized, but the workflow remained unchanged as if processing of transactions is still done manually. That implies the delivery and settlement of transactions is batch-based and occurs with a time delay of two or more days. Every financial institution has its own bookkeeping system and is an island from an audit point of view, where verification of trades is cumbersome and prone to errors. This regime contributes to a high degree of fragmentation and uncertainty, multiplication of risk factors, high transaction costs for financial assets, lack of liquidity and transparency, presenting a nightmare for participants of financial markets.

The new technology of Blockchain is a genius invention that will introduce a new level of transparency to the financial markets. The Blockchain is an universally accessible distributed ledger – a decentralized notary service that ensures immediate global consensus about completed transactions and asset ownership. Like the Internet, the ledger is not controlled by a single entity, but an emergent phenomenon consisting of many participants. Blockchain is a seminal discovery and addresses a core of issue of no-trust problem and prevents double spending. It is still in early days and the community that invented it has hardly grasped the scope of the innovation, how its discovery will change the financial system. But the genie has been released out of the bottle and it cannot be stopped…

Blockchain makes it possible for every financial instrument to be a listed security in the form of a digital token, the so-called Colored Coin. Colored Coins follow the idea of ”coloring” a specific Bitcoin – the issuer guarantees to hand out the underlying assets to whoever returns the Colored Coin. For example the FED could issue a Colored Coin in the same way as it prints paper money; it would take a fraction of a Bitcoin and then insert the ”I Owe You” statement of the FED, like a regular bank note. The same mechanism can be used for any financial claim. Colored coins are different in nature to crypto-currencies, because they have a specific issuer and are backed by a real financial asset. Exchange, bookkeeping and risk management of Colored Coins is straightforward for traditional financial institutions since every Colored Coin can contain International Securities Identification Number (ISIN), thus Colored Coins can be treated as any other financial instrument, fully compatible with existing back-office systems. Financial institutions will be able to conduct business with Colored Coins on the Blockchain without incurring additional costs of integration.

Colored Coins address many of the risk management issues that regulators and financial institutions are faced in today’s financial system. Since every transaction of Colored Coins is recorded on the Blockchain, the public ledger becomes a valuable source of trading data. While it is not possible to identify the traders, any observer can deduct quantity and prices from the public data visible in the Blockchain. Unlike in traditional financial markets, the Blockchain includes detailed position data – by tracking tick-by-tick transaction data from Blockchain, we can infer how market participants build and close positions. We can map the size of positions and infer what positions have been established at the various price levels – and what profits and losses different groups of traders and investors are incurring. The position information indicates which groups of traders and investors are most likely to run into losses. We can then create “weather maps” of the positions that traders have established and the circumstances that would force them to close their positions, causing a cascade of further price moves. This is especially relevant for markets with highly leveraged traders where a small price move can cause a cascade of margin calls that further move the price, leading to instability, lack of liquidity and increased volatility. Finally, we can use position information to show the Blockchain provides predictive information for future price movement. Regulators will welcome the innovations provided by the Blockchain and we anticipate that position information of the Blockchain will become part of standard risk management toolbox in the near future.

Lykke is a movement to build a global marketplace atop the Blockchain for all assets and instruments. Our marketplace will use distributed ledger technology to offer immediate settlement and direct ownership. The ultimate goal of Lykke is to enable every person in the world to have market access and issue his or her own currencies. If we succeed, we can establish human rights for market access and issuance of means of payment. The distributed ledger technology offers a unique opportunity to rewire the existing financial system and create a highly efficient one. All our software is open source. Our goal is to build the most efficient marketplace possible.

Board role: advisor, mentor or controller of the C suite ?

Board role: advisor, mentor or controller of the C suite ?

We at MALTAway, know the way…


Boards Will Never Be Any Good at Policing Executives by Justin Fox

The job of the corporate board of directors is to oversee company management on behalf of shareholders. This is, I think it’s fair to say, the most widely accepted understanding of what boards were put on earth to do.

Yes, there are those who think the board should be looking out for other stakeholders — employees, customers, society — beyond just the owners of shares. There’s also a lot of evidence that boards aren’t all that great at management oversight.

Yet the belief that the board’s most important role is to oversee the corporation’s top executives — “monitor” them, as the academic jargon has it — remains entrenched. It informs most journalistic accounts of corporate debacles, and most research into the attributes that make boards effective. It is also behind the big push over the past quarter century to get more outside directors onto boards, and to separate the jobs of chairman and chief executive officer.

So here’s a subversive suggestion. Maybe boards are never going to be any good at keeping executives from betraying shareholders, messing up corporations and breaking laws. We should just accept that, stop beating boards up for it and move on.

That’s the argument of a fascinating paper by management scholars Steven Boivie, Michael K. Bednar, Ruth V. Aguilera and Joel L. Andrus that was published in the Academy of Management Annals in January. “Are Boards Designed to Fail? The Implausibility of Effective Board Monitoring,” is behind a steep paywall, but there is a summary on the Harvard Business Review’s website that you should be able to get to without paying (although you might have to register). This is from the HBR piece:

Analyzing nearly 300 research articles that examined the effectiveness of board monitoring, we came to the conclusion that it is unreasonable to expect boards to be able to do an effective job at ongoing monitoring. We show that for most boards there are significant barriers at the director, board and firm level that prevent them from being effective monitors.

The biggest issues have to do with information. From the original paper:

In many cases even the most motivated directors will be unable to effectively monitor executives because of the many barriers that limit the acquisition, processing and sharing of adequate information.

Outside directors tend to be people with limited time and attention, as well as limited access to information about the corporation. They also face disincentives for rocking the boat at board meetings and challenging the CEO.

What are board members good for? Well, according to Boivie et al., they provide “access to resources like advice, counsel, knowledge of external events and/or influence with external stakeholders.” They also play a crucial decision-making role during “punctuated events” — crises, basically — such as management transitions, accounting scandals and “other internal and external shocks that increase the uncertainty in which a firm operates.”

As for who is supposed to play the monitoring role if boards can’t, the paper doesn’t offer a simple answer. Neither did Boivie, an associate professor at Texas A&M University’s Mays School of Business, when I talked to him this week. Boards do become hands-on monitors during a crisis — “they will still fire the CEO if things are bad enough,” he said — and outside investors play that role sometimes too. Other outside checks on executives’ behavior that I can think of include competitive forces and government regulators. But it may also be that monitoring is overrated.

The board-as-monitor view is part of an intellectual framework descended from a 1976 paper by economists Michael Jensen and William Meckling, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” The gist is that executives are agents acting on behalf of a corporation’s owners, and the central challenge of the corporation is getting those agents to do their duty.

It’s hard to overstate how much influence this “agency theory” has had on how we think about corporations and diagnosis their ills. It’s where the idea that the job of corporate management is to maximize shareholder value came from, for example.

It’s become apparent through the years, though, that agency-theory-inspired corporate governance may actually worsen some of the ills it aims to cure. Here’s Boivie’s (condensed) take from our conversation:

Agency theory is potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you treat an executive as if you’re really worried about them cheating, then pretty soon they’re going to view themselves as contract labor. There’s tons of evidence from the lower levels that people hate to be monitored all the time. It removes trust. So when we treat CEOs like agents, they tend to act like agents.

I think that’s a pretty good description of the path that CEO attitudes and behavior actually followed during the 1980s and 1990s. As agency theory rose to dominance, executive tenures shortened and pay skyrocketed. There’s been a bit of backtracking and rethinking since then, but the notion that boards are supposed to be looking over CEOs’ shoulders and making sure they’re not being naughty remains dominant. Maybe it’s time to let it go.

MALTA, 1Q 2016 PIL reale +5,2%

MALTA, 1Q 2016 PIL reale +5,2%

WHY MALTAWAY ? è davvero la domanda chiave

Corporate & Assets Governance, World Class, MALTA, Worldwide

Noi crediamo che molti cerchino quello che noi abbiamo trovato, e che vogliamo condividere, serve solo iniziare a pensare e ad agire differentemente…e il nostro contributo

MALTAway, your way to enter the MALTA world

MALTAway è un portale che nasce con una visione olistica di servizi integrati di Corporate Services, Tax & Legal, Management Consulting, Governance, Investment, Business Advisory, Relocation, rivolti al mondo Corporations, Business, Finance, HNWIs

MALTA è la nuova Svizzera e il meglio del Nord Europa in mezzo al Mediterraneo, il posto migliore per il successo, lo sviluppo e la protezione di una Corporation, del suo Business, dei suoi Assets

maltaway women motorcycle

First quarter GDP up by 5.2% over 2015

Increases of €153 million in gross domestic product for January-March 2016 when compared to same period in 2015

Provisional estimates indicate that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the first quarter of 2016 amounted to €2,185.6 million, an increase of €153.4 million or 7.6 per cent when compared to the corresponding period last year.

In real terms, GDP went up by 5.2 per cent.

During the first quarter of 2016, Gross Value Added (GVA) increased by €124.2 million when compared to the same quarter last year.

This was mainly generated by wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; transportation and storage; accommodation and food service activities which increased by €28.4 million or 8.0 per cent.

Other increases were registered in professional, scientific and technical activities; administrative and support service activities by €24.4 million or 11.2 per cent; and in public administration and defence; education; human health and social work activities which increased by €18.0 million or 5.0 per cent. A slight drop was registered in construction.

Total final consumption expenditure in nominal terms increased by 7.6 per cent and by 6.4 per cent in real terms. Gross fixed capital formation increased by 22.6 per cent in nominal prices and by 16.2 per cent in real terms. Real exports and real imports increased by 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent respectively.

Compared to the corresponding quarter last year, the increase in GDP at current prices of €153.4 million is estimated to have been distributed into a €54.5 million increase in compensation of employees, a €65.4 million increase in gross operating surplus of enterprises, and a €33.6 million increase in net taxation on production and imports.

Considering the effects of income and taxation paid and received by residents to and from the rest of the world, Gross National Income (GNI) at market prices for the first quarter of 2016 is estimated at €2,150.7 million.