Delinquencies in closed-end loans fell slightly in the second quarter, driven by a drop in home equity loan delinquencies, according to results from the American Bankers Association’s Consumer Credit Delinquency Bulletin.
The composite ratio, which tracks delinquencies in eight closed-end installment loan categories, fell 3 basis points to 1.35% of all accounts – a record low. This also marked the third year that delinquency rates were below the 15-year average of 2.21%. The ABA report defines a delinquency as a late payment that is 30 days or more overdue. This is good news but the personal financial health of consumers in the USA is still in need of significantly improvements to their balance sheets. Debt levels are still too high. Savings levels are still far to low.
Home equity loan delinquencies fell 4 basis points to 2.70% of all accounts, which helped drive the composite ratio down. Other home related delinquencies increased slightly, with home equity line delinquencies rising 6 basis points to 1.21% of all accounts and property improvement loan delinquencies rising 2 basis points to 0.91% of all accounts. Home equity loan delinquencies dipped further below their 15-year average of 2.85%, while home equity line delinquencies remained just above their 15-year average of 1.15 percent.
Bank card delinquencies edged up 1 basis point to 2.48% of all accounts in the second quarter. They remain significantly below their 15-year average of 3.70 percent.
The second quarter 2016 composite ratio is made up of the following eight closed-end loans. All figures are seasonally adjusted based upon the number of accounts.
Home equity loan delinquencies fell from 2.74% to 2.70%.
Mobile home delinquencies fell from 3.41% to 3.17%.
Personal loan delinquencies fell from 1.44% to 1.43%.
Direct auto loan delinquencies rose from 0.81% to 0.82%.
Indirect auto loan delinquencies rose from 1.45% to 1.56%.
Marine loan delinquencies rose from 1.03% to 1.23%.
Property improvement loan delinquencies rose from 0.89% to 0.91%.
RV loan delinquencies rose from 0.92% to 0.96%.
Bank card delinquencies rose from 2.47% to 2.48%.
Home equity lines of credit delinquencies rose from 1.15% to 1.21%.
Non-card revolving loan delinquencies rose from 1.57% to 1.65%.
Related: Debt Collection Increasing Given Large Personal Debt Levels (2014) – Consumer and Real Estate Loan Delinquency Rates from 2001 to 2011 in the USA – Good News: Credit Card Delinquencies at 17 Year Low (2011) – Real Estate and Consumer Loan Delinquency Rates 1998-2009 – The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt (2009)
Even if some lobbyists and their friends in Washington DC try to distract from the long term failure of the USA health care system the data continues to pour in about how bad it is.
None of these rankings are perfect and neither is this one. But it is clear beyond any doubt that the USA healthcare system is extremely costly for no better health results than other rich countries (and even more expensive with again no better results than most poor countries). It is a huge drain on the economy that we continue to allow lobbyists and special interests to take advantage of the rest of us via the Democrats and Republican parties actions over the last few decades.
We have to improve. The costs imposed on everyone to support those benefiting from this decades old transfer of economic wealth to health care special interests should no longer be accepted.
The top 5 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, South Korea and Japan. The first four have costs about 25% of the USA. Japan costs about 40% of the USA per person cost.
Mylan’s despicable actions with Epi-pen and the direct participation of both political parties in increasing the costs foisted on the health care system by Mylan is just one in hundreds of the individual actions that continue to saddle the rest of USA economy with huge costs.
Related: Out of Pocket “Maximum”, Understanding USA Health Care Costs – Decades Later The USA Health Care System is Still a Deadly Disease for Our Economy – 2015 Health Care Price Report, Costs in the USA and Elsewhere – USA Health Care Spending 2013: $2.9 trillion $9,255 per person and 17.4% of GDP – USA Spends $7,960 Compared to Around $3,800 for Other Rich Countries on Health Care with No Better Health Results (2009 data)
To be financially successful, you need to invest. The problem most people have is deciding where their investments should be made. For a long time, real estate was seen as the best and most profitable bet. Remember the house flipping trend in the early millennium, before the housing market crashed? A successful investing strategy for a short period is no guaranty of that strategy working for the long term. Diversification provides more long term stability.
There are two approaches to investing in a franchise. The one most people go for–especially those who are tired of being someone else’s employee–is to opt into an already existing franchise. Yes, the cost of these franchises can be pricey. For example, the average UPS franchise cost is anywhere from $100K-$440K, depending on where your franchise will be located, if you will need to build a new structure, etc. But there is financing available and if you work with an established brand (like UPS, food chains, mall shops). There are risks and you can read about problems franchisees face just by searching online, but it also has been very successful for many people.
Another approach, for people who already own their own successful businesses, is to think about turning those businesses into franchises. This way people will pay you to run your company at their locations. This is quite a huge leap in complexity but the profit potential is very large.
My favorite method for business, and one my brother used for his business, Hexawise (I continue to consult for Hexawise), is bootstrapping. With this method you grown the business from the funds the business is able to generate. You don’t have to worry about pleasing investors or large debt payments. It does limit the ability to spend cash before the business generates it but this is often a benefit, in my opinion, as it forces you to avoid spending you can’t afford. It is a drawback however if the business really needs to spend a large amount of cash before it generates large amounts of income.
If you don’t want to have the responsibility of running a company yourself but still want to profit off of business investments, your best chance to do that is to invest in a promising new business. There are some people who turn enough of a profit doing this that it becomes their entire vocation.
Investing in a business has many benefits, especially if that company does well. When you invest, you typically do so in one of three ways:
- Silent partnerships: You front the money and lend your reputation in exchange for a share of the company’s ownership so that the investment will be profitable. This is good for people who want to have more control over what the company does with your investment. It can also be one of the riskiest types of investments to make.
- Angel investments: This is where you invest a large sum in a promising company but remain entirely hands-off while that company gets up and running. Most angel investors ask only for their initial investments plus a small sum on top of that original amount (usually accrued via interest charges) so that the investment is profitable for everyone.
- Traditional investments: Buying stocks or bonds in public companies. This is by far the easiest and is a very sensible way to invest. Often this is done using index funds to invest in the performance of the broad stock market.
The Usual Suspects
If you want to make real money via investing, you will want to make sure your investment portfolio includes a good mixture of stocks, bonds, mutual funds etc.. In fact, while we’re listing them last, these are the investments you will usually want to make first, as you build enough wealth and capital to make larger investments like franchises and investing in promising startups.
For many people, the first investments are savings accounts, 401(k)s or retirement accounts. If this is where you are, your next step should be something with a guaranteed return like a treasury bond (government bond) or a money-market account with a good interest rate. Let these investments mature while you are learning about stocks, mutual funds, real estate, business investing, etc. Then use the profits from those initial investments to fund your larger and riskier future projects.
You should never invest more than you can afford to lose. Sure taking risks can pay off, but if you want to build a genuinely successful portfolio, play it safe, especially when you are just getting started.
The International Federation of Health Plans has published the 2015 Comparative Price Report, Variation in Medical and Hospital Prices by Country. Once again this illustrates the excessive cost of health care in the USA. See related posts for some of our previous posts on this topic.
The damage to the USA economy due to inflated health care costs is huge. A significant portion of the excessive costs are due to policies the government enacts (which only make sense if you believe the cash given to politicians by those seeking to retain the excessive costs structure in the USA the last few decades buy the votes of the political parties and the individual politicians).
In 2015, Humira (a drug from Abbvie to treat rheumatoid arthritis that is either the highest grossing drug in the world, or close to it) costs $2,669 on average in the USA; $822 in Switzerland; $1,362 in the United Kingdom. This is the cost of a 28 day supply.
All the prices shown here are for the prices reported are the average allowed costs, which include both member cost sharing and health plan payment. So it only includes costs for those covered by health plans (it doesn’t include even much larger price tags given those without insurance in the USA).
Harvoni (a drug from Gilead to treat hepatitis C is also near the top of drugs with the largest revenue worldwide). This is also a drug that has been used as a lightning rod for the whole area of overpriced drugs. One interesting thing is this is actually one that is not nearly as inflated in the USA over other countries nearly as much as most are. Again, for a 28 day supply the costs are $16,861 in Switzerland; $22,554 in the United Kingdom and $32,114 in the USA. Obviously quite a lot but “only” double the cost in the USA instead of over triple for Humira (from Switzerland to the USA).
Tecfidera is prescribed to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis. The cost for a 30 day supply vary from $663 in the United Kingdom to $5,089 in the USA ($1,855 Switzerland).
There are actually some drugs that are more expensive outside the USA (though it is rare). OxyContin is prescribed to treat severe ongoing pain and is also abused a great deal. The prices vary from $95 in Switzerland to $590 in the United Kingdom ($265 in United States).
The report also includes the cost of medical procedures. For both the drugs and the procedures they include not only average but measures to show how variable the pricing is. As you would expect (if you pay attention to the massive pricing variation in the USA system) the variation in the cost of medical procedures is wide. For an appendectomy in the USA the 25th percentile of cost was $9,322 and for the 95th was $33,250; the average USA cost was $15,930. The average cost in Switzerland was $6,040 and in the United Kingdom was $8,009.
As has been obvious for decades the USA needs to stop allowing those benefiting from the massively large excessive health care costs in the USA from buying the Democrats and Republicans support to keep prices so high. But there has been very little good movement on this front in decades.
Related: USA Heath Care System Needs Reform – USA Health Care Spending 2013: $2.9 trillion $9,255 per person and 17.4% of GDP – Decades Later The USA Health Care System is Still a Deadly Disease for Our Economy – USA Spends $7,960 per person Compared to Around $3,800 for Other Rich Countries on Health Care with No Better Health Results (2009) – Drug Prices in the USA (2005)
After a slowing of additional capacity added in 2013, both 2014 and 2015 saw a bit of a rebound in additions to global wind energy capacity. In 2013 capacity increased only 13% while in both 2014 and 2015 it increased 17%. Still 17% is less than any year in the last 10, except 2013.
At the end of 2013 China had 29% of global capacity (after being responsible for adding 62% of all the capacity added in 2013). In 2005 China had 2% of global wind energy capacity.
At the end of 2015 China accounted for 34% of global capacity, the only country in the top 8 increasing their share of global capacity. The USA now has 17% of capacity. Germany has 10%.
Europe moved first in adding large scale wind energy capacity but has added capacity very slowly in the last 5 years. Germany had 31% of global capacity in 2005. Spain had 17% in 2005 and now has just 5% (during that time Spain has more than doubled their wind energy capacity).
The 6 countries shown on the chart account for 76% of total wind energy capacity globally. From 2005 to 2015 those 8 countries have accounted for between 74 and 77% of total capacity – which is amazingly consistent.
Wind power now accounts for approximately 4 to 5% of total electricity used.
Related: Chart of Global Wind Energy Capacity by Country 2005 to 2013 – Solar Energy Capacity by Country (2005 to 2013) – Nuclear Power Generation by Country from 1985-2010 – Chart of Largest Petroleum Consuming Countries from 1980 to 2010
The report, The Dwindling Taxable Share Of U.S. Corporate Stock, from the Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center includes some amazing data.
In 1965 foreign ownership of USA stocks totaled about 2%, in 1990 it had risen to 10% and by 2015 to 26%. That the foreign ownership is so high surprised me. Holdings in retirement accounts (defined benefit accounts, IRAs etc.) was under 10% in 1965, rose to over 30% in 1990 and to about 40% in 2015. The holdings in retirement accounts doesn’t really surprise me.
The combination of these factors (and a few others) has decreased the holding of USA stocks that are taxable in the USA from 84% in 1965 to 24% in 2015. From the report
As with much economic data it isn’t an easy matter to determine what values to use in order to get figures such as “foreign ownership.” Still this is very interesting data, and as the report suggests further research in this area would be useful.
Related: There is No Such Thing as “True Unemployment Rate” – The 20 Most Valuable Companies in the World – February 2016 (top 10 all based in the USA) – Why China’s Economic Data is Questionable – Data provides an imperfect proxy for reality (we often forget the proxy nature of data)
We have tax plans from the major USA Presidential candidates. I don’t like any of them, though I actually like Ted Cruz’s plan more than the others, but it has a huge problem. His plan doesn’t fund the government he wants, not even just as poorly as we have been doing. He would increase the debt substantially.
My plan would have 3 parts. I like a flat tax, I doubt it will ever happen, but if we could get one I would be happy. Cruz proposes that (at 10%). I am fine with his proposal to eliminate all deductions but mortgage interest and charity. I would definitely tweak that some – no more than $50,000 in mortgage interest deduction a year and the same for charity. Basically subsidizing it a bit for the non-rich is fine. Subsidizing these for the rich seems silly so I would cap the deductions in some way. I also wouldn’t mind an almost flat tax, say 12% up to $200,000 and 15% after that (or some such rates).
Cruz’s rate is far too low given the government he wants. The government budget is largely: Social Security, Medicare and Military. Then you also have debt payment which have to be paid. Those 4 things are over 80% of the spending. All the other things are just in the last 20%, you can cut some of that but realistically you can’t cut much (in percentage terms – you can cut hundreds of billions theoretically but it is unlikely and even if you did it isn’t a huge change).
We are piling on more debt than we should. Therefore we should increase revenue, not reduce it. But if we can’t increase it (for political reasons) we definitely should not reduce it until we have shown that we have cut spending below revenue for 2 full years. After that, great, then decrease rates.
The VAT tax on businesses replacing the corporate tax system is in Cruz’s plan and this is the best option for corporate taxes in my opinion. Another decent option is just to pass through all the earnings to the owners (I first heard this proposal from my Economics professor in College) and tax them on the earnings.
Increasing the giveaways to trust-fund baby as Cruz and Trump propose is the single worst tax policy change that can be made. I have explained previously how bad an idea this is: The estate tax is the most capitalist tax that exists. The trust-fund-baby favors should be reduced not increased. I would roll back to the Reagan Administration policy on estate tax rates.
Alphabet (Google) writes how they purchased 3.2 million shares this quarter in their earnings release:
In Q1 2016, we repurchased 3.2 million shares of Alphabet Class C capital stock for an aggregate amount of $2.3 billion, of which $2.1 billion was paid during the quarter. The total remaining authorization for future repurchases is approximately $1.4 billion. The authorization has no expiration date.
And they tout non-GAAP earnings, while of course reporting the GAAP earnings as required. One of the things executives like about non-GAAP earnings is they pretend the stock they give away to themselves doesn’t have a cost to shareholders. When you call attention to spending over $2 billion in the quarter to buy back 3.2 million shares it seems silly to then claim that the stock you gave away shouldn’t be considered as an expense.
How can you pay over $2 billion just to get back the stock you gave away and also pretend that money is not really a cost? And on top of that you promote the buyback as evidence that the stock is really worth more than you paid (after all why would you pay more than it is worth). But when you give the stock away to yourself that shouldn’t be seen as a cost? It is amazing they can do this and think they are not doing anything wrong.
And where does Google stand compared to last year for outstanding shares? 689,498,000 last year compared to 699,311,000 now. So nearly 10,000,000 more shares outstanding, even after they bought back 3.2 million this quarter. In the previous quarter there where 697,025,000 shares outstanding. All these figures are weighted-average diluted share balances for the entire quarter.
Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, got a $100 million stock award in 2015 (before being promoted to CEO). After the promotion he will be taking an additional “$209 million in stock granted every other year (he has to stay at Google for four years after each grant to cash them out).” He was granted $335 million in stock in 2014 and $78 million in 2013. You can see how quickly the executives paying themselves this well (this is 1 executive, a highly ranked one but still just 1) can dilute stockholders positions even with multi billion dollar buybacks in a quarter.
You don’t hear companies promoting how much dilution they are imposing on shareholders in order to provide windfalls for executives. I wonder why? No I don’t. I do wonder why reporters promote the buybacks and ignore the fact that the dilution is so extreme that it even overwhelms billions of dollars in buybacks.
Alphabet reported $6.02 a share in earnings and $7.50 a share in non-GAAP “earnings” for the latest quarter.
As I have said before I believe Google’s ability to extract enormous profit from their search dominance (as well as YouTube and adwords) makes it a very compelling long term investment. It would be better if the executives were not allowed to take such huge slices from the cash flow Google generates. But it is able to sustain those raids on stockholder equity and still be a good investment and appears likely to be able to continue to do so. Though I think they would be better off reducing the amount executives take going forward.
This post continues our series on peer-to-peer lending (and LendingClub): Peer to Peer Portfolio Returns and The Decline in Returns as Loans Age, Investing in Peer to Peer Loans. LendingClub, and other peer-to-peer lenders let you use filters to find loans that meet your criteria. So if you chose to take more, or less, risk you can use filters to find loans fitting your preferences. Those filters can also be applied to automate your lending.
There are resources online to help you understand the past results of various investing strategies (returns based on various filters). Some filter are just a trade-off of risk for return. You can invest in grade A (a LendingClub defined category) loans that have the lowest risk, and the lowest interest rates and historical returns. Or you can increase your risk and get loans with higher interest rates and also higher historical returns (after factoring in defaults).
LendingClub lets you set filters to use to automatically invest in new loans as funds are available to invest (either you adding in new money or receiving payments on existing loans). This is a nice feature, there are items you can’t filter on however, such as job title. And also you can’t make trade-offs, say given x, y and z strong points and a nice interest rate in this loan I will accept a bit lower value on another factor.
So I find I have to be a bit less forgiving on the filter criteria and then manually make some judgements on other loans. For me I add a bit higher risk on my manual selections. I would imagine most people don’t bother with this, just using filters to do all the investing for them. And I think that is fine.
Practically what I do so that I can make some selections manually is to set the criteria to only be 98% invested. This will cause it to automatically invest any amount over 2% that is not invested. You can set this to whatever level you want and also is how you can make payments to yourself. I will say I think one of the lamest “features” of LendingClub is that is has no ability to send you regular monthly checks. So you have to manually deal with it.
It should be simple for them to let you set a value like send me $200 on the 15th of each month. And then it manages the re-investments knowing that and your outstanding loans. But they still don’t offer that feature.
As I said one of the factors in setting filters is managing risk v. reward but the other is really about weaknesses in the algorithm setting rates. You can just see it as risk-reward trade-off but I think it is more sensible to see 2 different things. The algorithm weaknesses are factors that will fluctuate over time as the algorithm and underwriting standards are improved. For example, loans in California had worse returns (according to every site I found accessing past results). There is no reason for this to be true. If a person with the exactly same profile is riskier in California that should be reflected in higher rates and thus bring the return into balance. My guess is this type of factor will be eliminated over time. But if not, or until it is, fixed filtering out loans to California makes sense.
Once you set your filter criteria then you select what balance you want between A, B, C, D, E and FG loans. I set mine to
I actually have a bit over 1% in FG (but I select those myself). In 2015 the makeup of the loans given by LendingClub was A 17%, B 26%, C 28%, D 15%, E 10%, F and G 4%.
Related: Where to Invest for Yield Today (2010) – Default Rates on Loans by Credit Score – Investing in Stocks That Have Raised Dividends Consistently – Investment Risk Matters Most as Part of a Portfolio, Rather than in Isolation
Sadly Lending Club uses fragile coding practices that result in sections of the site not working sometimes. Using existing filters often fails for me – the code just does nothing (it doesn’t even bother to provide feedback to the user on what it is failing to do). Using fragile coding practices sadly is common for web sites with large budgets. Instead of using reliable code they seems to get infatuated with cute design ideas and don’t bother much making the code reliable. You can code the cute design ideas reliably but often they obviously are not concerned with the robustness of the code.
|2||Alphabet (GOOGL)||USA||$496 billion|
|4||Exxon Mobil||USA||$341 billion|
|5||Berkshire Hathaway||USA||$329 billion|
|8||Johnson & Johnson||USA||$296 billion|
|10||Wells Fargo||USA||$245 billion|
Apple lost $131 billion in market cap since my October post. Alphabet (Google) lost just $1 billion in market cap, and for a short time moved past Apple into the top stop. Facebook achieved a rare increase during this period, gaining $16 billion and moving up 1 spot on the list. All the top 10 most valuable companies are based in the USA once again.
The next ten most valuable companies:
|13||China Mobile||China||$219 billion|
|15||JPMorgan Chase||USA||$214 billion|
|16||Procter & Gamble||USA||$211 billion|
|18||Industrial & Commercial Bank of China||China||$206 billion*|
|20||Petro China||China||$191 billion|
Market capitalization shown are of the close of business February 26th, as shown on Google Finance.
The 11th to 20th most valuable companies includes 4 USA companies, 3 Chinese companies and 3 Swiss companies. Toyota fell from 20th to 25th and was replaced in the top 20 by Verizon, which resulted in the USA gaining 1 company and costing Japan their only company in the top 20. Pfizer also dropped out and was replaced by Walmart.
The total value of the top 20 decreased by $189 billion since my October post: from $6.054 trillion to $5.865 trillion. Since my October 2014 post of the 20 most valuable companies in the world the total value of the top 20 companies has risen from $5.722 trillion to $5.865 trillion, an increase of $143 billion. The companies making up the top 20 has changed in each period.
A few other companies of interest (based on their market capitalization):