|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):
Credit scores are far from a great measure of weather a person is a great credit risk for a specific loan, in my opinion. However, they are very widely used and therefor, very important. They also are somewhat useful. And lenders don’t base judgement solely on credit scores, they consider many other factors, if they have any sense at all.
Credit scores range from 300 to 850. They are calculated by various credit reporting organizations, including FICO. They factor in payment history, percent of outstanding credit available that is used, credit report checks, length of outstanding credit accounts, etc..
Metlife report on consumers and credit scores provides some interesting data.
|Credit score range||Default rate*|
* Default rate in this case means, 90 days past due. MetLife got this data from the Consumer Financial Health Study dataset**.
Peer to peer lending platform, Lending Club, limits loans to those with a minimum credit score of 660 (remember there are multiple organizations that provide credit scores, this minimum is based on Lending Club’s score). In general I see scores above 700 in A and B loans, scores from 650-700 in C and D loans. Remember the credit score is not the only factor setting the rate (you will see scores above 700 in the C loans sometimes, etc.). Credit scores provide some insight but are just 1 factor in approving loans or setting rates (an important one but not a completely dominant one).
About 38% of people have credit scores from 750-850. Another 37% from 600-749 and about 25% from 350-599.
Vantage Score decided to make their score range go up to 1000, not the standard 850. Maybe a 750 score for them is comparable to 680? They say super-prime is 900+ (750-850 on more common scale), prime is 701-900 (680-739), near-prime 641-700 (620-679), subprime 501-640 (550-619). Anyway that chart shows the changing default rates from 2003 to 2010 by type of loan.
This Federal Reserve report on meeting between Federal Reserve Board staff and Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) 20 June 2013 has some interesting material.
For guidance, the following table generally matches a borrower’s odds-of-default with the corresponding FICO 8 score (calculated on performance from Oct 2008 – Oct 2010). Of course, the range of scores and odds-of-default [the data is related to mortgages] will vary with each model as creditors develop and validate their own credit scoring models.
Odds-of Default FICO 8 Score percent of population** 5:1 610 9% 10:1 645 9% 20:1 685 6% 30:1 705 6% 40:1 720 6% 50:1 735 9% 100:1 770 30%
As you can see at a 610 level, 20 loans out of 100 defaulted. At 685 just 5 in 100 defaulted and at 770 just 1 in 100 did.
** I had to adjust this, because the report didn’t report it in this form, so it a very approximate measure (I made estimates for something like scores from 735 to 769 etc.). Again this is data from the Oct 2008 – Oct 2010 period. The rest of the population (about 25%) would have scores below 610.
This page references a Fed report (that I can’t find) that found the following default rates on new loans for the two years after origination, 2000-2002:
|Credit score range||Default rate*|
The Consumer Financial Health Study respondents were asked to self-assess their credit quality and for permission to pull their actual credit scores.8 Forty-five percent of survey participants granted permission, yielding an “opt-in” sample size of 3,215. We appended two objective measures of creditworthiness to the dataset: Experian provided VantageScore 3.0 credit scores, and LexisNexis® Risk Solutions provided RiskView™ scores. VantageScore is a generic credit scoring model that was created by the three major credit bureaus (Equifax®, Experian and TransUnion®) and, in addition to
tradeline data, includes rent, utility and cell phone payment data when it is available in consumer credit files.
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 271,000 in October, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 5.0%. Over the prior 12 months, employment growth had averaged 230,000 per month – which is quite an excellent result. We are still recovering from the job losses suffered during the great recession but even considering that the results are excellent.
As my recent post noted, adding 50,000 jobs a month is the new 150,000 in the USA due to demographic changes. That means job gains in the last year have added about 180,000 jobs per month above the 50,000 needed to accommodate growth due to demographic changes (a larger population of adults.
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised from +136,000 to +153,000, and the change for September was revised from +142,000 to +137,000. With these revisions, employment gains in August and September combined were 12,000 more than previously reported.
Household Survey Data
Both the unemployment rate (5.0%) and the number of unemployed persons (7.9 million) were essentially unchanged in October. Over the past 12 months, the unemployment rate dropped by 70 basis (from 5.7%) and 1.1 million fewer people are listed as unemployed.
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (4.7%), adult women (4.5%), teenagers (15.9%), whites (4.4%), blacks (9.2%), Asians (3.5%), and Hispanics (6.3%) showed little or no change in October.
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 2.1 million in October and has shown little change since June. These individuals accounted for 26.8% of the unemployed in October.
This chart shows that the percentage of millionaire families by highest education level is dramatically different by education level. The data is looking at USA family income for household headed by a person over 40. For high school dropouts, fewer than 1% are millionaires; all families it is about 5%; high school graduates about 6%; 4 year college degree about 22% and graduate or professional degree about 38%.
While the costs of higher education in the USA have become crazy the evidence still suggests education is highly correlated to income. Numerous studies still show that the investment in education pays a high return. Of course, simple correlation isn’t sufficient to make that judgement but in other studies they have attempted to use more accurate measures of the value of education to life long earnings.
Related: The Time to Payback the Investment in a College Education in the USA Today is Nearly as Low as Ever, Surprisingly – Looking at the Value of Different College Degrees – Engineering Graduates Earned a Return on Their Investment In Education of 21%
The blog post with the chart, Why Wealth Inequality Is Way More Complicated Than Just Rich and Poor has other very interesting data. Go read the full post.
Average isn’t a very good measure for economic wealth data, is is skewed horribly by the extremely wealthy, median isn’t a perfect measure but it is much better. The post includes a chart of average wealth by age which is interesting though I think the $ amounts are largely worthless (due to average being so pointless). The interesting point is there is a pretty straight line climb to a maximum at 62 and then a decline that is about as rapid as the climb in wealth.
That decline is slow for a bit, dropping, but slowly until about 70 when it drops fairly quickly. It isn’t an amazing result but still interesting. It would be nice to see this with median levels and then averaged over a 20 year period. The chart they show tells the results for some point in time (it isn’t indicated) but doesn’t give you an idea if this is a consistent result over time or something special about the measurement at the time.
They also do have a chart showing absolute wealth data as median and average to show how distorted an average is. For example, median wealth for whites 55-64 and above 65 is about $280,000 and the average for both is about $1,000,000.
Related: Highest Paying Fields at Mid Career in USA: Engineering, Science and Math – Wealthiest 1% Continue Dramatic Gains Compared to Everyone Else – Correlation is Not Causation: “Fat is Catching” Theory Exposed
the Census Bureau predicts the working-age population will grow just 50,000 per month over the next 15 years.
The amount of time I spend focusing on economic data is fairly limited (compared to people doing so for a living or as a large part of their job). I stick with general rules of thumb that I can tweak a bit to let me keep up with economic conditions without a huge amount of time devoted to such efforts.
Due to my temperament; to my belief that markets often overreact in the short term; and partially to my less detailed understanding of economic data (that professionals focused on it all day) leads me to get less excited about individual data points. This is helpful for my overall investing performance, I believe.
Occasionally changing conditions require changing those rules of thumb. The 150,000 figure is one I have used for a long time; though I also adjust that for major medium term influences (such as the great recession dumped so many people out of jobs that I bumped up my “we need to add” monthly job figure to 175,000 to 200,000 to bring those people on board.
My 175,000 to 200,000 included a slight adjustment down from the 150,000 that I had made. In addition to using simple ideas like 150,000 monthly job baseline I incorporate the idea of not overreacting to variation in short term data as well as tweaking those numbers for medium term economic conditions (things like recovering from the great recession – though that is about the largest “tweaking” factor that I remember).
This article made me realize how much I should adjust my expectations for a neutral job growth reading in the USA going forward. I also gather data and opinions as I think about making major adjustments to my thinking. I’ll adjust from what I had been using of a base of 125,000 plus 50,000+ for great recession recovery to 75,000 + 50,000 for great recession recovery now (and adjust more later if other sources indicate it makes sense). The great recession recovery factor will likely go down to 25,000 for me by the end of this year.
Related: There is No Such Thing as “True Unemployment Rate” – Long Term View of Manufacturing Employment in the USA (2012) – USA Individual Earnings Levels for 2011: Top 1% $343,000, 5% $154,000, 10% $112,000, 25% $66,000 – GDP Growth Per Capita for Selected Countries from 1970 to 2010 (Korea, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Brazil
The 10 publicly traded companies with the largest market capitalizations. Since October of last year the top 20 list has seen quite a bit of profit for stockholders (mainly in Apple and Chinese companies).
|4||Exxon Mobil||USA||$352 billion|
|5||Berkshire Hathaway||USA||$346 billion|
|6||China Mobile||China||$340 billion*|
|7||Industrial & Commercial Bank of China||China||$306 billion**|
|8||Wells Fargo||USA||$292 billion|
|10||Johnson & Johnson||USA||$273 billion|
Apple’s market cap is up $115 billion since the last list was created in October of 2014. That increase is more than 50% of the value of the 14th most valuable company in the world (in October 2014).
China Mobile increased $100 billion and moved into 6th place. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) increased $78 billion to move into 7th place.
Exxon Mobil lost over $50 billion (oil prices collapsed as OPEC decided to stop attempting to hold back supply in order to maximize the price of oil). Alibaba (the only non-USA company in the last list) and Walmart dropped out of the top 10.
The total value of the top 20 increased from $5.722 trillion to $6.046 trillion, an increase of $324 billion. Several companies have been replaced in the new top 20 list.
The next ten most valuable companies:
|11||JPMorgan Chase||USA||$250 billion|
|12||China Construction Bank||China||$250 billion**|
|13||Novartis (NVS)||Switzerland||$246 billion|
|14||Petro China||China||$237 billion|
|19||Hoffmann-La Roche (ROG.VX)||Switzerland||$231 billion|
Market capitalization shown are of the close of business last Friday, as shown on Yahoo Finance.
The current top 10 includes 8 USA companies and 2 Chinese companies. The 11th to 20th most valuable companies includes 4 Chinese companies, 3 Swiss companies and 3 USA companies. Facebook (after increasing $21 billion), China Construction Bank (increasing $68 billion – it is hard for me to be sure what the value is, I am not sure I am reading the statements correctly but this is my best guess) and Tencent moved into the top 20; which dropped Procter & Gamble, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron from the top 20.
A few other companies of interest (based on their market capitalization):
Solar energy capacity has been growing amazingly quickly the last few years. Part of the reason for this is the starting point was so low, making it easy to have large gains.
As with so many macro economic measures China has made enormous investments in solar energy the last few years. China’s increase in 2013 was larger than the USA’s total capacity at the end of 2013. Since solar energy use on a large scale is still small investments are quickly ramping up. Europe was a few years ahead of others putting countries like Germany, Spain and Italy far in the lead. China, the USA and Japan have been investing huge amounts the last few years and will likely leave those other than Germany (which already has such a large capacity) far behind very shortly.
In the USA, even after growing 60% in 2008, 53% in 2009, 71% in 2010, 86% in 2011, 83% in 2012 and 64% in 2013 solar energy capacity only totaled 1% of USA total electrical capacity. In 2013 hydropower was 6.8%, wind was 5.3% and biomass was 1.3%. The increase in solar capacity should continue to grow rapidly and is starting to make significant contributions to the macroeconomic energy picture.
When you look at total electricity generation solar only represented .5% (compared to 6.6% for hydropower 4.1% for wind and 1.5% for biomass).
USA data based on only solar capacity that is connected to the grid (and my guess would be that is the measure used in other countries too). Data is largely from that Department of energy report, with historical data for other countries pulled from previous editions.
The US Energy Information Agency (USEIA) expects the USA to add (net) 9,841 MW of wind capacity; 4,318 MW of natural gas capacity and 2,235 MW of solar in 2015. In 2015 they also predict a net decline of 12,922 MW of coal capacity. They also share that nuclear plants and natural gas combined-cycle generators having utilization factors 3 to 5 times those of wind and solar generators, which means capacity measures are significantly different from actually produced electricity measures.
The USEIA has predicted “global solar PV capacity seen rising from 98 GW in 2012 to 308 GW in 2018.” They predicted in 2018 China would have the most solar PV capacity followed by Germany, Japan and the USA.
The Solar Energy Industries Association (USA) states that 5,000 MW of solar capacity was added in the USA in 2013 and 7,000 MW in 2014. They forecast 8,000 MW to be added in 2015 and 12,000 MW in 2016.
Related: Solar Direct Investing Bonds – Chart of Global Wind Energy Capacity by Country 2005 to 2013 – Leasing or Purchasing a Solar Energy System For Your House – Nuclear Power Generation by Country from 1985-2010 – Google Invests $168 million in Largest Solar Tower Power Project (2011) – Molten Salt Solar Reactor Approved by California (2010) – 15 Photovoltaics Solar Power Innovations (2008)
USA health care spending increased at a faster rate than inflation in 2013, yet again; increasing 3.5%. Total health expenditures reached $2.9 trillion, 17.4% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or $9,255 per person.
While this remains bad news the rate at which heath care is increasingly costing those in the USA has been slower the last 5 years than it has been in past years. Basically the system is getting worse at a slower rate than we used to be, so while that isn’t great, it beats getting worse as quickly as we used to be. For the last 5 years the rate of increase has been between 3.6% and 4.1%.
GDP has increased more than inflation. As the GDP grows the economy has more production for society to split. The split between the extremely wealthy and the rest of society has become much more weighted to the extremely wealthy (they have taken most of the gains to the overall economy in the last 20 years). Health care has a similar track record of devouring the gains made by the economy. This has resulted in health care spending soaring over the decades in an absolute basis and as a percentage of GDP.
The slow down in how badly the health care system has performed in the USA has resulted in the share of GDP taken by the health care system finally stabilizing. Health care spending has remained near 17.4% since 2009. While hardly great news, this is much better news than we have had in the last 30 years from the USA health care system. The percentage of GDP taken by the USA health care system is double what other rich countries spend with no better health results.
It is similar to if a team started as a championship team and then got worse every year and now they have finally stopped getting even worse. Granted they have become the worst team in the league but if, say, their record has now been 5-55 for 3 years in a row, they at least are not winning fewer game in each subsequent year anymore. But you can hardly think you are doing a great job when you are clearly the worst team each and every year.
Obviously there is a need for much much more improvement in the USA health care system. Still stopping the growth in spending, as a percent of GDP, is a positive step toward drastically decreasing it to reach a level more in live with all other rich countries. Even this goal is only to have the USA reach a level of mediocrity. If you actually believe the USA can to better than mediocre that would imply a combination of drastic declines in spending (close to 50%) and drastic gains in outcomes. Decreasing spending by 50% would put the USA at essentially the definition of mediocre – middling result with average spending.
Health Spending by Type of Service or Product
- Hospital Care: Hospital spending increased 4.3% to $936.9 billion in 2013 compared to 5.7% growth in 2012. The lower growth in 2013 was influenced by growth in both prices and non-price factors (which include the use and intensity of services).
- Physician and Clinical Services: Spending on physician and clinical services increased 3.8% in 2013 to $586.7 billion, from 4.5% growth in 2012. Slower price growth in 2013 was the main cause of the slowdown, as prices grew less than 0.1%, due in part to the sequester and a zero-percent payment update.
One thing for investors consulting historical data to remember is we may have had fundamental changes in stock valuations over the decades (and I suspect they have). Just to over simplify the idea if lets say the market valued the average stock at a PE of 11 and everyone found stocks a wonderful investment. And so more and more people buy stocks and with everyone finding stocks wonderful they keep buying and after awhile the market is valuing the average stock at a PE of 14.
Within the market there is tons of variation those things of course are not nearly that simple, but the idea I think holds. Well if you look back at historical data the returns will include the adjustment of going from a PE of 11 to a PE of 14. Now maybe the new few decades would adjust from PE of 14 to PE of 17 but maybe not. At some point that fundamental re-adjustment will stop.
And therefore future returns would be expected to be lower than historically due to this one factor. Now maybe other factors will increase returns to compensate but if not the historical returns may well provide an overly optimistic view.
And if there is a short term bubble that lets say pushes the PR to 16 while the “fair” long term value is 14, then there will be a negative impact on the returns going forward bringing the PE from 16 to 14. That isn’t necessarily a drop (though it could be) in stock prices, it could just be very slow increases as earning growth slowly pushes PE back to 14.
Another thing to consider is another long term macro-economic factor may also be giving long term historical returns an extra boost. The type of economic growth from the end of World War I to 1973 (just to pick a specific time, there was a big economic slowdown after OPEC drastically increased the price of oil). While that period includes the great depression and World War II, which massively distorts figures, from the end of WW I through the 1960s Europe and the USA went through an amazing amount of economic growth.
This richest 1% continue to take advantage of economic conditions to amass more and more wealth at an astonishing rate. These conditions are perpetuated significantly by corrupt politicians that have been paid lots of cash by the rich to carry out their wishes.
One thing people in rich countries forget is how many of them are in the 1% globally. The 1% isn’t just Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. 1% of the world’s population is about 72 million people (about 47 million adults). Owning $1 million in assets puts you in the top .7% of wealthy adults (Global Wealth Report 2013’ by Credit Suisse). That report has a cutoff of US $798,000 to make the global 1%. They sensibly only count adults in the population so wealth of $798,000 puts you in the top 1% for all adults.
$100,000 puts you in the top 9% of wealthiest people on earth. Even $10,000 in net wealth puts you in the top 30% of wealthiest people. So while you think about how unfair it is that the system is rigged to support the top .01% of wealthy people also remember it is rigged to support more than 50% of the people reading this blog (the global 1%).
I do agree we should move away from electing corrupt politicians (which is the vast majority of them in DC today) and allowing them to continue perverting the economic system to favor those giving them lots of cash. Those perversions go far beyond the most obnoxious favoring of too-big-to-fail banking executives and in many ways extend to policies the USA forces on vassal states (UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan…) (such as those favoring the copyright cartel, etc.).
Those actions to favor the very richest by the USA government (including significantly in the foreign policy – largely economic policy – those large donor demand for their cash) benefit the global 1% that are located in the USA. This corruption sadly overlays some very good economic foundations in the USA that allowed it to build on the advantages after World War II and become the economic power it is. The corrupt political system aids the richest but also damages the USA economy. Likely it damages other economies more and so even this ends up benefiting the 38% of the global .7% that live in the USA. But we would be better off if the corrupt political practices could be reduced and the economy could power economic gains to the entire economy not siphon off so many of those benefits to those coopting the political process.
The USA is home to 38% of top .7% globally (over $1,000,000 in net assets).
|country||% of top .7% richest||% of global population|
|other interesting countries|
Oxfam published a report on these problems that has some very good information: Political capture and economic inequality