LendingClub suggest a minimum of 100 loans (of equal size) to escape the risk of your luck with individual loans causing very bad results. Based on this diversity the odds of avoiding a loss have been very good (though that obviously isn’t a guarantee of future performance), quote from their website (Nov 2015):

This chart, from LendingClub, shows a theoretical (not based on past performance) result. The basic idea is that as the portfolio ages, more loans will default and thus the portfolio return will decline. This contrasts with other investments (such as stocks) that will show fluctuating returns going up and down (over somewhat dramatically) over time.

For portfolios of personal loans diversity is very important to avoid the risk of getting a few loans that default destroying your portfolio return. For portfolios with fewer than 100 notes the negative returns are expected in 12.8% of the cases (obviously this is a factor of the total loans – with 99 loans it would be much less likely to be negative, with 5 it would be much more likely). I would say targeting at least 250 loans with none over .5% would be better than aiming at just 100 loans with none over 1% of portfolio.

There are several very useful sites that examine the past results of Lending Club loans and provide some suggestions for good filters to use in selecting loans. Good filters really amount to finding cases where Lending Club doesn’t do the greatest job of underwriting. So for example many say exclude loans from California to increase your portfolio return. While this may well be due to California loans being riskier really underwriting should take care of that by balancing out the risk v. return (so charging higher rates and/or being more stringent about taking such loans.

So I would expect Lending Club to adjust underwriting to take these results into account and thus make the filters go out of date. Of course this over simplifies things quite a bit. But the basic idea is that much of the value of filters is to take advantage of underwriting weaknesses.

This chart (for 36 month loans) is an extremely important one for investors in peer to peer loans. It shows the returns over the life of portfolios as the portfolio ages. And this chart (for LendingClub) shows the results for portfolios of loans issued each year. This is a critical tool to help keep track to see if underwriting quality is slipping.

In a very good result for LendingClub the worst performances are the first 2 years (2008 and 2009). Investing is challenging and trying to examine historical data and draw conclusions is not simple. The conclusion that LendingClub learned from their initial efforts in 2008 and 2009 and improved seems reasonable to me.

2010, 2011 and 2012 all have the loans completed (or nearly so, fro 2012) and the truth about peer to peer lending (or really any lending) can be seen from the chart. The return of the portfolio declines as it ages (as loans default).

What you should keep an eye on if you invest in peer to peer loans is if the lines for new years started to look much worse over time than previous years (for example if they started to look like 2008 or 2009). If that happened, ask why. If the economy entered a deep recession that may well explain it. But if there is not a macroeconomic explanation then you need to worry about underwriting quality.

If I decided the risk was real that underwriting quality had declined what I would likely do it stop reinvesting my payments in new loans (or reduce the amount of that I was doing). It is possible with LendingClub to sell your fractions of loans to other investors. I doubt I would bother with this but it is another option. Of course, unless you correctly determine underwriting quality declined faster than the other investors do their bids for those loans are going to be low (you will likely lose money on the sales).

In 2010 and 2011 returns started in the 11% to 12% range and by the time the loans closed the return was a bit above 6%. This is the type of decline you can expect (and it will be worse if there are bad macroeconomic conditions).

2012 started above 12% and is on track (with 2 months left) to slightly exceed the final returns for 2010 and 2011. The chart (and these comments) are based on all 36 month loans of all grades made in those years. LendingClub lets you show view the chart of 36 or 60 month loans and for all loans or looking at a specific grade. Remember in looking at all loans the returns are going to be impacted by the makeup of the loans (how many are A, B, C, D etc.). But you can also look at it directly for each grade to see if issues are cropping up in more specific areas.

An example of a site that examine past loan results to guess about future: How Will P2P Lending Perform During a National Recession?

it’s amazing to note that banks still did not lose money on credit cards during the 2008 recession. The stock market fell 57% in six months, yet major banks kept earning and earning.

What we see is the average return of 8.8% steadily dropping after each recession:

After the 2000 recession, avg. credit card returns fell 20% to an ROI of 7%
After the 2008 recession, avg. credit card returns fell 40% to an ROI of 5.2%
…
If this is equally felt in peer to peer lending, it could mean:

A more typical recession may also drop a peer lending return by 20% – say from 6% to 4-5%.
A more serious recession may also drop a peer lending return by 40% – say from 6% to 3-4%.
Of course, these losses will be easier if investors hold more A-grade loans, and more ugly if investors hold more E-grade loans.

100m deep is another useful resource. It provides an interactive tool to let you look at the past results based on characteristics (employment length, purpose of loan, home ownership, income, loan term, etc.) you chose.

My investigation so far makes me think peer to peer lending is a sensible place for a sophisticated investor to put a portion of their fixed income investments. I would go slowly and not commit a large amount to such investments but taking a small stake with a couple percent of a portfolio may well be wise for investors that know what they are doing. I will have more posts looking at peer to peer loans, including more on filters and automated investing with LendingClub.

Related: Investment Risk Matters Most as Part of a Portfolio, Rather than in Isolation
– Corporate and Government Bond Yields (2008) – All-weather Portfolio

With each loan you may lend as little as $25. Lending Club (and Prosper) deal with all the underwriting, collecting payments etc.. Lending Club takes 1% of payments as a fee charged to the lenders (they also take fees from the borrowers).

Borrowers can make prepayments without penalty. Lending Club waives the 1% fee on prepayments made in the first year. This may seem a minor point, and it is really, but a bit less minor than I would have guessed. I have had 2% of loans prepaid with only an average of 3 months holding time so far – much higher than I would have guessed.

On each loan you receive the payments (less a 1% fee to Lending Club) as they are made each month. Those payments include principle and interest.

This chart shows the historical performance by grade for all issued loans that were issued 18 months or more before the last day of the most recently completed quarter. Adjusted Net Annualized Return (“Adjusted NAR”) is a cumulative, annualized measure of the return on all of the money invested in loans over the life of those loans, with an adjustment for estimated future losses. From LendingClub web site Nov 2015, see their site for updated data.

Lending Club provides you a calculated interest rate based on your actual portfolio. This is nice but it is a bit overstated in that they calculate the rate based only on invested funds. So funds that are not allocated to a loan (while they earn no interest) are not factored in to your return (though they actually reduce your return). And even once funds are allocated the actual loan can take quite some time to be issued. Some are issued within a day but also I have had many take weeks to issue (and some will fail to issue after weeks of sitting idle). I wouldn’t be surprised if Lending Club doesn’t start considering funds invested until the loan is issued (which again would inflate your reported return compared to a real return), but I am not sure how Lending Club factors it in.

Return shown for my portfolio. My portfolio is currently 3% A, 25% B, 44% C, 19% D and 9% E loans. The terms of my loans are 81% 36 months and 19% 60 months.

They also don’t credit the money to you until what seems like about 5 days after the payment has been received. This also reduces your achieved rate of return, from the nominal rate charged to the borrower. I would like to assume they factor this into their calculated returns, but given the other decisions they make when calculating the return I am not certain they do.

In any case the real return is still very good compared to my other options and so if they inflate the results by 40 basis points (I don’t know what the actual discrepancy is and the uncertainty looking forward is much larger than that anyway). The expected rate is likely around 5-8% compared to about 0-.25% for me, so the slight exaggeration doesn’t matter to me.

For my portfolio (shown in the graphic above) Lending Club shows a current return of 12% with an expected return through the completion of the outstanding loans of 5.7% to 8.5%. The current return is very inflated when your portfolio is very new as you have experienced no, or very few, defaults. I will explore historical returns, returns as the portfolio ages and the expected returns in a future posts. My portfolio is currently 3% A, 25% B, 44% C, 19% D and 9% E loans. The terms of my loans are 81% 36 months and 19% 60 months.

You can read details on the loans (and filter loans on those details) for things such as: loan type, state of borrower, debt to income ratio, months since a delinquency, months since a default, monthly income, credit score, own/mortgage/rent. Lending club scores the loan quality and determines the loan interest rate depending on that (and 36 month versus 60 month term).

The more risk taken by borrowers the higher the expected returns. So if you take riskier loans you get a higher interest rate on the loan and historically even after losses from defaults the returns are greater. This brings up my biggest concern with these loans: underwriting risk. As long as Lending Club does a good job evaluating underwriting risk and properly assigning interest rates commensurate with that risk this should work very well as an investment.

As long as you have a well diversified portfolio of personal loans there is a long track record of the risk. And while plenty of risky personal loans will default, and more will default if the economy has a downturn the interest rates on the loans provides good income even after such losses. And even if things go poorly the actually losses of capital should be small (over the whole portfolio).

The discussion of investing in peer to peer loans using LendingClub will be continued in next post (next week, updated to add link to the post: Peer to Peer Portfolio Returns and The Decline in Returns as Loans Age).

Related: Looking for Yields in Stocks and Real Estate (2012) – Taking a Look at Some Dividend Aristocrat Stocks – Looking for Dividend Stocks in the Current Extremely Low Interest Rate Environment (2011) – Where to Invest for Yield Today (2010)

I made a loan via Kiva zip for Hilda to buy a posho mill machine. The loan was repaid in full.

The Curious Cats group on Kiva has made over $27,000 in loans to entrepreneurs around the world (the way Kiva works the groups, they don’t include Kiva Zip loans). You can join us. I believe in the model of micro-finance (Investing in the Poorest of the Poor [this one is grants instead of loans]), though I also believe we need more data on real experience of borrowers. Kiva Zip gives loans directly to people with a 0% interest rate. Normal Kiva loans have financial institutions (some of which are charities but they still have expenses) make the loans and Kiva lenders provide capital (at 0%) but the borrowers have to pay interest (the idea is they pay lower interest since the financial institution has a 0% cost of capital).

Related: Kiva Loans to Entrepreneurs in Columbia, India and Kenya – Kiva Loans Give Entrepreneurs a Chance to Succeed (2011) – Using Capitalism to Create Better Lives in Mali (2009)

I really really like your work and webcasts (example included below).

This seems to me to make it really difficult on people trying to use judgement. Calling people’s actions “extremely paternalistic” if they are not definitely so, I think impedes debate. And I think debate should be encouraged.

When making Kiva loans I do steer away from loans with rates above 40% (I also prefer loans that are geared toward a capital investment that will increase earning power going forward though this is hard – lots of loans are essentially for inventory that will be sold at a profit so a fine use of loans but not as powerful [in my opinion] and new capital investments – say a new tool, solar power that will be resold to users…).

Just like people anywhere, people taking Kiva loans are capable of getting themselves into trouble. Choosing to allocate my lender toward certain loans does not mean I am being paternalistic.

I am not being paternalistic if I chose not to invest in the stock of some company that vastly overpays executives and uses high leverage to do very well (in good times).

I do like the idea of direct cash to people in need. I give cash that way (and in fact did it a long time ago, 20 years, for several years – before any of this new hipster cachet :-). And I still do like it.

I also like to give to things that I think are good where I decide what the money will be spent to invest in (I like Global Giving). I have also been giving to Trickle Up for more than 20 years. They, to simplify, give micro grants (so not loans) to extremely poor to build businesses. I believe that there is great value in helping people gain long term economic success (even if that isn’t exactly the way they would use the funds if they had free reign). I don’t think that is paternalistic.

Declaring that if someone wants to borrow at an 80% interest rate that it is paternalistic to question that decision I think is unfair. To say the borrower knows best and if they think 80% is good that should be good enough is fine. I am not sure I agree (I think with rates that high it is possible wise, but the risks become greater and the borrower needs to be more aware of the risks), but I agree it is possible.

I like your later statement much more: “The reality of global poverty IS messy and complicated, and I do think there are times when kiva fails to acknowledge the complexity.” I think you understand the complexity and the reason why paying rates that seem very high may well be in the person’s best interest.

I think in this context “paternalistic” quickly gains connotations of racism (knowing better than those others…). It isn’t children we are talking about so being called paternalistic in relations to adults that are often of another ethnicity can easily push in that direction.

I also think it is sensible to object to payday loans in the USA. You could make the same argument that such an attitude is paternalistic (though I do see in your comments the explanation of the understanding of how limited the loan options are for many overseas – though that is how it can feel to many in the USA that use payday lenders).

Related: Researching the Effectiveness of Micro-credit – Kiva Loans Give Entrepreneurs a Chance to Succeed – More Kiva Entrepreneur Loans: Kenya, Honduras, Armenia… – More Kiva Entrepreneur Loans: Kenya, El Salvador…

Iskandar is 5 times the size of Singapore and is in the state of Johor in Malaysia. Johor Bahru is the city which makes up much of Iskandar but as borders are currently drawn Iskandar extends beyond the borders of Johor Bahru.

The prospects for economic growth in Iskandar Malaysia in the next 5, 10 and 15 years remain very strong. They are stronger than they were 5 years ago: investments that produce economic activity (theme parks, factories, hospitals, hotels, retail, film studio…) have come online and more on being built right now.

Cooperation with Singapore is the main advantage Iskandar has (Iskandar is next to the island of Singapore similar to those areas surrounding Manhattan). It provides Iskandar world class advantages that few other locations have (it is the same advantages offered by lower cost areas extremely close to world class cities – NYC, Hong Kong, London, San Francisco etc.). Transportation connections to Singapore are critical and have not been managed as well as they should have been (only 2 bridges exist now and massive delays are common). A 3rd link should be in place today (they haven’t even approved the location yet).

A MRT connection to Singapore (Singapore’s subway system) should be a top priority of anyone with power interested in the future economic well being of Iskandar and Johor. Johor Bahru doesn’t have a light rail system yet this would be the start of it. It has been “announced” as planned for 2018 but not officially designated or funded yet.

Transportation within Iskandar is also a big concern. This is good now. I worry they will become as bad as Kuala Lumpur which would be a horrible outcome. JB had the chance to build a good transportation system and avoid the economically extremely costly friction of bad transportation system that KL is stuck with. If JB does this well, JB will be the economic center of Malaysia in 2030. If this is messed up the economy of JB will suffer a great deal.

The health of Malaysia’s economy will also have a large role to play. Overall things are very positive on this front though government and consumer debt are getting to be serious problems.

Economics is often tricky. Externalities (like pollution – essentially externalities are positive or negative impacts that are not captured economically by the market transaction, so economic theory requires government to implement policies to take externalities into account) are easy to ignore, for a awhile). So you have situations like China where huge negative consequences (health risks, health care costs, costs to pay staff to accept unbreathable air…) are taken on and short term economic gains seem better than they are.

Economic bubbles create lots of golden eggs. They are false golden eggs though. They are only available as long as the bubble tempts people to ignore the real economic worth. And cleaning up after bubbles burst is extremely costly and damaging to economies (especially ones that have high debt and are not lucky enough to have a fiat currency that the global market accepts – the USA).

I am extremely skeptical of the boom in luxury housing in IM. I don’t see the boom in very high paying jobs that create a sustainable demand for luxury housing. The transportation links to Singapore are not great enough to allow the jobs to all be in Singapore. Even if they were that is a risky model to be completely dependent on Singaporean jobs for over 50% of the housing being built now in Iskandar. There is likely to be a dependence on Singapore jobs to sustain many of those living in IM but for it to a strong economy there have to be a reasonable number of high paying jobs in Iskandar.

Right now, it seems to me (I would really need to have much more data to be more certain as I don’t have nearly enough data now), that there is a bubble in luxury housing in IM. I think the government is wise to take bubble suppressing steps. Doing so is never easy. Getting it exactly right is very hard. I think they waited to long, which then means the bubble has inflated and makes taking the right steps even harder.

On the good side of things, real estate prices were extremely low 10 years ago. So while prices have increased a great deal they are still not exorbitant compared to other desirable areas (Singapore, KL, Penang, Bangkok…). Of course, JB hasn’t been on comparable terms with those locations. I truly believe IM has the potential to do so, and thereby justify even higher prices going forward. But that is dependent on maximizing the Singapore location benefits and while lots of good things are happening on that front, more is needed. And more is needed quickly.

The riskiest area for IM is a huge oversupply of luxury housing. It would be foolish of the government not to address this risk. Wether the steps taken are correct or not, I am not sure, but I think they are a reasonable guess and basically are wise. Things should be watched and adjusted as needed. The policy change I like the least is the 1 million MYR limit (I would do no more than 750,000 MYR if it were up to me).

What I see as the top priorities

• reducing speculation in luxury housing in Iskandar
• reducing government debt levels
• reducing consumer debt levels
• increasing the number of high paying jobs in IM – focus on health care is good (I more could be done there I would try), finance is another good target, manufacturing is decent but I seriously doubt IM will have huge numbers of high paying/high skilled manufacturing jobs (some yes, but limited). I would also target high tech, software development etc. I would work closely with organizations in Singapore and KL. I would focus a significant amount of effort on this area). Education is good (and worthily of continued effort) but provides limited high paying jobs. If engineering and entrepreneurship programs can be developed that integrate with high tech business community that is the path to huge success for JB (pretty much everywhere else on earth would like to pull this off so there is lots of competition – JB has better than average potential with Singapore next store and the Malaysian economy and efforts such as IRDA and decent English language skills for students – improving English would help).
• increasing the tax base (sales taxes make sense), hotels and retail are great (especially when they attract tourists and you get tax dollars on others – not just your citizens)
• transportation – MRT, busses in JB, roads, taxis… Should be worrying about JB’s own MRT system (even if that is a long term issue, planning should be done now, building should likely begin within 5 years – beyond just the initial few stations linking to Singapore, it should be over 12 stations in JB by 2025 – likely a north/south line and east/west). Should likely also plan on 2nd and 3rd link MRT connections to Singapore by 2025 would be nice, but certainly by 2030 I would think?
• increasing number of jobs overall – this seems to be fairly well done but looking down the road 30 years the issue is going to be raising the pay level (lots of retail and tourist related jobs are good at first but they are low paying jobs in general)

Related: The Growing Market for International Travel for Medical Care – The Potential of Iskandar is Very High but Investing in Iskandar has Risks (2011) – Iskandar Housing Real Estate Investment Considerations – GDP Growth Per Capita for Selected Countries from 1970 to 2010 – Channel News Asia Report on Iskandar

It feels to me similar to a situation where I have maxed out 8 credit cards and have a little bit left on my 9th. You can say that failing to approve my 10th credit card will lead to immediate pain. Not just to me, but all those I owe money to. That is true.

But wasn’t the time to intervene likely when I maxed out my 2nd credit card and get me to change my behavior of living beyond my means then? If you only look at how to avoid the crisis this month or year, yeah another credit card to buy more time is a decent “solution.”

But I am not at all sure that bailing out more bankers and politicians for bad financial decisions is a great long term strategy. It has been the primary strategy in the USA and Europe since the large financial institution caused great recession started. And, actually, for long before that the let-the-grandkids-pay-for-our-high-living-today has been the predominate economic “strategy” of the last 30 years in the USA and Europe.

That has not been the strategy in Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, Brazil, Malaysia… The Japanese government has adopted that strategy (with more borrowing than even the USA and European government) but for the economy overall in Japan has not been so focused on living beyond what the economy produces (there has been huge personal savings in Japan). Today the risks of excessive government borrowing in Japan and borrowing in China are potentially very serious problems.

I can understand the very serious economic problems people are worried about if bankers and governments are not bailed out. I am very unclear on how those wanting more bailout now see the long term problem being fixed. Unless you have some system in place to change the long term situation I don’t see the huge benefit in delaying the huge problems by getting a few more credit cards to maintain the fiction that this is sustainable.

We have seen what bankers and politicians have done with the trillions of dollars they have been given (by governments and central banks). It hardly makes me think giving them more is a wonderful strategy. I would certainly consider it, if tied to some sensible long term strategy. But if not, just slapping on a few more credit cards to let the bankers and politicians continue their actions hardly seems a great idea.

Related: Is the Euro Going to Survive in the Long Run? (2010) – Which Currency is the Least Bad? – Let the Good Times Roll (using Credit) – The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt (2009 – in the last year this has actually been improved, quite surprisingly, given how huge the federal deficit is) – What Should You Do With Your Government “Stimulus” Check? – Americans are Drowning in Debt – Failure to Regulate Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences

Chart showing loan delinquency rates from 2000-2011, shows seasonally adjusted data for all banks for consumer and real estate loans. The chart is available for use with attribution. Data from the Federal Reserve.

Residential real estate delinquency rates increased in the first half of 2011 in the USA. Other debt delinquency rates decreased. Credit card delinquency rates have actually reached a 17 year low.

While the job market remains poor and the serious long term problems created by governments spending beyond their means (for decades) and allowing too big to fail institutions to destroy economic wealth and create great risk for world economic stability the USA economy does exhibit positive signs. The economy continues to grow – slowly but still growing. And the reduction in delinquency rates is a good sign. Though the residential and business real estate rates are far far too high.

Related: Consumer and Real Estate Loan Delinquency Rates 2000-2010 – Real Estate and Consumer Loan Delinquency Rates 1998-2009 – Government Debt as Percent of GDP 1998-2010 for OECD

Notes: these data are compiled from the quarterly Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income. Charge-offs are the value of loans and leases removed from the books and charged against loss reserves. Charge-off rates are annualized, net of recoveries. Delinquent loans and leases are those past due thirty days or more and still accruing interest as well as those in nonaccrual status.

Charge-offs, which are the value of loans removed from the books and charged against loss reserves, are measured net of recoveries as a percentage of average loans and annualized. Delinquent loans are those past due thirty days or more and still accruing interest as well as those in nonaccrual status. They are measured as a percentage of end-of-period loans.

So if you didn’t refinance when I suggested it (and refinance, myself), previously, you may want to look at doing so now. Or you may believe that listen to me about interest rates doesn’t seem very wise.

I have even read that banks are reducing fees in order to encourage refinancing. Seems crazy to me, but what do I know.

You do need to have a decent loan to value ratio (certainly no more than 90%, and probably 80% would be better). That can be difficult for those that have had large decreases in their homes value. Also you need a great credit rating and a stable job situation. But if you qualify refinancing at these rates should be a great financial move for many. I’m perfectly happen to have done so earlier, I didn’t quite pick the bottom but I still think over 30 years these rates (the current rates and earlier rates of 4 1/4% or 4 3/8%) will seem like a dream.

Related: Fixed Mortgage Rates Reach New Low (August 2010) – Lowest 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates in 37 Years (Dec 2008) – The Impact of Credit Scores and Jumbo Size on Mortgage Rates (Jan 2009)

Bill Gates is really doing some great stuff the last few years. He takes a look at the enormous problem with state government’s failure do deal with the very long term health care failure in the USA (this has been going on for the last few decades) and the financial games them play. His Twitter quote is: Enron would blush at the financial untruth State governments engage in.

I have written about these problems before, including in: USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations. One small (compared to the problem for the whole country) He notes is that California has a $62.5 billion health care liability and $3 billion set aside for it.

We have been doing a very bad job of electing people to honest manage budgets. We, or our children and grandchildren are going to pay for those failures. The longer we fail to elect people that will deal with the real decisions that need to be made for government spending and taxing the greater those bills for our mistakes will be.

Related: Are Municipal Bonds Safe? – USA Heath Care System Needs Reform – USA Spends Record $2.5 Trillion, $8,086 per person 17.6% of GDP on Health Care in 2009 – The USA Pays Double for Worse Health Results – The Long-Term USA Federal Budget Outlook

Revolving consumer debt now stands at $814 billion down $52 billion this year. That is on top of a $92 decline in 2009. Hopefully we can increase the size of the decrease going forward. As individuals we should aim to have no consumer debt and build up cash reserves instead (the way the debt figures are calculated though, even if you don’t really have any debt, say you pay off your credit card bill each month, I believe your balance is still seen as “debt”, it is credit extended to you).

On September 30, 2010 total outstanding consumer debt was $2,411 billion (a decline of just $8 billion in the 3rd quarter, after a decline of $21 billion in the 2nd quarter). This still leaves over $8,000 in consumer debt for every person in the USA and $20,000 per family.

Consumer debt grew by about $100 billion each year from 2004 through 2007. In 2009 consumer debt declined over $100 billion: from $2,561 billion to $2,449 billion. For the first 3 quarters of 2010 it has declined just $38 billion.

The huge amount of outstanding consumer and government debt remains a burden for the economy. At least some progress is being made to decrease consumer debt. Credit card delinquency rates have actually been decreasing the last couple of year (from a high of 6.75% in the 2nd quarter of 2009 to 5% in the 2nd quarter of 2010 (I would guesstimate the average for the decade was 4.5%).

Those living in USA have consumed far more than they have produced for decades. That is not sustainable. You don’t fix this problem by encouraging more spending and borrowing: either by the government or by consumers. The long term problem for the USA economy is that people have consuming more than they have been producing.

We can’t afford to seek even more short term spending powered by more debt. Government debt has been exploding so unfortunately that problem has continued to get worse.

Data from the federal reserve.

Related: Consumers Continue to Slowly Reduce Their Debt Level – The USA Economy Needs to Reduce Personal and Government Debt – Consumer debt needs to decline much more.