PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Household Debt Shrank 0.9% in Third Quarter, Fed Says



RandomGuy
11-09-2010, 09:41 AM
For all the poltical bullshit being slung about which party is to blame, this trend is, in my opinion, the single greatest cause of the lackluster economic growth of the last year.

Not really noted much outside of the business press, it is important to understand. Banks, although attacked for not loaning money, are finding less demand for the loans they are willing to give out. That and overall decline in credit scores from the millions of people who have defaulted on their mortgages, leads me to think that the single greatest driver of the US economy, the consumer, will continue to pare back their debt.

That is, to me, a good thing.

It is one of the reasons we should not expect a stellar recovery any time soon. The rubber band of personal debt has stretched all it can, and we are collectively easing up on that.--RG

Bloomberg article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-08/household-debt-in-u-s-declined-0-9-in-third-quarter-new-york-fed-says.html)


U.S. households cut their debt last quarter, borrowing less against homes and closing credit card accounts, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Consumer indebtedness totaled $11.6 trillion at the end of September, down $110 billion, or 0.9 percent from the end of June, according to the New York Fed’s quarterly report on household debt and credit. Households have slashed about $1 trillion from outstanding consumer debts since the peak in the third quarter of 2008, the New York Fed said. :wow

U.S. households, facing a jobless rate that’s persisted near a 26-year high, have slashed debt and increased savings following the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. That’s pared consumer spending and slowed the economic recovery, helping to prompt the Fed’s decision last week to start another round of unconventional monetary stimulus.

“Consumer debt is declining but only part of the reduction is attributable to defaults or charge-offs,” Donghoon Lee, a senior economist at the New York Fed, said in a statement. “Americans are borrowing less and paying off more debt than in the recent past. This change, which we continue to study carefully, can be a result of both tightening credit standards and voluntary changes in saving behavior.”

Individuals paying off their debt crimped their cash flow by about $150 billion in 2009, the New York Fed said. Between 2000 and 2007 borrowing increased consumers’ cash flow by $300 billion a year, according to the district bank.

Household Finances

Consumers are succeeding in improving their household finances, the report showed. Delinquency rates continued to decline, with 11.1 percent of outstanding debt in “some stage of delinquency,” down from 11.4 percent at the end of June and 11.6 percent a year earlier, according to the New York Fed. Household delinquent debt fell 8.2 percent from the previous year to $1.3 trillion, the survey said.

Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada continued to have higher-than-average delinquency and foreclosure rates, according to the New York Fed.

Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. lender by assets, earmarked $5.6 billion for credit losses in the third quarter, compared with $8.1 billion in the second quarter and $11.7 billion a year earlier. Net write-offs of uncollectible loans declined 25 percent.

“We can see the American consumer healing,” Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan said in a Bloomberg Television interview last month. “We see delinquencies coming down in all our portfolios.” Bank of America is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

New Bankruptcies

The amount of new bankruptcies fell 16 percent from the second quarter to 522,000, which is 1 percent higher than a year earlier, according to the New York Fed.

Mortgage originations rose 4.3 percent to $380 billion in the third quarter and are 26 percent higher than their low in the fourth quarter of 2008, the New York Fed said. They are about half their average levels from 2003 to 2007.

The report is based on data compiled by the New York Fed’s Consumer Credit Panel, the statement said. When the district bank released its second quarter report in August, it said the survey drew from a “nationally representative” 5 percent random survey of Equifax Inc. credit-report data, which encompass people with a Social Security number and a credit report.

coyotes_geek
11-09-2010, 09:54 AM
Definitely agree. Consumers cutting back will slow the recovery, but I don't think you can argue that over the long run households carrying less debt will turn out to be a good thing.

TeyshaBlue
11-09-2010, 10:10 AM
I completely agree...the market has already priced in the effects of QE...as a capital asset. This is what fuels my argument for a front end QE.....putting the money in the hands of the consumers might make a difference. Sure, it's all going to end up in the same place..as capital, but some will be diverted into businesses that would not feel it otherwise...business that have not built QE into their forecasts or profit predictions. Sure, debt reduction will take a bite, maybe a large one, but the spread of the leftover couldn't hurt....and it seems to me it would be more effective than letting First Motherfucker Bank borrow @ .25% and loan it to me at fucking 10% or higher if the loan instrument are credit cards.
The disconnect is too large between the backend QE the Fed prefers and the taxpayer who lives on the pointy end. When the economy began to stall, and layoffs became endemic, joe public started getting their credit ratings treated like a whack a mole game. 40, 50, 100, 200 point swings were the norm..and each of those swings is a blank check for a bank to leverage more interest/profit out of a loan. Nowhere does QE take this into account, yet if the money were to flow into the consumer first, it's likely credit scores would rise as an aggregate which in turn would help free up lower interest credit. The main difference between front and back end QE? The fucking taxpayers get to drive for a change.

EVAY
11-09-2010, 10:57 AM
I couldn't agree more, RG. Both the reality of the trend of spending less and paying down debt, and the impact of that practice on the pace of recovery, combine to make this economy slow and healthier than any of the recent V shaped recoveries we have had.

I also agree that it has nothing to do with the policies of either political party.

RandomGuy
11-09-2010, 12:45 PM
I completely agree...the market has already priced in the effects of QE...as a capital asset. This is what fuels my argument for a front end QE.....putting the money in the hands of the consumers might make a difference. Sure, it's all going to end up in the same place..as capital, but some will be diverted into businesses that would not feel it otherwise...business that have not built QE into their forecasts or profit predictions. Sure, debt reduction will take a bite, maybe a large one, but the spread of the leftover couldn't hurt....and it seems to me it would be more effective than letting First Motherfucker Bank borrow @ .25% and loan it to me at fucking 10% or higher if the loan instrument are credit cards.
The disconnect is too large between the backend QE the Fed prefers and the taxpayer who lives on the pointy end. When the economy began to stall, and layoffs became endemic, joe public started getting their credit ratings treated like a whack a mole game. 40, 50, 100, 200 point swings were the norm..and each of those swings is a blank check for a bank to leverage more interest/profit out of a loan. Nowhere does QE take this into account, yet if the money were to flow into the consumer first, it's likely credit scores would rise as an aggregate which in turn would help free up lower interest credit. The main difference between front and back end QE? The fucking taxpayers get to drive for a change.

I highly doubt the current GOP led Congress will do ANYTHING that might help the economy in the next two years. That would include more stimulus, which the states desperately need, Texas included.

I know that smacks of partisanship, but anything that might have the faint wisp of "socialism", like a tax refund, or similar, would be sure to fail.

We have the Congress we asked for, but not the one we need.

boutons_deux
11-09-2010, 01:16 PM
Nobody has mentioned who benefits (from interest) from $Ts of consumer debt bubble.

That same somebody is extremely interested in inflating that bubble and keeping it inflated, 100 of Ms of cc offers in the mail, keeping those high interest rates coming in, esp with the free money from the Fed it can use as reserves.

That same somebody made $38B off bank overdrafts alone in 2009, 3x their combined profits.

coyotes_geek
11-09-2010, 02:21 PM
That same somebody is extremely interested in inflating that bubble and keeping it inflated, 100 of Ms of cc offers in the mail, keeping those high interest rates coming in, esp with the free money from the Fed it can use as reserves.

Problem solved.

http://www.yiwudistributor.com/products/trashcan/trashcan-31.jpg

boutons_deux
11-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Wal-mart puts crap on the shelves because it sells,

cc companies send out cc offers because they hook the suckers.

FailureNotAnOption
11-09-2010, 03:38 PM
Wal-mart puts crap on the shelves because it sells,

cc companies send out cc offers because they hook the suckers.

Then suckers should stop being .. well, themselves.

Just sayin'.

coyotes_geek
11-09-2010, 07:05 PM
Then suckers should stop being .. well, themselves.

Just sayin'.

Can't be that simple. Clearly we need some kind of government oversight program.

boutons_deux
11-09-2010, 07:56 PM
"government oversight program"

nah, just trust the financial sector to always self-police (that always works) and play fair with clients.

Nbadan
11-09-2010, 08:15 PM
Credit cards with interest rates of 25 - 35+ per year are robbery and these offers usually are used by the most gullible, i.e. the young, and people who lack financial control, many of which default on these loans after paying years of compound interest....I'm all for free choice but there has to be some regulations that protect responsible consumers while at the same time self-regulating those who can't control themselves...

boutons_deux
11-09-2010, 08:19 PM
The national cc companies have setup in (rural fucktard, cheap-to-buy) states with no anti-usury laws so they practice usury.

That's how companies act when they escape from state regulation, and is exactly how health insurance companies would act if they could escape from state regs and do national selling unregulated.

Nbadan
11-09-2010, 08:20 PM
U.S. households cut their debt last quarter, borrowing less against homes and closing credit card accounts, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Consumer indebtedness totaled $11.6 trillion at the end of September, down $110 billion, or 0.9 percent from the end of June, according to the New York Fed’s quarterly report on household debt and credit. Households have slashed about $1 trillion from outstanding consumer debts since the peak in the third quarter of 2008, the New York Fed said.

I wonder if this article takes into account CC credit limits which are closed or reduced by the debtor and not the creditor.....

...many people are stretched but a large part of the fustration is that wages have failed to keep up with the increased rate of production, so not only are people tapped out, but they are working harder for the few dollars in change at the end of the month..

Nbadan
11-09-2010, 08:26 PM
That's how companies act when they escape from state regulation,

....the same can be said about legislation which is written by the industry or you have business lobbyist giving millions of dollars in campaign funds to politicians..

...yeah, politicians need votes to win elections, but before that they need the money...

RandomGuy
11-10-2010, 09:33 AM
I wonder if this article takes into account CC credit limits which are closed or reduced by the debtor and not the creditor.....

...many people are stretched but a large part of the fustration is that wages have failed to keep up with the increased rate of production, so not only are people tapped out, but they are working harder for the few dollars in change at the end of the month..

They did. The latter part of the article says that their analysis accounted for defaults and cancellations on the part of the companies, but presumedly the debt reduction also includes that as well, by implication.