Connect with us

Research: Roku – Not Zoom, but better than Zoom

Published

on

logo_coronastocks
logo-roku

COVID-19 Initial Impact Report​

Roku Inc.

NASDAQ: ROKU

logo_nxtanalytic

Analyst Note
Updated May 28, 2020

COVID-19 Net Benefit Score: 9.40

Financial Stress Test Ratings:

Free Cash Flow: F

Interest Coverage: A++

Summary

Roku operates a TV streaming platform. The company operates in two segments, Platform and Player. Its platform allows users to discover and access various movies and TV episodes, as well as live sports, music, news, and others. It also provides advertising products, including video ads, brand sponsorships, and audience marketplace programs; and manufactures, sells, and licenses TVs under the Roku TV name. In addition, the company offers streaming media players and accessories under the Roku brand name; and sells branded channel buttons on remote controls. It provides its products and services through retailers and distributors, as well as directly to customers through its website in the US, Canada, the UK, France, the Republic of Ireland, Mexico, and various Latin American countries. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Los Gatos, California.

Market Data

Financial Data Stated in Millions

Share
Price

126.66

Market
Capitalization

14,593.5

Net

Debt

-415.9

Total

Debt

99.6

Cash &

Equivalents

515.5

Enterprise

Value

14,177.6

Basic Shares

O/S

115.22

Stock Chart

roku-chart-20200528

Roku - Not Zoom, but better than Zoom

Roku Inc. (“Roku”) is a hybrid technology company that offers streaming services via the Roku hardware device, a product that allowed the company to pioneer online consumer streaming. Roku makes streaming hardware that connects to television sets. 

 

We are positive on Roku, given its potential to witness stupendous growth in the pandemic and the post Pandemic world order. During the time when most people are at home either because of shutdown or the social distancing, Roku with its easy-to-use platform, will clearly benefit from a rising user base. 

 

We are also impressed with Roku’s growth. The company reported 39.8 million active accounts as of end Q1 2020, a net increase of nearly 3 million from Q4 2019. Roku is benefitting from the sale of stand-alone streaming devices as well as growing partnerships with TV brands (TCL, JVC, Sharp among others) who license the Roku operating system to manufacture and sell Roku TV models. Moreover, Roku is benefiting from growth in advertising driven by monetized video ad impressions on increasing popularity of The Roku Channel.

 

We think Roku’s high valuation (based on EV/FCF multiple) is justified given the potential for high growth. Moreover, the pandemic will boost the usage of Roku’s streaming services, which will further drive its valuation. In addition, Roku’s improved liquidity position will provide comfort to investors and also help Roku meet its capital requirements.

 

➤ Key Factors: Key factor analysis reveals that Roku’s digital business model will be key to its success and will distinguish it from other stocks in our investment Universe. Roku generates revenues from subscriptions and advertising. In the pandemic and post-pandemic world, the longer the people stay at home, the more it will drive the company’s subscriber base.

 

While we agree that increasing competition in the streaming space from the likes of Amazon, Apple and Google and higher sales & marketing expenses are an area of concern for Roku. However, we think Roku has hedged its bets and is now dependent on multiple sources of revenue. For example, Roku’s acquisition of demand-side platform, Dataxu will position it to compete more fiercely for ad revenue as it shifts from a TV market to a digital platform. The Roku Channel reached active accounts with an estimated 56 million viewers in 2019 and more than 55 live linear channels.

 

➤ Financial Stress Test: Roku has a large cash balance and very little or no debt. We pay little attention to the fact that Roku incurred losses in Q1 2020, because of its sharp growth in the past and the potential for rapid growth in future. Roku’s debt ratios are low (Debt-to-Capital: 0.12x, Debt-to-Assets: 0.07x), allowing it the ability to easily raise fresh capital if needed.

Roku Pandemic Impact Factors Review

NXTanalytic considers 7 factors and 30 specific indications that we believe will impact companies during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. These factors include: Online Business Profiles; Dealing with Consumers In Person; Effect of Increased Health Regulations; Supply Chain Risks; Changes and Disruption in Tourism, Travel and Hospitality; Increased Demand for Health Care and Health Safety; WFH and SAH.

COVID-19 Factor Analysis

Net

Benefit

POSITIVE

Total Regression

Score

9.40

Covid-19

Risk Rate

-2.60

Covid-19

Benefit Rate

12.00

Pandemic Impact Factor Analysis

The global economic shutdown is resulting in a sharp growth in Roku’s subscriber base. In their most recent shareholder letter released on May 7, 2020, the CEO stated specifically “we have seen an acceleration of growth in both account activations and streaming hours”. We think that in a post pandemic world order, the companies that aid or assist in the new delivery economy will benefit. We think Roku is one such company and will witness substantial growth in the new SAH economic consumer behavior and its online presence. Roku is on par with a business that is 100% online and hence they fall into a category that is safely insulated from COVID-19 Pandemic risks. 

 

The Company’s physical presence in both manufacturing, distribution, and retail stores is very minimal which is a positive at this point. The supply chain risk for the Company is not overly great but at present the Company does have its finished streaming players assembled in Asia. The supply chain for commodities and materials are not perishable food items so we also view these as a low risk in terms of potential increased costs related to health regulations moving forward.

Relevant Factors

➤ Online Presence: Although streaming services represent the minority of revenues for Roku (34% in 2019), Roku is still a digital company. 

 

➤ Companies who are SAH/WFH Economy: The Company does not directly stimulate delivery or work from home economic activity. However, it significantly benefits from increase in online shopping activities, demand for streaming services, and entertainment at home. We think Roku is ideally situated to sell more streaming players.

 

➤ Supply Chain Risk: The Company does not manufacture products itself. It outsources the manufacturing of its streaming TV systems in Asia. We see this as a potentially disruptive manufacturing model and foresee it being a major challenge for the Company if it needs to be reorganized in the future.

Pandemic Factor Screening and Scoring

NXTanalytic research is based on the thesis that consumer and business behaviour and practices will be changed significantly as a result of the pandemic and its aftermath. We have developed a group of seven major factors that we believe indicate whether a company has an increased risk or reward profile.

 

We approach our analysis in the context of three time periods:

 

1. Near term effect of the pandemic

2. A Resulting Recession/Bear Market

3. Longer Term Psychological Effects: Changes in consumer and business behavior and practices as a result of the pandemic.

Scoring and Rating for Factor Exposure

We objectively score businesses based on positive and negative factors and how significantly they may be affected by each applicable factor. Our model generates a total regression score by generating a coefficient of the risk and reward scores given to the company by an experienced analyst.

 

We generate a Total Regression Score, a Covid-19 Risk Rate and a Covid-19 Benefit Rate.

➤ Online Businesses: Due to social distancing and lockdowns and Work From Home, businesses that operate online, or produce the tools for companies to adapt to more demand for online services should experience a surge in demand due to the coronavirus, Covid-19 outbreak. Consumers will more rapidly move online across many categories. Trends already in place will accelerate. Companies whose businesses are online or are rapidly moving online are better prepared to serve the market while those based on bricks and mortar are more likely to be challenged. 

➤ Dealing with Consumers In Person: Businesses that deal with large numbers of people in close proximity to each other will be negatively affected long term. Regardless of how long the pandemic will continue, its psychological, economic and financial effects, have inevitably altered the perception of risk from exposure to large group settings. Consumers are going to avoid gathering in large groups – particularly individuals over 60. We believe consumers will be fearful of the virus and we are assuming that even when the rate of infection has slowed through social distancing and other “curve flattening” efforts, the virus will be a threat for more than a year or until widespread vaccination has taken place. Even after vaccination efforts minimize the immediate threat consumer behavior will be changed long term and concern over future pandemics will be heightened for many years.

➤ Increased Health Regulations and Restrictions: Restrictions on travel and trade as a result of the pandemic are likely to remain in place for months or years and public health regulations will become stricter and more widespread. It’s highly probable that enhanced screening, permit and visa requirements, reductions in ease of travel and transport of goods will be impacted or implemented. Governments, in an effort to restore consumer confidence, will enforce new regulations designed to protect consumers from the current pandemic and future pandemics will overshoot and result in impairing businesses who rely on international supply chains, movement of large numbers of people, or are otherwise perceived as presenting a high risk of infection to consumers.

➤ Supply Chain and Cross Border Risks: The fact the virus can remain alive for many days on inanimate objects and surfaces is a good example of a pending supply chain issue. Perishable product supply chains designed to move items from producer to consumer in days could be significantly impacted. Overall we believe that businesses that ship goods internationally or rely on global supply chains are at risk of business interruption as the pandemic circulates globally. Further, companies with long international supply chains in countries with poor healthcare systems will likely be pressured to replace suppliers and build new supply chains closer to home markets in order to avoid new border restrictions and the potential of localized lockdowns put in place to handle future outbreaks.

➤ Travel, Tourism, Hospitality and Entertainment: The most obviously impacted sectors are businesses on the front line of day to day consumer interaction. Restaurants, coffee shops, event venues, bars, pubs, hotels, resorts, etc could experience a prolonged or permanent change in consumer demand or be required to spend significantly on technologies and services designed to mitigate consumer concerns over health risks. Consumers will likely continue to avoid contact with crowds or reduce visits to brick and mortar hospitality and entertainment focused businesses. Companies in these sectors will need to change business practices and deploy technologies and systems designed to protect customers – many of these do not exist yet or are expensive.

➤ Work From Home and Stay At Home: The most obvious winners are companies who enable consumer cocooning or Work From Home (WFH) and Stay at Home (SAH) behaviour. As these social and business trends become entrenched, demand for a range of new solutions for managing a distributed workforce will provide existing platform companies and new entrants with opportunities to grow market share and fill demand. Companies not offering WFH opportunities will suffer, compromising their ability to attract the best employees. The delivery economy, pioneered by the likes of Amazon.com and any company that focuses on in home exercise, consumer electronics, home entertainment and ecommerce are well positioned to profit from a long term trend towards SAH behaviour. The trend towards non-brick and mortar retail, will accelerate.

➤ Health, Medicine & Safety: Companies focused on the health and safety of consumers and crowds will be positioned to assist businesses who will require new and robust health security solutions in order to attract customers. Heightened focus on health and virus risks will likely spur expenditures on antiviral medications and treatments, vaccines, screening systems and devices, rapid testing, containment and quarantine solutions and services, and telemedicine. Demand for antimicrobial or antiviral materials or other “bio tech materials” and products is likely to be strong in a post pandemic world.

Financial Stress Test

FINANCIAL RATIOS RATINGS
letter_grade_1

Excellent
Strong
Satisfactory
Poor
Low Quality
High Risk

Free Cash Flow: F

FINANCIAL RATIOS RATINGS
letter_grade_2

Excellent
Strong
Satisfactory
Poor
Low Quality
High Risk

Interest Coverage: A++

Financial Ratios

FYE –

Dec. 31st

2019 A

Financial

Leverage

2.11 X

Debt-to-

Capital

0.12 X

Debt-to-

Assets

0.07 X

Debt-to-

Equity

0.14 X

EBIT/

Interest

27.50 X

EV/

FCF

-199.96 X

NXTanalytic reviews a series of financial measures designed to provide a snapshot of the company’s financial health and ability to deal with the challenges or opportunities created by the pandemic, the recession and post pandemic economic environment.

Our opinion

We are positive of Roku. The Company’s business model is almost entirely resilient to shutdowns and other related effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Roku’s revenues have witnessed an exponential growth and we expect this to increase further as global social distancing norms are likely to continue. We concur with Roku’s CEO that increased unemployment, stay at home orders, and other effects of COVID-19 Pandemic is resulting in a shift from linear TV viewing to streaming. This process was already happening but the Pandemic has accelerated this trend. This is a positive for companies like Roku who manufacture the new technology and sell streaming services. Although we do recognize that the manufacturing supply chain does have some risk, we do not foresee it as being a major risk to Roku’s operations. Given that a large part of Roku’s revenue comes from their platform service (63%) we believe the company is insulated from the risk of supply chain disruption.

Stress Test Highlights

➤ Debt-to-Assets: The debt ratio for Roku is very low (0.07x) which allows it to easily raise additional funds in the event of cashflow problems. Other leverage ratios such as Debt-to-Equity are more pronounced (2.11x), but are not a concern after an assessment of the Debt-to-Equity ratio (0.14x) which implies the level of debt in the company is very low.

 

➤ EV/FCF: The enterprise value to free cash flow ratio for the Company is not in good shape for value investors looking for undervalued stocks (-199.96x). The negative value in the ratio comes from the large amount of cash spent on capital expenditures. If this is combined with the exponential growth, we have seen in the Company’s stock price the ratio seems justified.

 

➤ Interest Coverage: The current interest coverage ratio of the Company is not concerning 27.50x. This shows the low financial risk the company has in relation to covering its debt/interest obligations. We are not surprised by the size of this ratio given the low level of debt.

Financial Stress Test Analysis

NXTanalytic completes a financial analysis of each company using data taken from the most recently audited financial statements. Our goal is to provide a snapshot of a company’s financial condition and ability to survive a prolonged period of reduced growth, and/or finance growth or restructuring to take advantage of new opportunities.

Cash Flows as a Focus of Screening

Debt Servicing

➤ Interest Coverage Ratio = EBIT / Interest Expense: A powerful measurement of the ‘survivability’ of a corporation. It reflects the ability of a company to pay interest on the outstanding debt and is thus an important assessment of short-term solvency. If the ratio is underneath 1.0 X, this means that the company cannot currently cover interest charges on its debt from current operational income. This could mean that the company is funding itself through the sale of assets or further financing; which are unsustainable. The higher the ratio, the higher probability to survive in the future financial hardship.

Free Cash Flow Valuation

➤ Interest Coverage Ratio = EBIT / Interest Expense: A powerful measurement of the ‘survivability’ of a corporation. It reflects the ability of a company to pay interest on its outstanding debt and is thus an important assessment of short-term solvency. If the ratio is underneath 1.0 X, it indicates the company cannot currently cover interest charges on its debt from operational income. This could mean that the company is funding itself through the sale of assets or further financing; which are unsustainable measures. The higher the ratio, the higher the company’s ability to survive financial hardship.

➤ EV/FCF Ratio = Enterprise Value / Free Cash Flow: Based on our debt servicing thesis we primarily value companies based on their cash flows. We rely on the EV/FCF ratio to assess the total valuation of the company in relation to its ability to generate cash flows. Enterprise Value is the value of the entire company, both its debt and traded equity. When this is divided by its Free Cash Flow we see how much we are paying to buy that cash flow. The lower the ratio the cheaper it is to “buy” the cash flows of the company.

Leverage Ratios

Debt ratios are classic balance sheet health measuring tools used to indicate potential risks to future financing ability (ie. violating debt covenants) or as a barometer of the defensive position of the company if cash flows are ever an issue. They are long-term solvency metrics and reflect the degree to which the company is financing its operation through debt versus equity. If a company has poor leverage ratios (too much debt), it might need to aggressively finance its growth through debt and as a result require more and more cash flow from operations to adequately service its debt. Our view is that companies with less debt are more likely to be able to withstand challenges or fund opportunities created by the pandemic.

➤ Financial Leverage Ratio = Total Debt / Total Equity: The Financial Leverage Ratio is a measure of the degree to which a company is financing its operations through debt. More specifically, it reflects the ability of shareholder equity to cover all outstanding debts in the event of a business downturn.

➤ Debt-to-Capital Ratio = Total Debt / (Total Debt + Total Shareholder’s Equity): The Debt-to-Capital ratio measures the amount of financial leverage in a company. This tells us whether a company is prone to using debt financing or equity financing. A company with a high Debt-to-Capital ratio, compared to a general or industry average, may be impared due to the cost of servicing debt and therefore increasing its default risk.

➤ Debt-to-Equity Ratio = Total Debt / Total Shareholder’s Equity: A high Debt-to-Equity ratio generally indicates that a company has been aggressive in financing its growth with debt. This can result in volatile earnings as a result of additional interest expense. If the company’s interest expense grows too high, it may increase the company’s chances of a default or bankruptcy.

➤ Debt-to-Assets Ratio = Total Debt / Total Assets: The Debt-to-Assets ratio shows the degree to which a company has used debt to finance its assets. This ratio can be used to evaluate whether a company has enough assets to meet its debt obligations. A ratio greater than 1 indicates that the entire company’s assets are worth less than its debt.

CONFLICT OWNERSHIP RELATED DISCLOSURES

Does the Analyst or any member of the Analyst’s household have a financial interest in the securities of the subject issuer?

No

Does the Analyst or household member serve as a Director or Officer or Advisory Board Member of the issuer?

No

Does NXTanalytic or the Analyst have any actual material conflicts of interest with the issuer?

No

Does NXTanalytic and/or one or more entities affiliated with NXTanalytic beneficially own common shares (or any other class of common equity securities) of this issuer which constitutes more than 1% of the presently issued and outstanding shares of the issuer?

No

Has the Analyst had an onsite visit with the Issuer within the last 12 months?

No

Has the Analyst been compensated for travel expenses incurred as a result of an onsite visit with the Issuer within the last 12 months?

No

Has the Analyst received any compensation from the subject company in the past 12 months?

No

U.K. DISCLOSURES

This research report was prepared by NXTanalytic Inc., which is not a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada and the Canadian Investor Protection Fund. NXTANALYTIC IS NOT SUBJECT TO U.K. RULES WITH REGARD TO THE PREPARATION OF RESEARCH REPORTS AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF ANALYSTS. The contents hereof are intended solely for the use of, and may only be issued or passed onto persons with which NXTanalytic has given consent. This report does not constitute advice, an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any of the securities discussed herein.

CANADIAN & U.S. DISCLOSURES

This research report was prepared by NXTanalytic, which is not a registrant nor is it a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada. This report does not constitute advice, an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any of the securities discussed herein. NXTanalytic is not a registered broker-dealer in the United States or any country. The firm that prepared this report may not be subject to U.S. rules regarding the preparation of research reports and the independence of research analysts.

INFORMATION & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

All information used in the publication of this report has been compiled from publicly available sources that NXTanalytic believes to be reliable. The opinions, estimates, and projections contained in this report are those of NXTanalytic Inc. (“NXT”) as of the date hereof and are subject to change without notice. NXT makes every effort to ensure that the contents have been compiled or derived from sources believed to be reliable and that contain information and opinions that are accurate and complete; however, NXT makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, in respect thereof, takes no responsibility for any errors and omissions which may be contained herein and accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss arising from any use of or reliance on this report or its contents. Information may be available to NXT that is not herein. This report is provided, for informational purposes only and does not constitute advice, an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities discussed herein in any jurisdiction. Its research is not an offer to sell or solicitation to buy any securities at any time now, or in the future. Neither NXT nor any person employed by NXTanalytic accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or indirect loss resulting from any use of its research or information it contains. This report may not be reproduced, distributed, or published without any the written expressed permission of NXTanalytic Inc. and/or its principals.

 

©2020, NXTanalytic. All rights reserved.

 
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Q4 Update: Delinquencies, Foreclosures and REO

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Q4 Update: Delinquencies, Foreclosures and REO
A brief excerpt: I’ve argued repeatedly that we would NOT see a surge in foreclosures that would significantly impact house prices (as happened followi…

Published

on

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Q4 Update: Delinquencies, Foreclosures and REO

A brief excerpt:
I’ve argued repeatedly that we would NOT see a surge in foreclosures that would significantly impact house prices (as happened following the housing bubble). The two key reasons are mortgage lending has been solid, and most homeowners have substantial equity in their homes..
...
And on mortgage rates, here is some data from the FHFA’s National Mortgage Database showing the distribution of interest rates on closed-end, fixed-rate 1-4 family mortgages outstanding at the end of each quarter since Q1 2013 through Q3 2023 (Q4 2023 data will be released in a two weeks).

This shows the surge in the percent of loans under 3%, and also under 4%, starting in early 2020 as mortgage rates declined sharply during the pandemic. Currently 22.6% of loans are under 3%, 59.4% are under 4%, and 78.7% are under 5%.

With substantial equity, and low mortgage rates (mostly at a fixed rates), few homeowners will have financial difficulties.
There is much more in the article. You can subscribe at https://calculatedrisk.substack.com/

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

‘Bougie Broke’ – The Financial Reality Behind The Facade

‘Bougie Broke’ – The Financial Reality Behind The Facade

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Social media users claiming…

Published

on

'Bougie Broke' - The Financial Reality Behind The Facade

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Social media users claiming to be Bougie Broke share pictures of their fancy cars, high-fashion clothing, and selfies in exotic locations and expensive restaurants. Yet they complain about living paycheck to paycheck and lacking the means to support their lifestyle.

Bougie broke is like “keeping up with the Joneses,” spending beyond one’s means to impress others.

Bougie Broke gives us a glimpse into the financial condition of a growing number of consumers. Since personal consumption represents about two-thirds of economic activity, it’s worth diving into the Bougie Broke fad to appreciate if a large subset of the population can continue to consume at current rates.

The Wealth Divide Disclaimer

Forecasting personal consumption is always tricky, but it has become even more challenging in the post-pandemic era. To appreciate why we share a joke told by Mike Green.

Bill Gates and I walk into the bar…

Bartender: “Wow… a couple of billionaires on average!”

Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and other billionaires make us all much richer, on average. Unfortunately, we can’t use the average to pay our bills.

According to Wikipedia, Bill Gates is one of 756 billionaires living in the United States. Many of these billionaires became much wealthier due to the pandemic as their investment fortunes proliferated.

To appreciate the wealth divide, consider the graph below courtesy of Statista. 1% of the U.S. population holds 30% of the wealth. The wealthiest 10% of households have two-thirds of the wealth. The bottom half of the population accounts for less than 3% of the wealth.

The uber-wealthy grossly distorts consumption and savings data. And, with the sharp increase in their wealth over the past few years, the consumption and savings data are more distorted.

Furthermore, and critical to appreciate, the spending by the wealthy doesn’t fluctuate with the economy. Therefore, the spending of the lower wealth classes drives marginal changes in consumption. As such, the condition of the not-so-wealthy is most important for forecasting changes in consumption.

Revenge Spending

Deciphering personal data has also become more difficult because our spending habits have changed due to the pandemic.

A great example is revenge spending. Per the New York Times:

Ola Majekodunmi, the founder of All Things Money, a finance site for young adults, explained revenge spending as expenditures meant to make up for “lost time” after an event like the pandemic.

So, between the growing wealth divide and irregular spending habits, let’s quantify personal savings, debt usage, and real wages to appreciate better if Bougie Broke is a mass movement or a silly meme.

The Means To Consume 

Savings, debt, and wages are the three primary sources that give consumers the ability to consume.

Savings

The graph below shows the rollercoaster on which personal savings have been since the pandemic. The savings rate is hovering at the lowest rate since those seen before the 2008 recession. The total amount of personal savings is back to 2017 levels. But, on an inflation-adjusted basis, it’s at 10-year lows. On average, most consumers are drawing down their savings or less. Given that wages are increasing and unemployment is historically low, they must be consuming more.

Now, strip out the savings of the uber-wealthy, and it’s probable that the amount of personal savings for much of the population is negligible. A survey by Payroll.org estimates that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

More on Insufficient Savings

The Fed’s latest, albeit old, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households from June 2023 claims that over a third of households do not have enough savings to cover an unexpected $400 expense. We venture to guess that number has grown since then. To wit, the number of households with essentially no savings rose 5% from their prior report a year earlier.  

Relatively small, unexpected expenses, such as a car repair or a modest medical bill, can be a hardship for many families. When faced with a hypothetical expense of $400, 63 percent of all adults in 2022 said they would have covered it exclusively using cash, savings, or a credit card paid off at the next statement (referred to, altogether, as “cash or its equivalent”). The remainder said they would have paid by borrowing or selling something or said they would not have been able to cover the expense.

Debt

After periods where consumers drained their existing savings and/or devoted less of their paychecks to savings, they either slowed their consumption patterns or borrowed to keep them up. Currently, it seems like many are choosing the latter option. Consumer borrowing is accelerating at a quicker pace than it was before the pandemic. 

The first graph below shows outstanding credit card debt fell during the pandemic as the economy cratered. However, after multiple stimulus checks and broad-based economic recovery, consumer confidence rose, and with it, credit card balances surged.

The current trend is steeper than the pre-pandemic trend. Some may be a catch-up, but the current rate is unsustainable. Consequently, borrowing will likely slow down to its pre-pandemic trend or even below it as consumers deal with higher credit card balances and 20+% interest rates on the debt.

The second graph shows that since 2022, credit card balances have grown faster than our incomes. Like the first graph, the credit usage versus income trend is unsustainable, especially with current interest rates.

With many consumers maxing out their credit cards, is it any wonder buy-now-pay-later loans (BNPL) are increasing rapidly?

Insider Intelligence believes that 79 million Americans, or a quarter of those over 18 years old, use BNPL. Lending Tree claims that “nearly 1 in 3 consumers (31%) say they’re at least considering using a buy now, pay later (BNPL) loan this month.”More tellingaccording to their survey, only 52% of those asked are confident they can pay off their BNPL loan without missing a payment!

Wage Growth

Wages have been growing above trend since the pandemic. Since 2022, the average annual growth in compensation has been 6.28%. Higher incomes support more consumption, but higher prices reduce the amount of goods or services one can buy. Over the same period, real compensation has grown by less than half a percent annually. The average real compensation growth was 2.30% during the three years before the pandemic.

In other words, compensation is just keeping up with inflation instead of outpacing it and providing consumers with the ability to consume, save, or pay down debt.

It’s All About Employment

The unemployment rate is 3.9%, up slightly from recent lows but still among the lowest rates in the last seventy-five years.

The uptick in credit card usage, decline in savings, and the savings rate argue that consumers are slowly running out of room to keep consuming at their current pace.

However, the most significant means by which we consume is income. If the unemployment rate stays low, consumption may moderate. But, if the recent uptick in unemployment continues, a recession is extremely likely, as we have seen every time it turned higher.

It’s not just those losing jobs that consume less. Of greater impact is a loss of confidence by those employed when they see friends or neighbors being laid off.   

Accordingly, the labor market is probably the most important leading indicator of consumption and of the ability of the Bougie Broke to continue to be Bougie instead of flat-out broke!

Summary

There are always consumers living above their means. This is often harmless until their means decline or disappear. The Bougie Broke meme and the ability social media gives consumers to flaunt their “wealth” is a new medium for an age-old message.

Diving into the data, it argues that consumption will likely slow in the coming months. Such would allow some consumers to save and whittle down their debt. That situation would be healthy and unlikely to cause a recession.

The potential for the unemployment rate to continue higher is of much greater concern. The combination of a higher unemployment rate and strapped consumers could accentuate a recession.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 09:25

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness

A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…

Published

on

Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz

Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.

A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.

I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.

Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.

A promised investment

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.

Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.

The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.

Research’s critical impact

That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.

For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.

Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.

Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:

  • A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

  • A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.

That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.

High stakes

If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.

Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.

Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.

Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending