Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 12, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Blogs » Tom Blumer's blog
  • Evan Thomas and Chris Matthews: Jackie and Serial Adulterer JFK Had a 'Good' and 'Full' Marriage
  • Bozell Column: Another Fleeting Failure for NBC
  • Martin Bashir Implies GOP Too Racist to Have Marco Rubio as VP Candidate
  • Barbara Walters, Shameless Hypocrite: Hits Kennedy Mistress for Greed, Tells Her She Should Have Stayed Quiet
  • NY Times Writers Rush to Obama's Defense Like It's Their Job
  • Rachel Maddow Trumpets Inane 'Amish Bus Driver' Analogy for Obama Contraception Rule
  • MRC's Bozell Scolds Media's Reluctance to Cover HHS Birth Control Mandate
  • Chris Matthews Excoriates: Rick Santorum Is a 'Theocrat' and Franklin Graham Is a 'Disgrace'

Bloomberg's 'Net Worth' Report Doesn't Even Tell Us What It Is

By Tom Blumer | March 07, 2008 | 23:41

Change font size:  A |  A
Tom Blumer's picture

.... for what I believe is a painfully obvious reason.

It is reports like the one written up by Shobhana Chandra at Bloomberg yesterday on household net worth that make you wonder if everyday US citizens will ever get the information needed to accurately evaluate what's going on in the economy without doing more digging than they have time for -- or that they should even have to do.

Chandra's writeup seemed to deliberately omit any and all context readers could have used to understand the significance of the information presented. She (based on this source, I'm assuming that Chandra is female -- if I'm wrong, please let me know) also sought out an "expert" to support a specious case that the reported results were masking a greater deterioration.

Here's how her report began:

U.S. Household Worth Fell for First Time Since 2002 (Update2)

U.S. household wealth fell in the fourth quarter for the first time in five years and borrowing slowed as home values plunged and lenders restricted credit, Federal Reserve figures show.

Net worth for households decreased by $532.9 billion from the previous three months, the first decline since the third quarter of 2002, according to the Fed's quarterly Flow of Funds report today. Housing-related net worth dropped by $176.4 billion.

Lower home and stock prices and reduced access to loans are prompting Americans to spend less and are driving up foreclosures. A slowdown in consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the economy, threatens to push the U.S. into a recession.

Incredibly, Chandra never told us what total US household net worth is, only supplying the amount of the decrease. Of course, many readers will see the $532.9 billion decline, a very big number, and think the worst -- that our portfolios are disappearing, that our homes are becoming worthless, and that the economy is irretrievably going into the tank (Was that the point, Ms. Chandra?).

Additionally, Chandra never told us what has happened to household net worth between the third quarter of 2002, the last time it declined, and the most recently reported quarter.

Here are the key numbers Chandra failed to report, including what has happened to household net worth in the past five years:

  • Household net worth at the end of 2007 was $57.7 trillion.
  • The $532.9 billion decline during the fourth quarter was a "whopping" 0.91% drop from the third-quarter peak of $58.25 trillion. It's a little difficult to make the case for a "threatened recession" based on such a small decline.
  • Here is how household net worth grew from 2002 to 2007:

    HouseholdNetWorth2002to2007

    (Sources: 2003-2007 -- The Fed's "Flow of Funds" report, a large PDF that can be accessed at this HTML page [go to Page 110 of the PDF]; 2002 -- the 1995 to 2004 PDF that can be found at this HTML page [go to Page 109 of the PDF])

Household net worth has increased over 47% since 2002 (about 27% after inflation during those years) -- and we're supposed to be breaking into a cold sweat because of a one-quarter decline of less than 1%?

Omitting the three items just noted borders on journalistic malpractice -- on the wrong side of the border.

I should also note that when household net worth grew by leaps and bounds during 2003-2006, coverage in the business press ranged from muted to non-existent. This December 2005 BizzyBlog post noted that third quarter 2005 household net worth went up 2.6%; that it had increased over $10 trillion since the Bush tax cuts of 2003 ("a 24% increase in roughly 2-1/2 years"); and that Old Media, to the limited extent it covered the story at all, focused on the increase in debt levels and not the more important net worth figure. A March 2007 post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) caught the Associated Press's Jeannine Aversa claiming that the 7.4% rise in household net worth in 2006 was "slower" than the 7.9% in 2005 -- even though, after inflation, 2006 was clearly better.

By contrast, I heard reports about the decline in home equity yesterday on a couple of the top-of-hour network radio broadcasts. So it's clear that the story of declining household net worth this year has gained more Old Media traction than did its spectacular growth in previous years.

Chandra also tried to make the Fed's report look worse by engaging a clearly uninformed economist to question the Fed's home-equity estimates:

The Fed based its (home-equity) calculations on a gauge of home prices published by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO -- Ed.). Had the central bank used a measure of home prices developed by S&P/Case-Shiller instead, the loss of net worth would have been almost three times as much, according to Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York.

Doing what Feroli suggests would be a truly bizarre error. As discussed earlier this week (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the S&P/Case-Shiller index looks at prices in 20 of the largest metro areas. The OFHEO report, while it has a minor weakness in ignoring some higher-end home sales, looks at 291 metro areas in all 50 states and DC. How could Feroli, or Chandra, possibly believe that using Case-Shiller would result in a more accurate or relevant answer?

Chandra and her bosses at Bloomberg need to tell us why, other than breathtaking negligence or a desire to keep readers deliberately uninformed and/or underinformed, they chose to omit any mention of total household net worth in the entire report. Since they chose to mention the last decline that occurred in 2002, they also need to explain why they failed to report what happened in the intervening five years. Finally, am I supposed to buy into the idea that everyone involved in this report -- Chandra, her editors and Bloomberg, and the JP Morgan Chase economist -- all really believe that the narrow Case-Shiller index is a better indicator of what is happening with nationwide home values than OFHEO's clearly more comprehensive Housing Price index? Heaven help us if that's really true.

I'll end how I started: It's reports like the one just discussed that make you wonder if everyday US citizens will ever get the information needed to accurately evaluate what's going on in the economy without doing more digging than they have time for -- or that they should even have to do.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Share this
  • Economy
  • Housing
  • Personal Finance
  • Recession
  • Wire Services/Media Companies
  • Associated Press
  • Bloomberg
  • Tom Blumer's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB

 

 

 

  • Idea of the Democrats better than the reality (Wisc. State Journal)
  • The cynical and self-contradictory Gospel of Obama (Krauthammer)
  • Video: Protesters at CPAC admit they're being paid to protest (Daily Caller)
  • Does the drug 'ella' cause abortions? (Weekly Standard)
  • Does income inequality cause global warming? (Power Line)
  • Jay Carney gets snippy about Super PACs (Verum Serum)

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • Not a bad idea, Jer, but ---
    25 min 48 sec ago
  • Ran off the road by her entourage, in Kiholo bay
    30 min 2 sec ago
  • Catholic Employers
    37 min 44 sec ago
  • What's next?
    45 min 59 sec ago
  • Way to go Cool!
    57 min 31 sec ago
More >

Try a Sweater Vest, Mitt
more cartoons
  • Weekend General and Sports Open Thread
  • Mitt Romney's Full Address to CPAC
  • Daily Kos Week in Review: Confusing Ground for Religious Haters
  • Newt Gingrich's Full Address to CPAC
  • Newt Gingrich: As President I'll Repudiate 40% of Obama's Government on Inauguration Day
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Editorial Associate
Aubrey Vaughan

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.