Happy Holidays!! The December Mozscape index is now live! The latest index has just been released and you will see fresh Mozscape data in Open Site Explorer, the Mozbar, PRO campaigns, and the Mozscape API.
The Big Data team was hoping to provide a special holiday treat launching two indices in one month again, but, unfortunately processing was bitten by a full machine failure. We've had really good luck running Mozscape processing on the larger, high compute AWS machines, but, sadly, just a few days before the index was complete, an entire computing machine failed which forced us to have to re-run a few steps. Even with the failure, the December index is a few days earlier than our scheduled release date on December 27th - a pre-holiday treat for everyone!
In even bigger Big Data news - our private cloud is fully up and running in Virginia and we are about 25% done with our first production ready index! If all goes well, we'll be releasing the first Mozscape index created in our own private cloud in mid-January. What a way to bring in the new year!
Here are the metrics for this latest index:
78,671,787,078 (78 billion) URLs
687,827,137 (687 million) Subdomains
136,539,340 (136 million) Root Domains
917,094,026,686 (917 billion) Links
Followed vs. Nofollowed
2.32% of all links found were nofollowed
56.69% of nofollowed links are internal
43.31% are external
Rel Canonical - 14.07% of all pages now employ a rel=canonical tag
The average page has 72 links on it
61.38 internal links on average
10.45 external links on average
And the following correlations with Google's US search results:
Page Authority - 0.36
Domain Authority - 0.19
MozRank - 0.24
Linking Root Domains - 0.30
Total Links - 0.25
External Links - 0.29
The histogram for the freshness of the index's crawl data shows a pretty high volume of fresh crawl data coming from middle of November. This index will have data ranging as old as the end of October, but a large volume of the data was crawled from the middle to end of November.
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
Weekly Address: The President and First Lady Extend a Holiday Greeting and Thank our Troops for their Service
In this week’s address, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, and thank our brave troops and their families for their service. The President and First Lady ask the American people to visit JoiningForces.gov to find ways to honor and support our veterans and military families, and say that we must all come together, as we always do, to care for each other during this holiday season.
On Sunday, President Obama traveled to Newtown, CT, and spoke at an interfaith vigil for the victims of the shooting and their families. "We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change," he said. "We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction."
On Monday, we published a list of resources specifically designed for parents and guardians to provide guidance on talking to children after a traumatic event. Get more information here.
On Wednesday, the President delivered a statement from the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, where he discussed his commitment to reducing the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. "We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides," he said. "There's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts. But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing."
On Friday, President Obama recorded a message for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who called for action to deter mass shootings and reduce gun violence using We the People. "I just wanted to take a minute today to respond and let you know: we hear you," he said. The President reiterated his support for legislation to ban the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, as well as measure to ensure that criminals can't take advantage of legal loopholes to get their hands on a gun. He also discussed an effort he's asked Vice President Biden to lead -- to come up with a comprehensive set of proposals to help keep our children safe.
The original series showed how banks always had 90% or above allowance for loan and lease losses until the 2008 financial crisis. It then dropped like a stone to 15%. It has been gradually struggling up since then and is now 35%.
The old data series showed how pathetically inadequate the reserves are and how slow the recovery (actually, non-recovery since about 2/3 of loan and lease losses are not covered!).
The new series makes the "recovery" look significant. I'm amazed that the Fed did this.
Mish, please take a look at this and comment to your wide readership.
Wishing you a very Merry Christmas, Regards, Wendy
Hello Wendy, Merry Christmas to you and all my readers as well.
I do not know when this happened, or why, so I cannot comment on that. However, I have a few historical charts to show from late 2009, and I have some thoughts on the data series following the charts.
Current Truncated Chart
Click on any chart for sharper image
To show you what Wendy is asking about, here are a few charts that I captured in 2009.
Assets at banks whose ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans
Banks with Total Assets from $1B to $10B where ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans
Banks with Total Assets from $1B to $10B (Pacific Region)where ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans
Banks with Total Assets over $20Bwhere ALLL exceeds Nonperforming loans
Remember that allowances for loan losses will decrease as charge offs increase. However, the above charts are in relation to non-performing loans.
Businesses try to predict, on an ongoing basis, the amount of loss in their accounts. They take periodic charges to earnings to better match losses to periods when they occurred. Banks do this as well. They use current income, through the provision for loan and lease losses, to create and build a reserve to absorb losses.
The ALLL can be increased another way. When the bank collects on previously charged-off loans, the amount recovered goes into the ALLL.
Charged-off loans decrease the ALLL. If a bank decides it has overestimated its potential loss exposure, it can choose to reduce its ALLL and add the amount to its income. This is known as making "reverse provisions" for loan and lease losses, because the bank decreases the allowance, or reserve amount, rather than increasing the provision. It is rare for a bank to make a reverse provision, however, because of the imprecise nature of determining an appropriate reserve.
One last point to remember with respect to the reserve is that the ALLL is a general reserve. Therefore, even if a bank analyzes and estimates the loss on each loan, the allowance is there to absorb all losses in the loan portfolio and is not specific to a particular loan.
Implications
Because allowances for loan losses are a direct hit to earnings, and because allowances are at ridiculously low levels, bank earnings have been wildly over-stated.
Thanks Wendy.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Praise from German chancellor Angela Merkel is typically hard to come by. However, Merkel is freely distributing praise these days, to the person least-deserving, herself.
As the eurozone marches down the "Road to Shared Liability" Germans are largely unaware of the Hidden Risks of the Euro-Zone Bank Oversight Plan risks that Merkel ignored when agreeing to the eurozone oversight plan last week.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was full of praise for the euro-zone bank oversight plan passed last week at the EU summit in Brussels. But the deal is not nearly as watertight as she claimed. It lacks a legal foundation and could lead to a conflict of interest at the highest levels of the European Central Bank.
Angela Merkel received recognition from the highest possible level -- herself. The most recent resolutions made by the European Union in its ongoing effort to save the common currency, she said last Thursday, "can't be spoken of highly enough." Her administration had been able to "push through Germany's core demands," she said.
Self praise, of course, is often inaccurate. But in this case, the gap between fiction and reality is particularly wide. The agreement reached by European leaders and their finance ministers during last week's summits in Brussels could ultimately destroy Merkel's reputation as a level-headed and firm savior of the common currency.
Merkel has tirelessly called for EU leaders to push forward with the political integration of Europe. But at the most recent EU summit, she personally ensured that plans to that effect, created by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, didn't even make it onto the agenda. At the same time, German Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schäuble voted in favor of a new banking supervisory agency under the authority of the European Central Bank.
It is a plan that Germany's own central bankers view with concern. Lawyers at the Bundesbank object that the responsibilities of the new super-agency remain nebulous. The project has no "lasting, sustainable legal foundation," they say.
The German Vision
No longer is "more Europe" the focus of EU efforts. Instead, German taxpayers could be made liable for billions in risk taken on by large European financial institutions. There is little left of Merkel's motto calling for "increased liability only in the case of increased integration."
Not Enough Legal Protections
Merkel was unsuccessful in ensuring that larger euro-zone members have more influence in the oversight agency. As has been the case thus far in the ECB, a vote from Malta counts just as much as a vote from Germany. It is a situation that makes in possible for expensive bailout packages for Irish or Spanish banks to be pushed through despite German opposition.
No wonder, then, that financially powerful countries outside the euro zone are less than impressed by the new banking watchdog. The oversight regime is open to non-euro-zone EU members as well, but Sweden, for example, isn't even considering it. The risk, says Finance Minister Anders Borg, is simply too great. "We don't believe it contains enough legal protection for taxpayers," he says, "so that they won't be made liable for mistakes made by foreign banks."
As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, chancellor Merkel is willing to sell her soul and German taxpayers down the river if that is what it takes to create a nannyzone.
And what a nannyzone it will be, if a vote from Malta or Portugal counts as much as a vote from Germany or France. It's no wonder that Euroskepticism on Rise in New EU Members.
Indeed, citizens from Poland, Latvia, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic are all having doubts about joining the eurozone, even if some of the political leaders of those countries are willing to proceed full speed ahead.
The Czech president is one of those thinking clearly. He went so far as to call the ESM a "monstrous and outrageous thing". Merkel does not care about such matters. Her vision is that of a combined Europe, regardless of what it takes, or who is damaged in the process.
Since no one else in Germany is singing Merkel's praises at the moment, she (like all politicians) is willing to do that herself.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Since 2000, how much has your average hourly wage gone up?
If you are in the upper crust, the answer may be staggering. If not, perhaps the following chart more closely resembles your experience.
Average Hourly Earnings 2000-2012
Just the Facts Ma'am
The average hourly earnings was $13.75 on January 1, 2000.
The average hourly earnings is currently $19.84.
Since 2000, average hourly earnings are up 44.29%
Bear in mind, those are averages. Don't be surprised if you are much worse off because of distributional skew (huge wage increases at the high end pull the average up).
Moreover, the above chart does not reflect sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes, gasoline taxes, fees, etc., all of which are way higher now than in 2000. In other words, the chart reflects average hourly wages, not spendable income.
Actual spendable income is up far less than 44%.
It's a peculiar thing how the CPI does not properly account for tax hikes.
While pondering those thoughts, please consider federal spending.
Federal Spending
The following table will show without a doubt the purported "revenue problem" in Congress, is without a doubt really an "out of control spending problem".
Department
2000
2012 estimate
Percentage Increase
Legislative Branch
2,871
5,253
82.97
Judicial Branch
4,057
7,581
86.86
Department of Agriculture
75,071
150,680
100.72
Department of Commerce
7,788
11,326
45.43
Department of Defense--Military Programs
281,028
688,254
144.91
Department of Education
33,476
98,467
194.14
Department of Energy
14,971
38,998
160.49
Department of Health and Human Services
382,311
871,836
128.04
Department of Homeland Security
13,159
60,443
359.33
Department of Housing and Urban Development
30,781
56,788
84.49
Department of the Interior
7,998
11,241
40.55
Department of Justice
16,846
34,556
105.13
Department of Labor
31,873
127,157
298.95
Department of State
6,687
29,937
347.69
Department of Transportation
41,555
84,135
102.47
Department of the Treasury
390,524
579,618
48.42
Department of Veterans Affairs
47,044
129,186
174.61
Corps of Engineers--Civil Works
4,229
9,184
117.17
Other Defense Civil Programs
32,801
51,991
58.50
Environmental Protection Agency
7,223
9,352
29.48
Executive Office of the President
283
414
46.29
General Services Administration
74
1,083
1363.51
International Assistance Programs
12,087
25,554
111.42
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
13,428
17,637
31.34
National Science Foundation
3,448
8,281
140.17
Office of Personnel Management
48,655
87,462
79.76
Small Business Administration
-421
3,157
Social Security Administration (On-Budget)
45,121
188,552
317.88
Social Security Administration (Off-Budget)
396,169
638,509
61.17
Other Independent Agencies (On-Budget)
8,803
53,199
504.33
Other Independent Agencies (Off-Budget)
2,029
-5,120
Allowances
..........
125
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
-173,019
-279,289
61.42
(On-budget)
-105,586
-151,066
43.07
(Off-budget)
-67,433
-128,223
90.15
Total outlays
1,788,950
3,795,547
112.17
Problem in a Nutshell
Average salaries are up 44%.
US spending is up 112%.
The idea behind this post comes from a friend, Bob Gudas.
I downloaded the excel spreadsheet, hid all columns except 2000 and 2012, then calculated the percentage difference discarding a few columns where the numbers were negative or the calculations infinite.
Military Spending
Wages are up 44%, military spending is up 145%, total outlays are up 112%.
Let's dig deeper.
What are veteran's affairs programs and homeland security? By any rational measure of sanity, those programs constitute defense spending.
How much of NASA is really defense spending? How much of department of education spending is free tuition for those putting in military service? What about the department of state? How much of the cost of building the embassy in Iraq and other places is buried there?
Let's go further yet and investigate the 2012 OMB budget. Specifically, consider the separate budget item of $96.7 billion for "Overseas Contingency Operations".
Where was that line item in 2000?
What about the "National Intelligence Program" at 52.6 billion? Is that not defense?
Let's ignore all of that and simply total up Defense, Homeland Security, and Veteran's Affairs.
2000 Total (281,028 + 13,159 + 47,044) = 341,231
2012 Total (688,254 + 60,443 + 129,186) = 877,883
Percentage Increase 157%
I suggest defense spending is out of control, as is nearly everything else.
Medicare and Medicaid
Medicare and Medicaid are not broken out in the spreadsheet, so here are the numbers from the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (which contains the most current estimate of 2012 spending), and the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget (which contains actual spending for 2000).
Medicare 2000: 200,588 Medicare 2012: 480,202
Medicaid 2000: 117,744 Medicaid 2012: 283,597
Medicare spending is up 139% Medicaid spending is up 140%
Where's the Problem?
All things considered, what's the bigger problem? Failure to collect more taxes, or out of control spending?
It's Only Make Believe
Regardless of your answer to the preceding question, one thing is for certain: The purported effort to balance the budget is nothing more than an exercise in make believe.
With a tip of the hat to Conway Twitty I offer this musical tribute.
Can we get President Obama, Ben Bernanke, and John Boehner to do a remake? If so, we need background vocals. I propose Nancy Pelosi, Dick Cheney, Hank Paulson, Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, along with international rock stars Angela Merkel, Shinzo Abe, and Mario Monti.
Postări
