|
Face - Index - Top/Bottom - Previous/Next "Financial stability 2002" |
 |
Trends in the Corporate Sector and the HouseholdsStability in the financial sector depends on customers' financial circumstances. In general, the corporate sector and the households have been resilient to the economic slowdown in 2001. However, there seem to be indications of a tightening in all sectors, which was e.g. reflected in an increased number of compulsory liquidations. Some sectors appear to be under pressure, e.g. the IT and telecom sector. The financial situation of marginal households has worsened, which has reduced their ability to meet payments. An improved economic climate may alleviate the pressure on exposed companies and households. The banks' domestic lending increased by just over 12 per cent to kr. 588 billion in 2001. Total lending to companies and the self-employed was kr. 229 and 74 billion, respectively, in 2001, while lending to households totalled kr. 176 billion. The banks' potential risk of loan losses is lower than the value of their lending, as loans are often granted against collateral, e.g. in a company's buildings or plant and equipment or in a household's house or car. Especially the development in the Danish corporate sector affects the banks, whereas the household sector only poses a risk of major losses to banks if many households are affected at the same time. The number of declared compulsory liquidations has increased since mid-1999, although from a low level. March 2002 saw the highest level since 1995, cf. Chart 15. The increase partly reflects the large number of new companies set up in the late 1990s, as new companies tend to be more at risk than established companies. On average, less than half the new companies are still in business after four years, but there are considerable variations from sector to sector. Among retailers, only a third of the new companies survive the first four years[1].
In 2001, the rise in the incidence of compulsory liquidation was particularly high within business service, etc., as well as trade, hotels and restaurants. Statistics Denmark does not specify the number of liquidations in the IT and telecom sector, but data from the Danish Business Information Bureau show that the number of compulsory liquidations in this sector increased significantly in 2001 over 2000, but from a low level. Households generally seem to be financially robust, but there are indications of a squeeze on marginal groups. This is particularly a problem in connection with a decline in income as a result of unemployment, divorce or similar. Often households' payment problems are initially indicated by non-payment of small, short-term, non-recurring obligations to private retailers, whereas servicing of e.g. housing loans usually has a high priority. In recent years the number of late payment incidents has risen, while the amount of late mortgage-credit payments is still small, cf. Chart 16.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chart 17 Lending to the corporate sector by banks in categories 1 and 2,
end-2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
Lending to the corporate sector by banks in categories 1 and 2 is calculated as lending in relation to total lending to the non-financial sectors. Domestic lending comprises loans from Danish banks as well as Danish branches of foreign banks. The sectoral breakdown in the Chart, which is based on the MFI balance-sheet statistics, is not identical to the sectoral breakdown in the analysis later in this chapter, as the latter is based on data supplied by the Danish Business Information Bureau. |
|
Source: |
Danmarks Nationalbank. |
Business service[2], etc. is the largest sector in terms of both assets and debt, while building and construction is the smallest, cf. Chart 18. Debt ratios largely correspond to the asset ratios of the individual sectors. The data and the method applied in the analyses below are described in Box 4.
|
Chart 18 Sectoral breakdown of corporate assets and debt in 2001,
percentages |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
Corporate debt includes more than bank debt, e.g. supplier credits, mortgage credit and foreign borrowing. Business service, etc. includes non-financial holding companies. Such companies hold 44 per cent of the total assets and 31 per cent of the total debt in the sector. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau. |
Box 4 Data and method
|
Data
In connection with the accounts analysis in this chapter a number of uncertainties should be noted: Delayed accounts. The Danish Business Information Bureau regularly receives new accounts from the Danish Commerce and Companies Agency. Delayed reporting etc. may mean that some annual accounts are not available for the final analysis. Such accounts may be included in later analyses, leading to an adjustment of the accounts data. However, this is of minor significance in connection with the analysis of key financial indicators. Accrual. Companies do not all publish their accounts at the same time of the year. This means that accounts published in the same calendar year may not cover the same period of activity. For an analysis of the companies' financial development the same period should be specified for all companies. In the analysis a company's annual accounts areincludedinthecalendaryearwhentheywerepublished,exceptfor2001accounts. 2001 figures comprise observations from companies which published their accounts between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001 (due to non-availability of accounts published in the second half of 2001). As 2001 therefore includes accounts also included in 2000, the 2001 data should be interpreted with particular caution. Change of sector. In some cases, a company's activities change from year to year. This means that the company's original sectoral classification is not necessarily indicative of its current activities. In the worst case this may result in incorrect sector classifications. In the accounts analysis the sector definitions are wide, which minimises this problem. In 2001, the six sectors analysed included more than 90 per cent of all companies in the database. Accounting principles. Companies may to some extent choose between different accounting methods. This makes comparison between companies uncertain. In addition, a change in accounting principles results in data inconsistencies which are difficult to take into account. The database is constantly being developed to minimise such problems. In general the figures should be interpreted with caution, but if the changes over time are viewed, rather than the levels, the conclusions are assessed to be fairly robust. Method The average trend and the trend for the weakest companies are
considered. The weakest companies are defined as the 10 per cent
of the companies with the poorest performance for a given key
indicator (the 10th percentile). It should be emphasised that
such companies are not necessarily facing impeding liquidation.
Only 20 per cent of the companies which were compulsorily
liquidated, were subject to a winding-up petition, reached a
composition with their creditors or suspended their activities
in 2000 were in the weakest 10th percentile in terms of return
on assets in 1999. 56 per cent of these companies were among the
weakest 30 per cent of the companies in terms of return on
assets. |
||||||||
The average return on assets has declined slightly since 1995. The decline has been most significant in the IT and telecom sector[3], but has also been observed in trade, hotels and restaurants, as well as transport, etc.
The pattern is the same for the companies with the lowest return on assets, cf. Chart 19. Again the weakest companies have fared worst in the IT and telecom sector. Compulsorily liquidated companies are not included in the statistics, which means that the figures may underestimate the trend, as the poorest companies regularly drop out of the data set.
|
Chart 19 Return on assets for the least profitable 10 per cent of the
companies in various sectors |
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
The return on assets is defined as the primary operating result as a ratio of total assets. The Chart shows the 10th percentile. 2001* includes observations from companies which published their accounts between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau. |
On average, the small companies have a low return on assets, cf. Chart 20, which shows that the weakest 10 per cent of the companies within the six sectors account for considerably less than 10 per cent of total assets and total debt.
|
Chart 20 Proportion of various sectors' total assets and debt held by
the least profitable 10 per cent of the companies in the sector,
2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
For each sector, the bars show the proportions of assets and debt, respectively, held by the weakest companies (10th percentile) in terms of return on assets as a ratio of total assets and debt in that sector. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau. |
While the weakest 10 per cent of the companies (the 10th percentile) had a lower return on assets in 2001 than in 1995, the 90th percentile is more or less unchanged. The dispersion[4] between the most and least profitable companies has thus widened in this period, cf. Chart 21. The dispersion is particularly wide in business service, etc., as well as trade, hotels and restaurants. In the latter sector the dispersion has widened considerably between 1999 and 2001 in relative terms. The dispersion is, however, widest in the IT and telecom sector (not shown in the Chart) where it increased from approximately 9 in 1998 to approximately 40 in 2001.
|
Chart 21 Dispersion of return on assets among companies in various
sectors |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
The dispersion is defined as the 90th percentile less the 10th percentile in relation to the median. No unit of measurement is used, so the dispersion level cannot be interpreted. IT and telecom has been left out, since the dispersion in this sector widens from approximately 9 in 1998 to 40 in 2001. 2001* includes observations from companies which published their accounts between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau and own calculations. |
The Bank of England has analysed the relationship between the dispersion in British companies' earnings capacity and economic growth between 1974 and 1998[5]. The dispersion widened in periods of low growth and narrowed in periods of high growth. However, this correlation seems to change from the mid-1990s, where the dispersion continued to widen in an environment of high economic growth. This pattern is similar to that in Denmark during the latest boom.
A stable level of earnings facilitates banks' credit rating of companies. It has been analysed whether the same companies remain at the same end of the scale over time. The analysis shows that around half the companies were in the same earnings interval in 2000 as in 1999, cf. the yellow fields in Table 3. The pattern is thus more or less the same as in the years 1995-1999[6].
Table 3 Stability of companies' earnings ratio, 1999-2000
|
Interval in 1999 |
Interval in 2000 |
|||||
|
0-20 |
20-40 |
40-60 |
60-80 |
80-100 |
||
|
0-20 |
48 |
18 |
11 |
10 |
13 |
|
|
20-40 |
16 |
50 |
19 |
10 |
6 |
|
|
40-60 |
12 |
17 |
41 |
22 |
8 |
|
|
60-80 |
10 |
10 |
22 |
40 |
19 |
|
|
80-100 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
21 |
53 |
|
|
Note: |
The 0-20 interval comprises the companies ranked among the weakest 20 per cent in terms of return on assets in the year in question. The 20-40 interval comprises the companies between the 20th and 40th percentiles in terms of return on assets in the year in question, and so forth. The rows indicate the companies' classifications in 1999 and the corresponding columns indicate the same companies' classifications in 2000. The analysis only includes companies existing in both 1999 and 2000, and all companies are given the same weighting, irrespective of size. Due to rounding, the rows may not add up to 100. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau and own calculations. |
10 per cent of the companies had a high return on assets in 1999, but a low return on assets in 2000, while 13 per cent had a low return on assets in 1999 and a high return on assets in 2000, cf. the grey fields in Table 3. A sectoral breakdown shows that especially companies in building and construction moved from a high to a low category, and that the lowest incidence of shifts from a high to a low category is found within trade, hotels and restaurants, as well as manufacturing.
Moreover, the degree of earnings stability differs from sector to sector. Building and construction is the least stable sector, while business service, etc. is the most stable one, cf. Chart 22.
|
Chart 22 Stability of earnings capacity in the least and most stable
sectors, 1999-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
The bars indicate the percentage of companies within the same percentile interval in 2000 as in 1999, corresponding to the yellow diagonal in Table 3. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau and own calculations. |
The average ability to meet financial net costs has declined slightly in the period since 1997, and the average ability to service debt has declined likewise.
Particularly the situation of the companies with the poorest ability to meet financial net costs has deteriorated, cf. Chart 23. In fact, the weakest companies in all sectors, but especially in the IT and telecom sector, are unable to meet their financial net costs on the basis of their current operations.
|
Chart 23 Ability to meet financial net costs by the 10 per cent of the
companies least able to meet payments in different sectors |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
The ability to meet financial net costs is defined as primary operating result less financial net costs as a ratio of total debt. The Chart shows the 10th percentile. 2001* includes observations from companies which published their accounts between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau. |
The companies' average solvency has increased since 1995. The variation among the least solvent companies in each sector (10th percentile) increased between 1998 and 2001, cf. Chart 24. Particularly the least solvent companies in the IT and telecom sector, and to a lesser degree in trade, hotels and restaurants, have seen a major decline in solvency. The least solvent companies in the IT and telecom sector, trade, hotels and restaurants, as well as transport, etc., had negative solvency ratios in both 2000 and 2001.
|
Chart 24 Solvency of the least solvent 10 per cent of the companies in
various sectors |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
Solvency is defined as equity capital as a ratio of total liabilities. The Chart shows the 10th percentile. 2001* includes observations from the companies which published their annual accounts between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001 |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau. |
A comparison of the least solvent and least profitable companies shows that the least solvent companies are on average larger (in terms of assets) and have more debt, as a comparison of Charts 20 and 25 will show. The debt ratio for the least solvent 10 per cent of the companies exceeds 10 per cent of the sector's overall debt in two sectors only: building and construction, and business service, etc.
|
Chart 25 Proportion of various sectors' total assets and debt held by
the least solvent 10 per cent of the companies in the sector, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
For each sector, the bars show the proportions of assets and debt, respectively, in the least solvent companies (10th percentile) as a ratio of total assets and debt in that sector. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau. |
The solvency dispersion between companies has only widened marginally since 1996. The increase is greatest in IT and telecom, transport, etc., and trade, hotels and restaurants. While the dispersion in transport, etc. has been fairly stable since 1996, the dispersion in the IT and telecom sector, as well as trade, hotels and restaurants, has widened.
An intuitive way of distinguishing sound companies from those heading for liquidation is to break them down by return on assets and solvency[7]. The companies are divided into four categories by return on assets and solvency for the years 1995 and 2001. A natural starting point is zero, i.e. whether the companies are making profits/losses and whether the solvency is positive or negative.
For both years, only few companies' total debt is in the critical category where solvency and return on assets are both negative, cf. Table 4. Companies with a positive return on assets and positive solvency account for the major part by far of total debt. However, it should be noted that the proportion of debt in the poorest companies increased from 1995 to 2001.
Table 4 Companies' debt in terms of solvency and return on assets,
percentages
|
|
1995 |
2001 |
||
|
Solvency > 0 |
Solvency < 0 |
Solvency > 0 |
Solvency < 0 |
|
|
Return on assets > 0 |
77 |
3 |
70 |
2 |
|
Return on assets < 0 |
16 |
3 |
25 |
4 |
|
Note: |
Due to rounding, the percentages may not add up to 100. |
|
Source: |
The Danish Business Information Bureau and own calculations. |
Lending by banks to the self-employed accounted for approximately 13 per cent of total domestic lending in 2001. Just over a quarter of this was for agriculture, etc. The major part of agricultural credit is granted by mortgage-credit institutes.
In recent years, overall earnings in the agricultural sector have fluctuated. Agricultural earnings increased by 53 per cent from 1999 to 2000 after having declined in both 1998 and 1999. Especially the value of pork production has risen, mainly due to favourable price developments.
According to estimates from the Danish Farmers' Union this positive trend is expected to have continued in 2001, whereas the Union's forecast for 2002 shows declining earnings for the three major types of holdings[8] in Denmark.
The high level of earnings in 2000 meant that the agricultural sector's interest expenditure as a ratio of earnings dropped significantly from more than 80 per cent in 1999 to just under 60 per cent in 2000.
The agricultural sector's total debt increased by just over kr. 8 billion to kr. 171 billion in 2000. However, the debt-to-assets ratio fell to approximately 55 per cent in 2000 as a result of higher prices for farm land, among other factors.
In spite of the positive trend in 2000 and the expected continued growth in 2001, cf. estimates from the Danish Farmers' Union, the number of bankruptcies in the agricultural sector has increased, although from a very modest level, cf. Chart 15. The continued rise in bankruptcies in March 2002 coupled with the Danish Farmers' Union negative expectations for 2002 indicate a squeeze on the most vulnerable farms.
The banks' lending to households accounted for approximately 30 per cent of total domestic lending in 2001. The households' incomes and assets reflect their ability to service this debt. Particularly in 2001 households' use of floating-rate housing loans increased. The risks implied by this type of financing will be discussed at the end of the chapter.
The households' real disposable income rose by almost 3 per cent in 2001. Sustaining the current high level of employment is of major importance for the households' ability to meet payments.
In 2000, the households' financial net assets totalled kr. 636 billion. Part of the assets comprised savings in life-insurance companies and pension funds, which are less liquid than other financial assets. Disregarding such savings, the households' total financial net debt rose from kr. 28 billion in 1995 to around kr. 200 billion in 2000. The higher debt is partly a result of increasing property prices, pushing up the borrowing requirement for home purchases. The growth in the debt should therefore be seen in the light of the increase in housing assets, cf. Chart 26. Higher financial net debt makes greater demands on the households' future earnings.
|
Chart 26 Households' housing assets and net debt |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
Housing assets are stated as the official property valuations, which are typically lower than the actual property value. The housing assets shown do not include the entire housing stock, but are an estimate of the value of households' housing assets. The data relating to financial net debt are national accounts data concerning financial accounts. |
|
Source: |
Customs & Tax, Statistics Denmark and own calculations. |
To some extent the general trend covers an unequal distribution of financial assets and liabilities between the age groups. As regards home-owners, Chart 27 shows that young home-owners account for the largest share of the debt, but the smallest share of the financial assets. This is because young home-owners have recently entered the housing market and have only to a limited degree reduced their debt and accumulated savings. The distribution of debt and financial assets is therefore as can be expected on a life-cycle basis.
|
Chart 27 Home-owners' debt and financial assets by age, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: |
Statistics Denmark.culations. |
The major part of the debt has been incurred by families with high disposable incomes. In 2000, the 20 per cent of the home-owners with the highest disposable incomes held more than 40 per cent of the financial assets and approximately 30 per cent of the debt.
An expression of home-owners' ability to service their debt is the debt and interest burden[9]. Young home-owners' debt burden is heavier than that of older, more established home-owners. Likewise, interest expenditure as a ratio of disposable income is greater for young home-owners.
Among all age groups, but in particular young home-owners, the debt burden has increased since 1997 for the home-owners with the heaviest debt burden, cf. Chart 28.
|
Chart 28 Debt burdens of the most heavily burdened 10 per cent of
families |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
The debt burden is defined as the home-owner's total gross debt as a ratio of disposable income including gross interest expenditure. The Chart shows the 90th percentile. See also the note to Chart 27. |
|
Source: |
Statistics Denmark. |
The most heavily burdened home-owners have thus become more vulnerable in case of a drop in income as a result of unemployment, etc., in so far as the debt is not offset by assets which can be converted into cash.
As Chart 29 shows, the number of floating-rate loans has risen significantly in recent years.
|
Chart 29 Mortgage-credit institutes' domestic lending by loan type,
year-end |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
2002* figures apply as at end-February 2002. |
|
Source: |
Danmarks Nationalbank. |
Generally, floating-rate loans are cheaper than fixed-rate loans, as the first-year payments are often lower. However, the risk profile of a floating-rate loan is significantly different. This will be described in further detail below. A more in-depth analysis of floating-rate loans will be published in Danmarks Nationalbank's Monetary Review for the 2nd Quarter 2002[10].
The interest-rate scenarios in the following show how payments after tax and the equity are affected by rising interest rates, depending on the proportion of floating-rate loans. The calculations are based on simplified assumptions, but the overall conclusions are not affected by changes in the assumptions described in Box 5. In most cases, the interest rate payable on floating-rate loans is fixed once a year, and in the following analyses the increase in interest rates is assumed to take place at that time. The calculations are for a home-owner with negative net capital income with a rate of interest deductibility of 32.5 per cent [11].
Box 5 Owner-occupied home used in the calculations
|
The starting point is the purchase of an owner-occupied house, such as a bungalow or a terraced house, of 180 sq.m. in municipal category 41. In 2001 the price per square metre for such a house was approximately kr. 8,5002. Consequently, the market value of the house is set at kr. 1.5 million in the calculations. The equity is assumed to be 20 per cent of the market value, i.e. kr. 300,000. The interest rate at the time of purchase is assumed to be 6 per cent for a 30-year fixed-rate bond loan and 4 per cent for a 30-year floating-rate loan with annual adjustments. The monthly net payment (after tax deduction of interest payments) in the first year is kr. 5,255 for 100 per cent fixed-rate financing, and kr. 4,439 for the floating-rate loan3. |
|
1 |
Comprising Odense, Esbjerg, Kolding, Randers, Århus and Aalborg. |
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
The actual payment series are calculated. Net payments increase over the term of the loan as a result of the falling interest expenditure and thus the lower rate of interest deductibility over time. The sensitivity analyses only take into account the changes in the average payments in the first year. The calculations do not take account of other financing costs (e.g. administration fees) than the pure financing costs. |
By choosing fixed-rate loans the home-owner knows what the financing costs are throughout the maturity of the loan[12]. In other words, a home-owner taking out a 30-year fixed-rate loan knows what the costs will be all 30 years. In contrast, payments on floating-rate loans vary with interest rates. The latter have fluctuated greatly over the past 10 years, but naturally this cannot be seen as an indication that the same will be the case in the years to come.
Currently both short-term and long-term interest rates are low. Generally the 1-year rate is lower than the long-term rate, which is used as an argument for choosing floating-rate rather than fixed-rate loans. However, the borrower should be aware of the risk, which is different for the two loan types. Should (short-term and long-term) interest rates go up, this would not affect payments on fixed-rate loans, whereas payments on floating-rate loans would rise.
Chart 30 shows the changes in net payments (after tax) when interest rates go up by 2, 4 or 6 percentage points[13] for various degrees of floating-rate-loan financing. As stated above, payments on fixed-rate loans are not affected by rising interest rates.
|
Chart 30 Increase in monthly net payments for interest-rate increases by
2, 4 and 6 percentage points |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: |
As stated, payments on fixed-rate loans are not affected by interest rates and have consequently been omitted. |
|
Source: |
Own calculations. |
Chart 30 shows that an increase in interest rates by 2 percentage points means net costs of approximately kr. 800 more per month when all of the debt is floating-rate loans. For an increase of 4 percentage points the net costs per month will be about kr. 1,700 higher.
Higher interest rates may entail a decrease in property prices as a result of increased financing costs for housing. Home-owners with fixed-rate loans have hedged this risk in that the decline in the property price is offset by a fall in the market value of the debt. The equity of the property is thus maintained even when interest rates increase. In terms of risk, this is different from floating-rate loans, where the market value of the debt does not go down when interest rates go up.
In the sensitivity analyses the direct effect on the equity of an increase in interest rates is calculated for a price drop corresponding to the fall in the present value of the fixed-rate-loan payments. It is therefore assumed that the 1-year rate increases pari passu with the long-term rate, i.e. a parallel shift in the yield curves. The present value of the payments will fall as a result of the higher interest rate. The interest rate is tax-adjusted, as it is assumed that the price decrease is determined by the change in the payment after tax on the debt. Chart 31 shows the effect on the equity of interest rates rising by 2, 4 or 6 percentage points for varying degrees of floating-rate-loan financing.
|
Chart 31 Effect on equity of interest-rate
increases by 2, 4 and 6 percentage points |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: |
Own calculations. |
As Chart 31 shows, the equity of an owner-occupied home financed via fixed-rate loans only is maintained when interest rates increase. For an owner-occupied home financed via floating-rate loans only the equity drops from kr. 300,000 to around kr. 100,000 if interest rates rise by 2 percentage points. If the rise is by 4 percentage points, the equity becomes marginally negative.
Chart 31 shows that the equity of homes financed via floating-rate loans is sensitive to rising interest rates. This is due to the gearing of newly-acquired owner-occupied homes, where the equity is typically considerably lower than the debt. When gearing is high, relatively small interest-rate fluctuations will lead to large fluctuations in the equity. With fixed-rate financing the home-owner is practically protected from such net-asset losses.
When used prudently and taking the risk exposure into account the increased use of floating-rate loans will not affect financial stability significantly, although home-owners should be aware of the increased financial risk associated with such loans.
Statistics Denmark. |
|
| Business service, etc. includes e.g. business related to real property, car rental, machines, plant and equipment, etc., research and development, legal services, consultancy, cleaning services and non-financial holding companies. |
|
| The IT and telecom sector comprises production of and trade in computer equipment, as well as telecommunication and data-processing equipment. |
|
The dispersion is defined as the 90th percentile less the 10th percentile in relation to the median. This alternative dispersion indicator is used, since the traditional dispersion indicator is sensitive to extreme observations, i.e. a strong deviation of individual companies will have a disproportional effect on the figures. |
|
| Bank of England, Financial Stability Review, "Stylised Facts on UK Corporate Financial Health: Evidence from Micro Data", June 2000. |
|
See Financial Stability, Danmarks Nationalbank, Monetary Review, 2nd Quarter 2001, p. 57. |
|
Solvency is a good way of filtering out companies threatened by liquidation, whereas the return on assets is more ambiguous, e.g. because it can reflect the company's risk level. |
|
| Crops, dairy cattle and pigs (sows and slaughter pigs). | |
| The debt burden is defined as total gross debt as a ratio of disposable income including gross interest expenditure. The interest burden is calculated as gross interest expenditure as a ratio of disposable income including gross interest expenditure. | |
Anders Møller Christensen and Kristian Kjeldsen, Floating-rate Loans, Danmarks Nationalbank, Monetary Review, 2nd Quarter 2002 (published 29 May 2002). |
|
See Kristian Kjeldsen and Erik Haller Pedersen, Taxation of Asset Income and the Financial Markets, Danmarks Nationalbank, Monetary Review, 1st Quarter 2002. |
|
The option to remortgage when interest rates fall is disregarded in this connection. For fixed-rate loans the home-owner is protected from higher financing costs in connection with rising interest rates, but may choose to remortgage if rates fall significantly. |
|
The increases selected may seem high, but the resulting interest levels are within the range seen in the 1990s. |
|
|
Version 1.0 Maj 2002 Nationalbanken. |
