Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Aug 11, 2026
Lee, Mangrum, Scally, Sinha and van der Klaauw argue in Liberty Street Economics
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Published August 11, 2026, Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Joelle W. Scally, Tejas Sinha and Wilbert van der Klaauw argue in Liberty Street Economics that rising credit-card stock delinquency does not by itself mean consumers are newly falling behind at an increasing rate. They distinguish stock delinquency, which includes charged-off debts still reported on credit records, from flow delinquency, which tracks new transitions into serious delinquency. The authors say the stock measure has risen as lenders report charged-off debts for longer, while flow delinquency has been elevated but largely stable since 2024. They say the stock measure remains useful for showing debt borrowers still owe; for assessing current repayment behavior, they consider flow measures more accurate. Their point is that the measures describe different aspects of consumers’ debt, not interchangeable readings of current distress. The authors offer possible explanations for why charged-off debts are reported for longer, but do not establish the reason. They conclude that the pace of credit-card delinquency has been elevated but largely stable since 2024, and say they will continue monitoring household finances.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Article
Source details
Original source date: Aug 11, 2026 (2026-08-11T15:00:00.000Z).
Date basis: Date supplied by the publisher’s feed.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-06T06:13:24.863Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T08:14:05.411Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T08:15:51.914Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
Text as retrieved on October 30, 2026; originally published August 11, 2026. The authors offer possible explanations for longer reporting of charged-off debts, but the post does not establish why lenders’ reporting practices changed. The analysis distinguishes measures based on credit reports from lender balance-sheet reports; it does not make those measures identical or interchangeable. The retrieved page includes comments, but does not establish which comment the displayed reply responds to.
Open question
What explains lenders reporting charged-off credit-card debts for longer, if the authors’ proposed explanations remain uncertain?
Source-stated
Lee, Mangrum, Scally, Sinha and van der Klaauw say the stock delinquency rate rose as charged-off debts accumulated, rather than because the incidence of new delinquency fundamentally worsened.
We find that the stock delinquency rate is rising because of a pool of stale, charged-off debts that lenders have been reporting for longer durations, rather than a fundamental worsening in the incidence of delinquency.
Source-stated
The authors distinguish the stock rate, which counts reported outstanding balances 90 or more days past due, from the flow rate, which tracks new transitions into delinquency.
The blue line (“stock” delinquency rate) is computed as the share of outstanding balance actively reported on credit reports that is 90+ days past due
Source-stated
The authors report that the share of charged-off debts still reported a year later increased from about 40 percent to 80 percent.
Between 2004 and 2012, only about 40 percent of borrowers’ charged-off debts were still being reported one year later; by 2024, this figure had doubled to 80 percent.
Source-stated
The authors say flow measures better capture current repayment behavior, while the stock measure remains useful for showing debt still owed and reported on credit records.
However, when the question is “how are households doing right now?” the flow delinquency rates—shown on pages 13 and 14 of the Quarterly Report–provide a more accurate view of current consumer repayment behavior.
Source-stated
The authors conclude that credit-card delinquency was elevated but largely stable after 2024, and say they will continue monitoring consumers’ finances.
By those measures, we find that the pace of credit card delinquency is elevated but has been largely stable since 2024. We will continue to monitor the health of the consumer balance sheet in the coming months.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The authors suggest that changed lender reporting practices may account for longer reporting, but say the evidence does not identify why those practices changed.
Alternatively, lender reporting practices may have changed in a way that is uncorrelated with debt performance.
Source and contributor context
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Publisher
The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred.
Source media
Media retrieval status: unchecked.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: d92319df-8192-2e9b-11ce-346906a01eef.
Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-06T06:08:49.296Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge_admitted_by_model.
Observation: 3e95fe393e6abe608fd38743b4ea3b9b388c0d4a0aa841111f9b1110d78cd337. Source text hash: 15e585eb11cd8b1351d4ce2df75eff32aa397746d76a5fc373b8041eeac32f37.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-06T06:13:24.863Z
Lee, Mangrum, Scally, Sinha and van der Klaauw argue in Liberty Street Economics
Published August 11, 2026, Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Joelle W. Scally, Tejas Sinha and Wilbert van der Klaauw argue in Liberty Street Economics that rising credit-card stock delinquency does not by itself mean consumers are newly falling behind at an increasing rate. They distinguish stock delinquency, which includes charged-off debts still reported on credit records, from flow delinquency, which tracks new transitions into serious delinquency. The authors say the stock measure has risen as lenders report charged-off debts for longer, while flow delinquency has been elevated but largely stable since 2024. They say the stock measure remains useful for showing debt borrowers still owe; for assessing current repayment behavior, they consider flow measures more accurate. Their point is that the measures describe different aspects of consumers’ debt, not interchangeable readings of current distress. The authors offer possible explanations for why charged-off debts are reported for longer, but do not establish the reason. They conclude that the pace of credit-card delinquency has been elevated but largely stable since 2024, and say they will continue monitoring household finances.
Original source
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Article
Source details
Original source date: Aug 11, 2026 (2026-08-11T15:00:00.000Z).
Date basis: Date supplied by the publisher’s feed.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-06T06:13:24.863Z. First observed: 2026-10-30T08:14:05.411Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T08:15:51.914Z.
Limits
Text as retrieved on October 30, 2026; originally published August 11, 2026. The authors offer possible explanations for longer reporting of charged-off debts, but the post does not establish why lenders’ reporting practices changed. The analysis distinguishes measures based on credit reports from lender balance-sheet reports; it does not make those measures identical or interchangeable. The retrieved page includes comments, but does not establish which comment the displayed reply responds to.
Open question
What explains lenders reporting charged-off credit-card debts for longer, if the authors’ proposed explanations remain uncertain?
Source-stated
Lee, Mangrum, Scally, Sinha and van der Klaauw say the stock delinquency rate rose as charged-off debts accumulated, rather than because the incidence of new delinquency fundamentally worsened.
We find that the stock delinquency rate is rising because of a pool of stale, charged-off debts that lenders have been reporting for longer durations, rather than a fundamental worsening in the incidence of delinquency.
Source-stated
The authors distinguish the stock rate, which counts reported outstanding balances 90 or more days past due, from the flow rate, which tracks new transitions into delinquency.
The blue line (“stock” delinquency rate) is computed as the share of outstanding balance actively reported on credit reports that is 90+ days past due
Source-stated
The authors report that the share of charged-off debts still reported a year later increased from about 40 percent to 80 percent.
Between 2004 and 2012, only about 40 percent of borrowers’ charged-off debts were still being reported one year later; by 2024, this figure had doubled to 80 percent.
Source-stated
The authors say flow measures better capture current repayment behavior, while the stock measure remains useful for showing debt still owed and reported on credit records.
However, when the question is “how are households doing right now?” the flow delinquency rates—shown on pages 13 and 14 of the Quarterly Report–provide a more accurate view of current consumer repayment behavior.
Source-stated
The authors conclude that credit-card delinquency was elevated but largely stable after 2024, and say they will continue monitoring consumers’ finances.
By those measures, we find that the pace of credit card delinquency is elevated but has been largely stable since 2024. We will continue to monitor the health of the consumer balance sheet in the coming months.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The authors suggest that changed lender reporting practices may account for longer reporting, but say the evidence does not identify why those practices changed.
Alternatively, lender reporting practices may have changed in a way that is uncorrelated with debt performance.
Source and contributor context
Federal Reserve Bank of New York · Publisher
The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred.
Source media
Media retrieval status: unchecked.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: d92319df-8192-2e9b-11ce-346906a01eef.
Prepared by openai/gpt-6-luna; grounding review by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-06T06:08:49.296Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: bridge_admitted_by_model.
Observation: 3e95fe393e6abe608fd38743b4ea3b9b388c0d4a0aa841111f9b1110d78cd337. Source text hash: 15e585eb11cd8b1351d4ce2df75eff32aa397746d76a5fc373b8041eeac32f37.
uncertain · 2026-11-06T06:08:49.296Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: d92319df-8192-2e9b-11ce-346906a01eef
attribution — pass: The five authors and the Liberty Street Economics / Federal Reserve Bank of New York venue match the byline and citation. The findings are consistently attributed to the authors as their analysis rather than presented as established fact.
Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Joelle W. Scally, Tejas Sinha, and Wilbert van der Klaauw
summary — uncertain: The summary faithfully conveys the stock-vs-flow argument and the authors' conclusion. Two gaps limit understanding for a non-specialist reader. First, the title is a fragment (authors argue in Liberty Street Economics) that never says what they argue. Second, the central term charged-off is never explained, and definitions is empty. The source explains it: a balance removed from lenders' books, typically 120-180 days past due, that borrowers still generally owe. Smallest repair: give the title its topic, and add a plain-language gloss or term-library entry for charged-off.
when a loan is charged-off—typically between 120 and 180 days past due—the balance comes off the lenders’ books
date — pass: originalPublished (2026-08-11) matches the dateline August 11, 2026. The page was edited after publication (dateModified 2026-10-01). However, every cited passage comes from the article body, which is plainly part of the original piece, not from comments or sidebars. There is no hindsight framing, and the authors' monitoring plan is reported as an intention. The evidence is a publisher page, so no archive disclosure is needed.
August 11, 2026
support — pass: Each claim matches the source text: the charged-off accumulation explanation, the stock and flow definitions, the rise from 40 to 80 percent, the view that the flow rate is more accurate for current behavior, and the conclusion of elevated but stable delinquency. The interpretive claim that the reason for longer reporting is not established fits the source's hedged wording (possible explanation; may have changed). No unsupported benefits or costs are implied.
Alternatively, lender reporting practices may have changed in a way that is uncorrelated with debt performance.
media — pass: No media was selected and no verified candidates were supplied, so there is no identity or relevance issue.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.