Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
June 2019
The San Francisco Economy
Household and Small Business Financial Outcomes
About the InstituteThe global economy has never been more complex, more interconnected, or faster moving. Yet economists, businesses, nonprofit leaders, and policymakers have lacked access to real-time data and the analytic tools to provide a comprehensive perspective. The results—made painfully clear by the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath—have been unrealized potential, inequitable growth, and preventable market failures.
The JPMorgan Chase Institute is harnessing the scale and scope of one of the world’s leading firms to explain the global economy as it truly exists. Its mission is to help decision-makers—policymakers, businesses, and nonprofit leaders—appreciate the scale, granularity, diversity, and interconnectedness of the global economic system and use timely data and thoughtful analysis to make more informed decisions that advance prosperity for all. Drawing on JPMorgan Chase’s unique proprietary data, expertise, and market access, the Institute develops analyses and insights on the inner workings of the global economy, frames critical problems, and convenes stakeholders and leading thinkers.
The JPMorgan Chase Institute is a think tank dedicated to delivering data-rich analyses and expert insights for the public good.
AcknowledgmentsWe thank Bryan Kim, Tanya Sonthalia, and Chex Yu for their research assistance and thoughtful contributions to this work.
This effort would not have been possible without the diligent and ongoing support of our partners from the JPMorgan Chase Consumer and Community Bank and Corporate Technology teams of data experts, including, but not limited to, Howard Allen, Samuel Assefa, Connie Chen, Anoop Deshpande, Andrew Goldberg, Senthilkumar Gurusamy, Derek Jean-Baptiste, Joshua Lockhart, Ram Mohanraj, Ashwin Sangtani, Stella Ng, Subhankar Sarkar, and Melissa Goldman, as well as JPMorgan Chase Institute team members, including Elizabeth Ellis, Alyssa Flaschner, Courtney Hacker, Sarah Kuehl, Caitlin Legacki, Sruthi Rao, Carla Ricks, Tremayne Smith, Gena Stern, Maggie Tarasovitch, Preeti Vaidya, Marvin Ward, and Chris Wheat.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., for his vision and leadership in establishing the Institute and enabling the ongoing research agenda. Along with support from across the firm—notably from Peter Scher, Max Neukirchen, Joyce Chang, Patrik Ringstroem, Lori Beer, and Judy Miller—the Institute has had the resources and support to pioneer a new approach to contribute to global economic analysis and insight.
ContactFor more information about the JPMorgan Chase Institute or this report, please see our website www.jpmorganchaseinstitute.com or email [email protected].
3
Contents
3 Introduction
4 Online Platform Economy
7 Local Commerce
11 Small Business
14 Out-of-Pocket Healthcare Spending
15 Conclusion
15 Endnotes
Introduction
With a GDP of $501 billion, the San Francisco metropolitan area is the sixth largest economy in the U.S. and an important hub in the global economy.1 The median household income in San Francisco is $96,265 and there are 99,307 small, non-employer establishments.2 Moreover, the unemployment rate is more than a percentage point lower than the country as a whole and average hourly wages are $10 more than the national average.3 While the overall economy in San Francisco is strong, there is significant variation in household and small business financial outcomes.
To better understand the financial lives of U.S. households and small businesses, the JPMorgan Chase Institute explored questions of economic relevance through the lens of de-identified transaction and account summary data from over 70 million consumers and 2.5 million small businesses. These data allowed us to provide localized insights on the San Francisco economy, including trends in out-of-pocket healthcare spending, Online Platform Economy participation and revenues, local commerce, and small business financial outcomes. Our local commerce and Online Platform Economy data allow us to observe trends at the San Francisco metropolitan area level, whereas our small business data are aligned to San Francisco city limits, and our healthcare research observes trends at the county level.
Research Theme Measurement Area
Online Platform Economy San Francisco Metropolitan Area
Local Commerce San Francisco Metropolitan Area
Small BusinessFigures 11-14: San Francisco City and County
Figures 15-16: San Francisco Metropolitan Area
Out-of-pocket Healthcare Spending San Francisco City and County
4
Online Platform EconomyDrivers and Lessors in San Francisco See Above Average Revenues
American households experience significant income and expense volatility. The Online Platform Economy has created a new marketplace for work by providing flexible, highly accessible opportunities to generate earnings that have the potential to help individuals buffer against income and expense shocks. JPMorgan Chase Institute research has divided the Online Platform Economy into four key sectors: transportation, leasing, selling, and non-transport work. In the JPMorgan Chase Institute report, The Online Platform Economy in 27 Metro Areas: The Experience of Drivers and Lessors, we leveraged de-identified data from 2.3 million families participating in the Online Platform Economy to track supply-side participation, revenues, and engagement rates in two sectors—transportation and leasing—across 27 metro areas.
We observed strong secular national trends in two of the sectors, transportation and leasing, starting in 2013. Nationwide, transportation sector participation—measured as the fraction of our sample generating income through a transportation platform in any given month—increased by more than a factor of 20 from 2013 to 2018, while average monthly revenues declined by half. On the leasing side, we found that participation rates tripled nationwide while average monthly revenues doubled.
These national trends tell a story that is consistent across many metro areas. In the transportation sector, average revenues fell by 40 percent or more in 15 metro areas and did not increase in any metro area, whereas participation rates increased in every area we tracked. In San Francisco, transportation sector participation increased from 0.17 percent in the first ten months of 2013 to 1.85 percent in the first ten months of 2018, and average driver revenues decreased by 27 percent from $1,696 in the first ten months of 2013 to $1,231 in the first ten months of 2018. In seven cities, there were too few participants in 2013 to present the area average, and so those are rolled into the residual group which we label “Everywhere Else.”
Figure 1: Change in average monthly revenues and participation, transportation sector
0% 0.6% 1.2% 1.8%
MiamiHouston
ColumbusDetroit
Portland, OREverywhere Else
Las VegasBridgeport
IndianapolisAustin
DenverPhoenix
DallasSan Diego
AtlantaSan Jose
Los AngelesNew York
SeattleChicago
San Francisco +1.7%+1.2%
+0.9%+1.2%
+1.5%+1.4%
+1.6%+1.2%
+0.9%+1.0%
+1.3%+1.3%
+0.7%+0.8%
+1.8%+0.6%
+0.9%+0.5%
+0.8%+0.8%
+1.5%
Change in participation in transportation platformsfrom Jan-Oct 2013 to Jan-Oct 2018
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
Change in average monthly revenues in transportation platforms from Jan-Oct 2013 to Jan-Oct 2018
-87%
-79%
-36%
-80%
-43%
-27%
-74%
-58%
-62%
-60%
-35%
-71%
-54%
-69%
-23%
-43%
-58%
-44%
-45%
-21%
-6%Austin
Portland, OR
Houston
Columbus
Indianapolis
Detroit
Chicago
Phoenix
Los Angeles
Miami
San Jose
Las Vegas
San Diego
Denver
Everywhere Else
San Francisco
Seattle
Atlanta
New York
Dallas
Bridgeport
20182013 San Francisco 2018San Francisco 2013 Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
On leasing platforms, participation rates increased in every area, while average monthly lessor revenues doubled or more in 21 areas and increased in all 28. In San Francisco, leasing participation doubled from 0.11 percent in the first ten months of 2013, to 0.22 percent in the first ten months of 2018.
5
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Figure 2: Change in average monthly revenues and participation, leasing sector
Source: JPMorgan Chase InstituteSan Francisco 2018San Francisco 2013
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
Change in average monthly revenues in leasing platforms from Jan-Oct 2013 to Jan-Oct 2018
+6%+11%
+76%+69%
+59%+105%
+36%+141%+143%
+98%+163%
+216%+235%
+160%+193%
+174%+200%
+177%+215%
+206%+238%
+248%+366%
+403%+280%+292%
+381%+872%Charleston
ColumbusIndianapolis
Oklahoma CityDetroit
Las VegasDallas
AtlantaLouisvilleBoise City
MiamiEverywhere Else
ChicagoPortland, OR
HoustonSeattle
MadisonPhoenixDenver
Los AngelesSan Diego
Salt Lake CitySan Francisco
New YorkNew Orleans
BridgeportAustin
San Jose
2013 2018
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
Oklahoma CityIndianapolis
DallasPhoenix
ColumbusHouston
LouisvilleCharleston
DetroitSalt Lake City
ChicagoEverywhere Else
MadisonMiami
San JoseBridgeportLas Vegas
DenverLos Angeles
San DiegoAtlanta
Boise CityNew Orleans
AustinNew York
SeattlePortland, OR
San Francisco +0.11%+0.12%
+0.11%+0.08%
+0.19%+0.23%
+0.05%+0.08%
+0.17%+0.11%
+0.23%+0.10%
+0.07%+0.11%
+0.11%+0.07%+0.07%
+0.06%+0.16%
+0.02%+0.00%
+0.06%+0.06%
+0.04%+0.10%
+0.04%+0.06%
+0.05%
Change in participation in leasing platformsfrom Jan-Oct 2013 to Jan-Oct 2018
Along with these strong secular trends, we found that there is significant variation across cities at any point in time. Specifically, we looked at differences in participation rates, average monthly revenues, and engagement rates in October 2018. We defined engagement as the fraction of October 2018 participants who also earned platform income in eight or more months over the previous year. We focused on the month of October because it typically does not display a seasonal peak or trough in terms of income or spending. In the transportation and leasing sectors, we found that participation and revenues were positively correlated, but there were telling exceptions to that pattern.
In the transportation sector, San Francisco had the highest driver participation—just under two percent—and had the highest revenues of any metro area ($1,508 per driver in October 2018). We found that patterns in engagement reflect patterns in revenues; San Francisco had one of highest engagement rates at approximately 15 percent.
Figure 3: Transportation sector participation, average revenue, and engagement varied widely across metro areas
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
San FranciscoLas Vegas
AtlantaMiami
New OrleansDenverAustin
ChicagoSan Jose
Los AngelesNew York
San DiegoPhoenix
DallasSeattle
ColumbusHouston
Portland, ORIndianapolisBridgeport
Salt Lake CityDetroit
Oklahoma CityEverywhere Else
MadisonBoise CityLouisville
Charleston
Fraction of sample generating income from transportation platforms in October 2018
$0 $400 $800 $1,200
Average monthly revenue for active driversin October 2018
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Percent of drivers active for 9 months or more in the 12 months up to October 2018
6
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Participation on leasing platforms is limited, but there is still significant variation across areas in terms of average monthly lessor revenues and engagement rates. In October 2018, San Francisco had comparatively high average monthly lessor revenues ($2,812 per lessor), moderately high participation (0.21 percent), and high engagement (about 17 percent).
Figure 4: Leasing sector participation, average revenue, and engagement varied widely across metro areas
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
Fraction of sample generating income fromleasing platforms in October 2018
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Oklahoma CityDetroitDallas
ColumbusIndianapolis
LouisvilleHoustonChicagoMadison
Everywhere ElseBridgeportBoise City
PhoenixLas Vegas
MiamiAtlanta
San JoseSalt Lake City
Los AngelesNew York
SeattleSan Francisco
San DiegoPortland, OR
DenverAustin
New Orleans
Average monthly revenues among active lessors in October 2018
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Percent of lessors active for 9 monthsor more in the 12 months up to October 2018
Interestingly, San Francisco’s average driver and lessor revenues stood out for being significantly higher than other cities with similar participation rates in October 2018. Several supply- and demand-side factors are likely to play a role in explaining why particular cities stand out from the overall pattern, including regulation, vehicle ownership, hotel occupancy rates, and metro area density.
We found that metropolitan areas with larger incumbent industries as the Online Platform Economy emerged had higher participation and higher average revenues in the corresponding platform sectors. The measure of incumbent industries provides an indicator of the potential market size for new transportation and leasing service providers, thereby pointing at the demand side of the Online Platform Economy. Additionally, every local characteristic we explored that was associated with higher levels of participation was also associated with higher average monthly revenues. This suggests that rising participation does not directly cause falling average revenues, which are two coincident trends we observed in prior research.
7
Local CommerceYounger and Lower Income Consumers Contribute the Most to Spending Growth in San Francisco
Consumer spending makes up more than two thirds of GDP.4 The JPMorgan Chase Institute’s Local Commerce research provides insights into the decisions made by consumers and businesses as measured by everyday debit and credit card purchases. By leveraging our Local Commerce (LC) lens, we provide a granular, transaction-level view into the demographic and firmographic drivers of spending growth in 14 U.S. cities. Moreover, we use customer and merchant location to understand the distance at which a purchase was made. With respect to spending growth, we generate two complementary views:
• The merchant view, which we feature in our Local Commerce Index consists of credit and debit card spending by over 64 million Chase customers at merchants located across 14 U.S. metro areas.
• The consumer view, which we first explored in our report Shopping, Near and Far: Local Commerce in the Digital Age, consists of four billion credit and debit card transactions made by 7.7 million consumers residing within 14 U.S. metro areas.
We leverage the merchant and consumer views of local spending to observe year-over-year growth in San Francisco, as well as demographic trends.
Box 1: Inclusion criteria for Local Commerce
MERCHANT
Local Non-Local
CON
SUM
ER Res
iden
t
Residents spend in CBSA
Residents spend remotely
Non
-Res
iden
t
Non-Residents spend in CBSA
The Local Commerce Lens is framed along customer location, merchant location, and transaction channel. These dimensions lead to six different groups of transactions. The customer and merchant location determine the spatial distance at which the transaction occurred, while the online/offline channel determines to what extent the distance between the consumer and merchant matters.
Year-Over-Year Growth
Figure 5: Year-over-year growth is consistently higher in the consumer view
−4%
−2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Source: JPMorgan Chase InstituteLocal Commerce — Consumer Local Commerce — Merchant
Gro
wth
rat
e
Jul 2015 Jan 2016 Jul 2016 Jan 2017 Jul 2017 Jan 2018
8
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Comparing the topline year-over-year (YOY) growth rates in spending across the consumer and merchant lenses reveals that, in every month, spending by San Francisco residents grew faster than spending at San Francisco establishments. As noted in Box 1, spending by residents includes residents’ spending at establishments in other locations, while spending at San Francisco establishments includes purchases from residents of other localities. Insofar as spending by residents (consumer view) is increasing faster than spending at establishments (merchant view), the gap in growth rates highlights the role of remote purchasing (e.g. online commerce) as a large and growing component of San Francisco residents’ everyday spending behaviors, especially in comparison to locally-based spending.
While the overall growth figures provide a high-level view of the vibrancy and overall health of the San Francisco economy, disaggregating this growth by customer and establishment characteristics provides crucial context and detail on which groups of people and businesses are contributing to overall growth. Figures 6-10 examine growth in San Francisco by characteristics presented in the merchant view of everyday spending found in the Local Commerce Index.
Demographic Characteristics – Age and Income
Figure 6: Consumers under 35 consistently contribute to growth
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
< 25 25 -34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Gro
wth
con
trib
utio
n
Jan
'14
Mar
'14
May
'14
Jul '
14
Sep
'14
Nov
'14
Nov
'18
Dec
'18
Mar
'17
May
'17
Jul '
17 Sep
'17
Nov
'17
Jan
'15
Mar
'15
May
'15
Jul '
15
Sep
'15
Nov
'15
Jan
'16
Mar
'16
Jul '
16
Sep
'16
Nov
'16
Jan
'17
May
'16
Jan
'18
Mar
'18
May
'18
Oct
'18
Sep
'18Aug
'18
Feb
'14
Apr
'14
Jun
'14
Aug
'14
Oct
'14
Dec
'14 Ap
r '17
Jun
'17
Aug
'17
Oct
'17
Dec
'17Fe
b '15
Apr
'15
Jun
'15
Aug
'15 Oct
'15
Dec
'15
Feb
'16
Apr
'16
Aug
'16
Oct
'16
Dec
'16 Fe
b '17
Jun
'16
Feb
'18
Apr
'18
Jun
'18Ju
l '18
In San Francisco, younger consumers under the age of 35 tended to contribute more to growth compared to their older counterparts. Over the course of the series, consumers under 35 contributed an unweighted average of 1.5 percentage points to an unweighted average topline growth number of 1.5 percent.
Throughout the lifespan of the series, consumers under the age of 35 have never subtracted from spending growth in San Francisco. This highlights the important role that younger consumers have in driving spending growth at local merchants.
9
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Figure 7: Lower income consumers consistently contribute to growth
Source: JPMorgan Chase InstituteBottom quintile Second quintile Middle quintile Fourth quintile Top quintile
Gro
wth
con
trib
utio
n
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
Jan
'14
Mar
'14
May
'14
Jul '
14
Sep
'14
Nov
'14
Nov
'18
Dec
'18
Mar
'17
May
'17
Jul '
17 Sep
'17
Nov
'17
Jan
'15
Mar
'15
May
'15 Ju
l '15
Sep
'15
Nov
'15
Jan
'16
Mar
'16
Jul '
16
Sep
'16 Nov
'16
Jan
'17
May
'16
Jan
'18
Mar
'18
May
'18
Oct
'18
Sep
'18Au
g '18
Feb
'14
Apr
'14
Jun
'14
Aug
'14
Oct
'14
Dec
'14
Apr
'17
Jun
'17
Aug
'17
Oct
'17
Dec
'17
Feb
'15
Apr
'15
Jun
'15
Aug
'15 Oct
'15
Dec
'15
Feb
'16
Apr
'16
Aug
'16
Oct
'16
Dec
'16 Fe
b '17
Jun
'16
Feb
'18
Apr
'18
Jun
'18Ju
l '18
Similar to age, consumers on the lower end of the income spectrum tend to contribute the most and most consistently to growth. In fact, consumers in the first two income quintiles combined have never subtracted from growth. Over the course of the series, consumers in the first two income quintiles contributed an unweighted average of 1.4 percentage points to an unweighted average topline growth number of 1.5 percent.
In particular, consumers in the first income quintile have contributed the most to spending growth at San Francisco merchants 50 out of the 60 months we observe in our series, the most number of times of any income quintile.
Spatial Characteristics – Location of Consumer Relative to Merchant
Figure 8: Growth contributions are highest for non-local spending
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
Gro
wth
con
trib
utio
n
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
Same neighborhood Same region Different region
Jan
'14
Mar
'14
May
'14
Jul '
14
Sep
'14
Nov
'14
Nov
'18
Dec
'18
Mar
'17
May
'17
Jul '
17
Sep
'17
Nov
'17
Jan
'15
Mar
'15
May
'15
Jul '
15
Sep
'15
Nov
'15
Jan
'16
Mar
'16
Jul '
16
Sep
'16 Nov
'16
Jan
'17
May
'16
Jan
'18
Mar
'18
May
'18
Oct
'18
Sep
'18Au
g '18
Feb
'14
Apr
'14
Jun
'14
Aug
'14
Oct
'14
Dec
'14
Apr
'17
Jun
'17
Aug
'17
Oct
'17
Dec
'17
Feb
'15
Apr
'15
Jun
'15
Aug
'15 Oct
'15
Dec
'15
Feb
'16
Apr
'16
Aug
'16 Oct
'16
Dec
'16
Feb
'17
Jun
'16
Feb
'18
Apr
'18
Jun
'18Ju
l '18
In the Local Commerce Index, spending by residents that live in the same Public Use Microdata Area as the establishment is considered “Same Neighborhood” spending. Relatedly, spending from other San Francisco residents and spending from consumers that live outside of San Francisco are considered “Same Region” and “Different Region” spending, respectively. The location of the consumer relative to the merchant gives a sense of the extent to which the growth (or decline) in spending remains in the community.
In San Francisco, we observe that contributions to spending growth mostly come from transactions in which the consumer was from a different region than the merchant. Over the course of the series, spending by those consumers from a different region than the merchant contributed an unweighted average of 1.2 percentage points to an unweighted average topline growth number of 1.5 percent.
10
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Firmographic Characteristics – Product Type and Business Size
Figure 9: Spending on other services tends to contribute the most to growth
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
Gro
wth
con
trib
utio
n
Nondurables Other services RestaurantsDurables Fuel
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
Jan
'14
Mar
'14
May
'14
Jul '
14
Sep
'14
Nov
'14
Nov
'18
Dec
'18
Mar
'17
May
'17
Jul '
17 Sep
'17
Nov
'17
Jan
'15
Mar
'15
May
'15
Jul '
15
Sep
'15
Nov
'15
Jan
'16
Mar
'16
Jul '
16 Sep
'16
Nov
'16
Jan
'17
May
'16
Jan
'18
Mar
'18
May
'18
Oct
'18
Sep
'18Au
g '18
Feb
'14
Apr
'14
Jun
'14
Aug
'14
Oct
'14
Dec
'14
Apr
'17
Jun
'17
Aug
'17
Oct
'17
Dec
'17
Feb
'15
Apr
'15
Jun
'15
Aug
'15
Oct
'15
Dec
'15
Feb
'16
Apr
'16
Aug
'16
Oct
'16
Dec
'16
Feb
'17
Jun
'16
Feb
'18
Apr
'18
Jun
'18Ju
l '18
In San Francisco, spending at providers of other services (e.g. medical providers, accountants, professional services) tended to contribute the most to growth. Over the course of the series, spending at other services providers contributed an unweighted average of 1.1 percentage points to an unweighted average topline growth number of 1.5 percent.
Following other services providers, substantial contributions to growth were made by spending at restaurants and non-durables (e.g. groceries, clothing) providers, each contributing an unweighted average of 0.7 and 0.4 percentage points to overall growth over the course of the series, respectively.
Figure 10: Small businesses contributed the most to growth over the series
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
Small Medium Large
Gro
wth
con
trib
utio
n
Jan
'14
Mar
'14
May
'14
Jul '
14
Sep
'14
Nov
'14
Nov
'18
Dec
'18
Mar
'17
May
'17
Jul '
17
Sep
'17
Nov
'17
Jan
'15
Mar
'15
May
'15
Jul '
15
Sep
'15
Nov
'15
Jan
'16
Mar
'16
Jul '
16
Sep
'16 Nov
'16
Jan
'17
May
'16
Jan
'18
Mar
'18
May
'18
Oct
'18
Sep
'18Au
g '18
Feb
'14
Apr
'14
Jun
'14
Aug
'14
Oct
'14
Dec
'14
Apr
'17
Jun
'17
Aug
'17
Oct
'17
Dec
'17
Feb
'15
Apr
'15
Jun
'15
Aug
'15
Oct
'15
Dec
'15
Feb
'16
Apr
'16
Aug
'16
Oct
'16 D
ec '1
6
Feb
'17
Jun
'16
Feb
'18
Apr
'18
Jun
'18Ju
l '18
Looking at firm size, the spending growth contributions by small businesses play an important role in overall growth in San Francisco. Although medium-sized businesses contributed the most to growth the most number of times over the course of our series, it was small businesses that had the largest unweighted overall average growth contribution of 0.7 percentage points.
Spending at small businesses contributed an unweighted average of 0.7 percentage points to an unweighted average topline growth number of 1.5 percent over the course of the series. Spending at small businesses has been a nearly consistent contributor to overall growth, subtracting from overall growth only eight months in total.
11
Small Business Small Businesses in San Francisco Have the Highest Revenue Growth
Small businesses are a pillar of urban economies, making substantial contributions to economic growth and dynamism. In the JPMorgan Chase Institute report, The Small Business Sector in Urban America: Growth and Vitality in 25 Cities, we analyzed differences in financial outcomes in the small business sector across some of the largest cities in the U.S., providing a lens into the composition and contributions of different types of firms to the aggregate revenue growth and exit rates of the small business sector. Our research leveraged deposit data from 290,000 small businesses that bank with Chase and suggested that small businesses in San Francisco are generally thriving.
Consistent revenue streams are critical for small businesses, fueling their ability to not only survive, but potentially grow. We found that the small business sector in San Francisco had the highest level of revenue growth compared to 24 other major U.S. cities, as the aggregate revenue of small businesses operating in San Francisco grew 2.6 percent annually over a period of four years.
Figure 11: Annualized revenue growth rate for small businesses varies across cities
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
-3.9%-2.7%-2.6%-2.5%-2.5%-2.1%-1.8%-1.8%-1.5%-0.9%-0.8%-0.6%-0.3%-0.3%-0.1%0.1%0.4%
1.0%
1.5%1.6%1.7%1.7%2.0%
2.6%
Annualized revenue growth rate for small business
Indi
anap
olis
Sacr
amen
to
San
Anto
nio
Hou
ston
Detr
oit
New
Orl
eans
Tam
pa
Mia
mi
San
Dieg
o
Orl
ando
New
Yor
k
Phoe
nix
Los
Ange
les
Aust
in
Las
Vega
s
Dalla
s
Atla
nta
Chic
ago
Seat
tle
Rive
rsid
e, C
A
Denv
er
Colu
mbu
s
San
Jose
Port
land
, OR
San
Fran
cisc
o
Note: Aggregate revenue growth reflects annualized growth rate from 2013 to 2017.
Average:-0.76%
While the region’s reputation as a technology hub, relative to other cities we observed, still holds somewhat true for small businesses, small construction firms actually contributed the most to aggregate small business revenue growth in San Francisco, with small high-tech services firms second. Revenue growth contributions are net positive for restaurants (0.14 percentage points) and other professional services (0.43 percentage points), both of which had relatively high and sustained contributions to spending growth in our Local Commerce analysis.
Figure 12: Contribution to growth rate, by industry in San Francisco
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
Cont
ribu
tion
to
grow
th r
ate
(per
cent
age
poin
ts)
Cons
truc
tion
Hig
h-te
ch S
ervi
ces
Oth
er P
rofe
sion
al S
ervi
ces
Hea
lth C
are
Serv
ices
Rest
aura
nts
Hig
h-te
ch M
anuf
actu
ring
Pers
onal
Ser
vice
s
Repa
ir &
Mai
nten
ance
Reta
il
Met
al &
Mac
hine
ry
Who
lesa
lers
Real
Est
ate
Tota
l
1.6
1.50.43 0.39 0.14 0.0
0%
-0.06 -0.12 -0.14 -0.16 -0.29-0.69
2.6%
12
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Moreover, our analysis showed that San Francisco was one of the few cities where both new firms (<1 year old) and young firms (1-10 years old) made positive contributions to growth. This suggests that vibrancy in the small business sector in San Francisco is not concentrated only among new firms but rather sustained across firms of all ages. However, new firms grew the fastest in San Francisco. New firms grew 9.8 percent annually, with most of this growth concentrated in the top five percent of firms as defined by their total dollar value change in revenue from 2013 to 2017.
Figure 13: Contribution to revenue growth by firm age
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
Neg
ativ
e gr
owth
Pos
itiv
e gr
owth
−4pp
−3pp
−2pp
−1pp
0pp
1pp
2pp
3pp
4pp
Det
roit
Port
land
, OR
New
Orl
eans
Rive
rsid
e, C
ASa
cram
ento
Mia
mi
Tam
paSa
n D
iego
Indi
anap
olis
Atla
nta
Seat
tlePh
oeni
xSa
n An
toni
oLo
s An
gele
sSa
n Jo
seH
oust
onO
rlan
doD
alla
sLa
s Ve
gas
Chic
ago
New
Yor
kAu
stin
Den
ver
San
Fran
cisc
oCo
lum
bus
Contributions to aggregate revenue growth by firm age for each city, panel sample
1.5ppNew
2.6%Total
1.1ppYoung
0.026ppMature
Contributions to aggregate revenue growth, by firm age in San Francisco
In the JPMorgan Chase Institute report Growth, Vitality, and Cash Flows: High-Frequency Evidence from 1 Million Small Businesses, we proposed a segmentation of small firms based on size, complexity and dynamism as a way to identify the contributions of different small business segments to the U.S. economy. In San Francisco, we found that organic growth firms, which are characterized by their intent to grow out of operating profits rather than the use of external financing, experienced the largest revenue growth. Moreover, within the top five percent of new firms, over 70 percent were organic growth firms. In contrast, stable micro firms, which are characterized by having no or very few employees, actually saw revenue declines. Additionally, while the share of financed growth firms is only three percent across the entire sample, some metro areas had a much higher concentration of these firms than others. More than four percent of all small firms in the San Jose and San Francisco metro areas were in the financed growth segment.
Figure 14: Contribution to growth, by segment
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
Gro
wth
rat
e (%
)
Share of financed growth firms for each city, panel sampleContributions to aggregate revenue growth, by segment in San Francisco4.7%
4.0%3.9%
3.8%3.5%
3.2%3.0%3.0%
2.8%2.8%
2.6%2.6%2.6%
2.4%2.4%2.4%2.3%
2.2%2.2%
2.1%1.9%1.9%1.9%
1.7%1.6%1.6%
San JoseSan Francisco
New YorkMiami
Los AngelesHouston
Las VegasAll Firms
SeattleAustinTampa
ColumbusSan Diego
DallasAtlantaDetroit
OrlandoSan Antonio
ChicagoPhoenix
Portland, ORRiverside, CAIndianapolisNew OrleansSacramento
Denver
0
5
10
15
20
Financed growth Stable small employer Stable microOrganic growth
13
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
In our report, Gender, Age, and Small Business Financial Outcomes, we observed small business financial performance, with a specific emphasis on differences in outcomes by owner age and gender. Overall, female-owned firms generated median first-year revenues that were about 34 percent lower than median revenues of male-owned firms. Firms founded by women were smaller than firms founded by men in every metropolitan area, though the size differential varied by location. In San Francisco, female-owned firms had $62K first year revenues whereas male-owned firms generated $94K their first year.
Figure 15: Median first-year revenues for female- and male-owned firms, by metro area
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
San Anton
ioAusti
n
Indianap
olis
San Fr
ancis
co
Housto
nDall
as
Portla
nd, OR
Denve
r
Chicago
Seatt
le
New Yo
rk
New O
rlean
s
Atlanta
Columbus
Los A
ngele
s
All firm
s in co
hort
Riversi
de, CA
San Jo
se
Phoenix
Detroit
Tampa
San D
iego
Sacra
mento
Las V
egas
Orlando
Miami
FemaleMale San Francisco femaleSan Francisco male
$0K
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
$100K
Additionally, we observed that young business owners under the age of 35 typically started smaller firms. In San Francisco, small business under 35 generated $78K in first-year revenues, whereas owners 35-54 generated $107K and owners 55 and over generated $105K.
Figure 16: Median first-year revenues, by age group and metro area
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
San Anton
ioAusti
n
Indianap
olis
San Fr
ancis
co
Housto
nDall
as
Portla
nd, OR
Denve
r
Chicago
Seatt
le
New Yo
rk
New O
rlean
s
Atlanta
Columbus
Los A
ngele
s
All firm
s in co
hort
Riversi
de, CA
San Jo
se
Phoenix
Detroit
Tampa
San D
iego
Sacra
mento
Las V
egas
Orlando
Miami
$0K
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
$100K
$120K
San Francisco 55 and overSan Francisco 35-54San Francisco Under 35
55 and over35-54Under 35
14
Out-of-Pocket Healthcare SpendingSan Francisco Second Highest for Healthcare Spending Among California Counties
Healthcare spending is linked to families’ cash flows, and these dynamics affect not just when people pay for healthcare but also when they consume it. In the JPMorgan Chase Institute report, On the Rise: Out-of-Pocket Healthcare Spending in 2017, we explored families' out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures and the financial burden they imposed on families over time. Of the 23 states we tracked, California showed the fastest growth in spending levels from 2016 to 2017. The high healthcare spending growth in California in 2017 holds true across different demographics groups, indicating that all sub-populations experienced roughly comparable increases in out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures.
Figure 17: From 2016 to 2017, out-of-pocket healthcare spending grew the most in California
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
Percent change in healthcare spending (2016 to 2017)
13.5%11.4%10.8%10.0%9.5%
8.9%
8.5%8.3%7.8%7.4%7.2%7.1%6.9%6.8%
6.7%6.4%6.3%5.8%4.0%3.1%
8.5%
CANYWICOUTCT
23-state avgNJIL
MIID1
KYFLIN
WAOHTXORAZ
GA1
LA
0% 5% 10% 15%
California had the highest growth in healthcare spending from 2016–2017
1 Relative standard error is greater than 30%.
Top-spending counties in California tended to be high-income and located along the coast, especially in the Bay Area. The top three counties in terms of spending levels were Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo, where the average annual growth rates exceeded ten percent from 2014 to 2017. In fact, there were a total of 13 counties in California that hadaverage annual growth exceeding ten percent during this time period. High-income groups generally tended to spend more on healthcare. These coastal areas in California have high income and high costs of living, which may translate to high county averages in healthcare spending, leading to the geographic gradient we observed in county-level maps. However, it is noteworthy that the growth in these high-income counties exceeded the growth in spending across the 23 states we observed even among the high-income group. This underscores that these coastal regions in California, including San Francisco, have experienced considerable growth in healthcare spending during the last few years and especially in 2017.
Figure 18: California saw high growth in out-of-pocket healthcare spending in 2017, especially in coastal areas
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
2014 2017 2014 2017
$100 – $450$451 – $550
$551 – $650$651 – $800
$801 – $1,300No coverage
0.40% – 1.45%1.46% – 1.75%
1.76% – 2.05%2.06% – 2.55%
2.56% – 4.00%No coverage
Out-of-pocket healthcare spending levels Out-of-pocket healthcare spending burden (as percent of take-home income)
MarinSan Francisco
San Mateo
15
THE SAN FRANCISCO ECONOMY: HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL BUSINESS FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Figure 19: California saw high growth in out-of-pocket healthcare spending in 2017, especially in coastal areas
Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo are California's top 3 counties for healthcare spending in 2017
Marin: $1,152
San Francisco: $916San Mateo: $835
California: $582
2014 2015 2016 2017$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Average out-of-pocket healthcare spending in top 3 counties in California
Source: JPMorgan Chase Institute
Conclusion
These insights provide a multi-faceted view of the financial health of San Francisco residents and small businesses.
Our geographically granular view of household spending can measure economic vibrancy and highlight local fiscal dynamics. Local leaders can use these data to better understand the economic activity of their jurisdiction, as well as how the locus of economic activity is changing over time. Additionally, our data provide a lens into small business aggregate revenue growth and exit rates—two key dimensions that characterize the economic health of the small business sector across cities. To the extent that there are specific and transferrable small business programs or policies that enable growth without impairing survival in cities, San Francisco could serve as a useful model given its relatively high small business revenue growth rates compared to exit rates.
Endnotes
1 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2017.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017.
3 Bureau of Labor and Statistics, San Francisco Economic Summary, March 2019.
4 Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts.
Back to Contents
This material is a product of JPMorgan Chase Institute and is provided to you solely for general information purposes. Unless otherwise specifically stated, any views or opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors listed and may differ from the views and opinions expressed by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS) Research Department or other departments or divisions of JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates. This material is not a product of the Research Department of JPMS. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries (collectively J.P. Morgan) do not warrant its completeness or accuracy. Opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this material and are subject to change without notice. The data relied on for this report are based on past transactions and may not be indicative of future results. The opinion herein should not be construed as an individual recommendation for any particular client and is not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments, or strategies for a particular client. This material does not constitute a solicitation or offer in any jurisdiction where such a solicitation is unlawful.
©2019 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This publication or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold, or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. www.jpmorganchaseinstitute.com