U.S. millionaires say $7 million not enough to be rich

Started by garbon, March 14, 2011, 10:40:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Richard Hakluyt

Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.

Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.

There was a recent survey about the rich in the Economist that gave some figures for this. Credit Suisse estimates that there are 24.2m dollar millionaires with the rather loose definition that a millionaire is anyone with more than $1m in net assets. They reckon that 41% of these live in the USA. Capgemini defines it more stringently, as someone with investable assets of $1m or more (excluding their home), they reckon about 10m people meet this criteria.

I would imagine that the looser definition includes many people in their 50s and older who have had a reasonably successful career. I'm somewhat surprised that the two figures are not more different. $1m in investable cash is much rarer in the UK than, say, a pension that will pay out >£20k; which as Dguller points out is a major financial asset.


Malthus

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 14, 2011, 02:28:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.

Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.

There was a recent survey about the rich in the Economist that gave some figures for this. Credit Suisse estimates that there are 24.2m dollar millionaires with the rather loose definition that a millionaire is anyone with more than $1m in net assets. They reckon that 41% of these live in the USA. Capgemini defines it more stringently, as someone with investable assets of $1m or more (excluding their home), they reckon about 10m people meet this criteria.

I would imagine that the looser definition includes many people in their 50s and older who have had a reasonably successful career. I'm somewhat surprised that the two figures are not more different. $1m in investable cash is much rarer in the UK than, say, a pension that will pay out >£20k; which as Dguller points out is a major financial asset.

I'm surprised too - though if you disallow personal real estate *and* retirement accounts, as in the article in the OP, I'll bet that figure shrinks even further.

[Actuall, I'm also surprised that there are only 24.2 m millionaires under the loosest definition.]   
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Crazy_Ivan80

since they apparently can't appreciate what they've got it's clear that they don't need it.

take away the money until they're left with 50K annually. that should help in the "don't whine you rich ass" department.

garbon

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 14, 2011, 02:57:24 PM
since they apparently can't appreciate what they've got it's clear that they don't need it.

take away the money until they're left with 50K annually. that should help in the "don't whine you rich ass" department.

You are an idiot. But then we all knew that already.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Richard Hakluyt

Referring again to the survey in the Economist it seems that only 16% of these well-off people inherited their dosh; 47% made the money from starting and growing a business, 23% through highly paid employment. I guess if we took their money off them we would have to live in a society with few new businesses to generate employment and a shortage of surgeons and suchlike  :hmm:

garbon

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 14, 2011, 03:06:29 PM
Referring again to the survey in the Economist it seems that only 16% of these well-off people inherited their dosh; 47% made the money from starting and growing a business, 23% through highly paid employment. I guess if we took their money off them we would have to live in a society with few new businesses to generate employment and a shortage of surgeons and suchlike  :hmm:


Please don't troll. We all know that wealthy people don't deserve the money they have.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2011, 02:26:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 12:24:50 PM
Why?  Do you think I hang out with trailer trash or something?

:zipped:

I heard recently that New Jersey is the state with the highest per capita income in the country. :unsure:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Ed Anger

Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

Admiral Yi

The Atlantic has an article on the unhappiness of the super-rich.  Their cutoff was 25 mill.

When I asked one of my Wall St. buddies back in the late 80s how much it would take to walk away he said 5 mill.  He called it "fuck you money."

Monoriu

Quote from: Alcibiades on March 14, 2011, 12:28:25 PM
I could retire at 23 on 2 million dollars quite easily.

Home for say 300k in the midwest is quite large, say five cars over the next 50 years, thats 200,000.  Taxes on the house maybe 50-70,000. Discretionary spending including food maybe 40-50,000 a year.

Invest cautiously receiving 5-7% on 1 million over that period....and you can outlive that fairly easily.  :unsure:

But if you invest cautiously, the return could be around 2-3%. 

Monoriu

Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:17:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 14, 2011, 01:13:41 PM
Heh, I was thinking the other day that the term "millionaire" is essentially meaningless. Lots of people have more than $1 million in assets, and that doesn't make them anything like rich.

Though if you exclude real estate and retirement savings accounts, that does change things. Most people have most of their wealth tied up in those two things.

The article talked about "investable assets".  That would exclude your home, but would include restirement savings accounts.


There is a reason why these surveys are run by big financial services companies.  They are trying to find out the size of their potential client base.  They want to figure out how many people they need to hire, how much they should spend on advertising and where, how much money to allocate to each branch etc. 

They want their clients to give them money to invest.  You can't entrust your primary residence or your retirement accounts to your broker, that's why those are excluded. 

Crazy_Ivan80

Quote from: garbon on March 14, 2011, 03:00:31 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 14, 2011, 02:57:24 PM
since they apparently can't appreciate what they've got it's clear that they don't need it.

take away the money until they're left with 50K annually. that should help in the "don't whine you rich ass" department.

You are an idiot. But then we all knew that already.

at least I'm not you, which would be a million times worse.

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Martinus


Caliga

0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points