Bad news for the left
 

A liberal's nightmare:

Survey: Number of millionaires hits new record
Wealthy households boosted by overseas markets, alternative investments

By Deborah Brewster
Financial Times
Updated: 6:31 p.m. ET April 19, 2006


NEW YORK - The number of very rich people in the U.S. grew last year at the fastest pace in at least a decade as their moves into international stock markets, real estate and alternative investments paid off.

The number of households with $5 million or more in investable assets — excluding the family home — rose by 26 percent to a record 930,000, according to a study by Spectrem Group. That is the biggest jump since Spectrem began its survey in 1996. The number of millionaires rose by 11 percent, to a record 8.3 million – the second biggest jump in the decade since they were surveyed.

The overall affluent market – households with $500,000 or more – rose by 7 percent to a record 14 million. This group fared the worst in the wake of the stock market collapse, with their numbers falling sharply from 2000. Last year was the first time their total passed that of their peak in 1999.

Catherine McBreen, a managing director at Spectrem, said: "It's been a great couple of years for America's millionaires ... the stock market, which posted solid improvement in 2005, was one reason for the advance. However, for the wealthiest Americans it appears the increased use of international markets and alternative investments were key drivers of their improvement."

George Walper, president of Spectrem, said the group had questioned respondents on their investments and returns, and also examined the returns of international markets and alternative investments to ensure the veracity of the results. In a sudden reversal of their longstanding affinity for their domestic market, U.S. investors last year put more than $130 billion into international mutual funds, more than three times the amount they put into U.S. funds.

Most overseas markets performed better than the U.S. market, so their switch paid off.

Hedge funds returned on average only slightly more than the U.S. stock market last year, but investable real estate and some private equity investments returned more than this.

Affluent households, on average, held close to half their money in assets — stocks, bonds and alternative investments — and a larger than usual amount of cash, Spectrem said.

The affluent reported a greater satisfaction with their financial advisers than in recent years, but this was still short of the highest level previously reported. Those who used advisers were shifting back to use full-service brokers as their main advisers.

Unfortunately, 1 mill. ain't what it used to be. :(

What does this have to do with the left? I'm sure a percentage of said millionaires are liberals. Does everything have to be an attack on the left (or right)?

only if you're limited to binary thinking. :)

...in which case there's only 10 ways to look at it...

ooohh, my head hurts!

Black vs white, good vs evil, left vs right. All the poor are liberal and all the rich are conservative. The left hates millionaires and the right rejoices in them. No wonder posts like this strike a discordant nerve with most people.

Actually from that simplistic thinking the left should be rejoicing in a rise of millionaires as that means more tax money can be collected.

Except that we've succeeded in shifting more of the tax burden to the poor.

so everybody (that matters ;) ) wins! :D

Gee, fint...Refresh my memory...

What have the trends been for the number of individuals and families without medical coverage and ditto for families and individuals below the poverty line? Have these decreased (which for the society as a whole would be good)?

No story has just one side. One cannot "cherry pick" and arrive at the truth.


Wealth creation is good for all sides, not just the right or the left.

Refresh my memory on how the number of families without medical coverage has to do with anything? Buying medical coverage is a choice...much as life insurance. I don't buy either...it doesn't mean I am poor....just the opposite.
Pretty much, any healthy person who is legally in this country and is below the poverty line...likely is there because of their own choices. Unemployment is almost nonexistent.

Good news during this administration is almost always discounted by the left. This is just more proof of the booming economy....resulting from the President's tax cuts.

wow. that's scary.

It's so hard to believe that people still exist in this day and age with so little clue. But then along comes fintstone...

"Pretty much, any healthy person who is legally in this country and is below the poverty line...likely is there because of their own choices. Unemployment is almost nonexistent."

"This is just more proof of the booming economy....resulting from the President's tax cuts."

Fint proves ignorance is alive and well.

Unemployment is almost totally non-existent..

But underemployment is up. The booming economy depends on where you are on the income scale. Some like you, fint, are very well off. I doubt if you frequently socialize with those who are not as fortunate. As for medical insurance? Kinda difficult to afford $8,000 a year for family coverage when your income is $30 k or so. And they CHOOSE this style of life? How self serving...

And, if you have spent your time in the military, no wonder you do not have to worry about health insurance..

And the tax cuts? I like having the extra money, sure..But I do not like the amount of interest being paid out every year because of the massive borrowing...I would rather pay a bit more now than a lot more later. Also, investigate the effect on local taxes as federal matching funds dry up. It is a zero-sum game.

Wealth is fleeting..if the market takes a dump, the number of those with the large increases will diminish

Sometimes your posts are interesting, well thought out and logical. This ain't one of those. Nothing in the economy is that clear cut.

Part of the perception that liberals don't like rich people (even though many are rich themselves) is because of the statements that the liberal politicians make. Just a few days ago Hillary Clinton said:

`the rich are getting richer, everybody else is marching in place'' and ``I don't think that's good for us.''

So in her mind, it would be better for the rich to get poorer and then everyone else would be better off.

You blow this off as ignorant, yet offer no explanations for why there is no truth to these statements. Perhaps you'd like to share some solid reasoning why these statements are not accurate?

The truth is - the people that are legal and healthy but live in poverty is because they are lazy and/or stupid, and they don't have to do anything because the government has encouraged them to be that way.

You forgot two additional conditions.

Mental defect and mental capacity.

Would you hire a paranoid schizoprenic? Could a person with an IQ of 80 enjoy employment that puts him above the poverty line?

Well, then they are not really healthy. And it will be harder for them. People that 50 years ago would have been in institutions are now roaming the streets and homeless. But I do know of mentally handicapped people who are trying hard and businesses who employ them, and I think that's great.