US âvery richâ list grows at fastest pace in a decade By Deborah Brewster in New York Published: April 19 2006 19:58 | Last updated: April 19 2006 19:58 The number of very rich people in the US grew last year at the fastest pace in at least a decade as their moves into international stockmarkets, real estate and alternative investments paid off. The number of households with $5m (â¬4m) or more in investable assets â excluding the family home â rose by 26 per cent 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 per cent, to a record 8.3m â the second biggest jump in the decade since they were surveyed. The overall affluent market â households with $500,000 or more â rose by 7 per cent to a record 14m. This group fared the worst in the wake of the stockmarket 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: âItâs been a great couple of years for Americaâs millionaires ... the stockmarket, 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.â George Walper, president of Sprectrem, 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, US investors last year put more than $130bn into international mutual funds, more than three times the amount they put into US funds. Most overseas markets performed better than the US market, so their switch paid off. Hedge funds returned on average only slightly more than the US stockmarket 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 â stocks, bonds and alternative investments â 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. www.ft.com
your posting does not support your claim "poverty on the rise" where in this post does it support this contention? furthermore, it's a GOOD thing that the rich get richer. especially when they are putting their money at risk in investments... "This group fared the worst in the wake of the stockmarket 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: âItâs been a great couple of years for Americaâs millionaires ... the stockmarket, 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.â people invest - they put their money at risk. why should they NOT reap the rewards? do you think capitalism is a bad thing? do you have support for the "poverty on the rise" claim?
Unbridled capitalism is. Percentage of famililies living below poverty level: 2005 12.7% 2004 11.0 2003 10.8 2002 10.4 2001 9.9 2000 9.6 1999 10.3 1998 11.2 1997 11.6 1996 12.2 1995 12.3 1994 13.1 1993 13.6 1992 13.3 1991 12.8 1990 12.0 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
do you think capitalism is a bad thing? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unbridled capitalism is. **** unbridled capitalism exists in nation on earth. the US doesn't even come close. some countries have more economic freedom than us (singapore, hong kong, etc.) also. we're "pretty bridled" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from whitster: do you have support for the "poverty on the rise" claim? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of famililies living below poverty level: 2005 12.7% 2004 11.0 2003 10.8 2002 10.4 2001 9.9 2000 9.6 1999 10.3 1998 11.2 1997 11.6 1996 12.2 1995 12.3 1994 13.1 1993 13.6 1992 13.3 1991 12.8 1990 12.0 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pove...ov/hstpov2.html EXCELLENT. thanks for the quick response and the information...
While Hong Kong does stand out the difference in economic freedom between Singapore (#2, rank 1.58) and the US (#9, rank 1.84) is negligible. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
i said they had more freedom than us i didn't parse the relative "negligible" vs. "significant" elements
You said "the US doesn't even come close" and that's not true. I know you did not but I did, I found it important enough to point out that the US does come extremely close.
I can't say if poverty is on the rise, I'd have to think about it, define the parameters. I do get the feeling that there is a squeeze on the middle class. It would be safe to say, I believe, that they're not all being squeezed into the upper class. At any rate, the real problem for most societies is how they manage their idle young men. So far as I can tell, we're not managing them at all, only increasing their number. Well, except for sending a good number overseas, an ancient solution.
that assumes that the members of our armed services ARE idle young men. if anything, they are the NONidle young men. ime, the lazy tend not to be the ones joining the military
Yeah, those dang idle young men. It's the fault of society for keeping them "idle" and the ensuing cycle of poverty (and by extension, crime). Heaven forbid some responsibility be put on the parents, or, perish the thought, the young men themselves....