PDA

View Full Version : America Lost 129,000 Millionaires in 2011



Sev
06-01-2012, 08:58 AM
Another sign of a thriving economy and recovery.
Its good to see we are spreading the wealth around to emerging countries.


Hows that Hope and Change working for you?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47631154

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>America Lost 129,000 Millionaires in 2011</span>

America millionaire population declined last year for the first time since the financial crisis, according to a new report.

The population of U.S. millionaire households (households with investible assets of $1 million or more) fell to 5,134,000 from 5,263,000 in 2011, according to The Boston Consulting Group Global Wealth study.

Total private wealth in North America fell by 0.9 percent, to $38 trillion.

The ultra-rich were the largest losers in dollar terms. Households in North America with investible assets of more than $100 million saw their wealth decline 2.4 percent. Their population declined slightly to 2,928 from 2,989.

The main reason for all this wealth loss? Stocks.

With the wealthy today increasingly dependent on stocks for wealth, last year™s stalled stock market shrunk the population of millionaires and nicked the fortunes of existing millionaires. According to BCG, the amount of wealth held in equities declined 3.6 percent last year.

Globally, the picture looked a little brighter. Virtually all of the growth in global millionaires came from emerging markets last year. While the United States lost nearly 130,000 millionaires, the rest of the world added 175,000 millionaires. There are now 12.6 million millionaire households globally, according to BCG.

The country with the highest millionaire density proportion of population who are millionaires“ was Singapore. More than 17 percent of Singapores households are millionaires.

While 2011 saw declines in U.S. millionaires, the future looks brighter, BCG said. They expect wealth held by millionaires globally to grow at around six percent a year in Asia-Pacific. œWe are in a two-speed world, said the report. œAll of the growth is being driven by developing markets.

Gayle in MD
06-01-2012, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another sign of a thriving economy and recovery.
Its good to see we are spreading the wealth around to emerging countries.


Hows that Hope and Change working for you?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47631154

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>America Lost 129,000 Millionaires in 2011</span>

America millionaire population declined last year for the first time since the financial crisis, according to a new report.

The population of U.S. millionaire households (households with investible assets of $1 million or more) fell to 5,134,000 from 5,263,000 in 2011, according to The Boston Consulting Group Global Wealth study.

Total private wealth in North America fell by 0.9 percent, to $38 trillion.

The ultra-rich were the largest losers in dollar terms. Households in North America with investible assets of more than $100 million saw their wealth decline 2.4 percent. Their population declined slightly to 2,928 from 2,989.

The main reason for all this wealth loss? Stocks.

With the wealthy today increasingly dependent on stocks for wealth, last year™s stalled stock market shrunk the population of millionaires and nicked the fortunes of existing millionaires. According to BCG, the amount of wealth held in equities declined 3.6 percent last year.

Globally, the picture looked a little brighter. Virtually all of the growth in global millionaires came from emerging markets last year. While the United States lost nearly 130,000 millionaires, the rest of the world added 175,000 millionaires. There are now 12.6 million millionaire households globally, according to BCG.

The country with the highest millionaire density proportion of population who are millionaires“ was Singapore. More than 17 percent of Singapores households are millionaires.

While 2011 saw declines in U.S. millionaires, the future looks brighter, BCG said. They expect wealth held by millionaires globally to grow at around six percent a year in Asia-Pacific. œWe are in a two-speed world, said the report. œAll of the growth is being driven by developing markets. </div></div>

Yeah, because they became Billionaires!

G.

Sev
06-01-2012, 09:07 AM
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Emoticons/crazy-1.gif

Soflasnapper
06-01-2012, 09:28 AM
I hope you change your reliance on unknown sources with no notion of their methodology. This isn't the census, or the Dept. of Labor, but some private consultants? Do you think they got responses from over 5 million households, or 300 million, for that matter? Or did they do a survey? (almost certainly yes).

As you may know, surveys must be done with certain criteria to be considered accurate, and even then, there is a stated margin of error. (Which hasn't been cited in this article.)

However, what we can do is see how large this alleged change is compared to their claimed previous total (also based on some unknown methodology but forget that for now).

129,000 is 2.45% of 5.263 million. Most polling has a 3% MOE, or MORE. A swing within the margin of error is meaningless, and normally would be reported exactly that way. A political race polled at 2.4% in the favor of one of the candidates with a MOE of 3% is said to be statistically tied.

Note also that the stated criteria EXCLUDES MANY ACTUAL MILLIONAIRES. The definition of millionaire is someone with a net worth over $1 million. These guys are referring to someone with INVESTIBLE ASSETS of over $1 million. So someone with a paid off house worth several million dollars or with a mortgage but equity in the house over $1 million who has $900k in investible assets is NOT A MILLIONAIRE (by their criterion). But of course they are.

So what does this report from a study from someone whose methodology we don't know mean about the relative number of people with over $1 million dollars net worth in 2011 compared to 2010 (you know, the actual number of millionaires)?

Hard to believe the Christian News Service was fooled, let alone yourself, but actually, even accepting the numbers using their criteria are unassailable (as cannot be known, absent explaining how it was done), nothing at all. It's almost like they are not a real journalistic enterprise, but a propaganda organ or something.

Do you have critical reading and thinking skills? If so, it's best to use them.

Sev
06-01-2012, 09:31 AM
I rely on CNBC to vet the stories they print.
Perhaps they are the ones you should be criticizing.
Its not like the story came from FOX news. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Soflasnapper
06-01-2012, 09:59 AM
It's almost like they are not a real journalistic enterprise, but a propaganda organ or something.

Yep, maybe you should reconsider them as an unbiased source.

However, as I said, taking EVERYTHING at face value, they have actually said nothing about the change in the number of millionaires, using the standard definition. For starters.

Sev
06-01-2012, 10:04 AM
Oh I dont think they are unbiased in the least.

However the story is not coming from FOX news if you get may drift. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Soflasnapper
06-01-2012, 10:13 AM
CNBC, where an on-air tirade from Rick Santelli sparked the Tea Party movement? A reminder (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701/Rick_Santelli_s_Shout_Heard_Round_the_World)

For, by, and of the 1%.

You should go back and review Jim Kramer's shameless boosting of stock investing right before the crash, including a fulsome recommendation that people should buy Lehman or Bear Stearns just before it crashed and burned. Later, it came out that he used his megaphone to manipulate stocks to benefit his own holdings, boosting them up to get a better price so he could sell off his account in them.

Sev
06-01-2012, 10:20 AM
Come on man. A guys got to make a profit. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
06-01-2012, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh I dont think they are unbiased in the least.

However the story is not coming from FOX news if you get may drift. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

I've been telling you for years that NBC is a right leaning organization.

Ever notice the turn around on their token lefties? They get cut, regularly. MSNBC has several token lefties on in the evenings, just to make it look balanced, but how long do they last?

Think they would ever get rid of Scarborough, who said the F.word on the air, and who has screaming rages regularly?

Or Mark Halperin, a fixture on the panel, who called the president a Dick?

Scarborough is one of the most ignorant people on television. Had to vacate his office to escape a sex scandal, was involved with one of his young aids, and eventually, left his wife annd kids to marry her.

Was a known womanizer, when he was in Washington D.C. ad as much of a lush as Boehner, and whose attractive young aid was found dead in his law office, after he left Washington, and returned to Florida to practice law.

The press ignored the whole story, even after it came out that the medical examiner, who performed the autopsy, and said it was just a fall, that caused all of the suspicious head injuries, not consistant with a fall at all, BTW, had been fired in another state, for writing false reports, suspectedly, for cash.

Scarborough can't sit in that chair for five minutes without saying, I, me, my, and is one of the most arrogant, yet also ignorant, egotistical people in the public eye. He rivals The Donald, and his entire show is constant references to what he, himself said, and when he, himself said it.

Every supposedly left leaning guest, on his daily panel, save Zbigniew Brzezinski, about once a month, is a Dino. Once in a blue moon, an occasional, in fact, very occasionally, authentic Democrat.



Hey, when they gave Dick Gregory Meet The Press, that cynched it.
You should tune in some morning, where you will hear three hours of non stop Democratic Party, and President Obama bashing. You'd love it!

G.

Soflasnapper
06-01-2012, 02:25 PM
Hey, when they gave Dick Gregory Meet The Press, that cynched it.

DAVID Gregory. 2nd courtesy warning. Next time, ball in hand! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

Sev
06-01-2012, 02:27 PM
HAHAHA!!!