10% population in SD county are millionaires (exclude Primary RE)?!

[pepsi]

According to CNN,in San Diego county, there are 102K household that are millionaires (exclude primary residence). (San diego county has 994K households, 2.95Million people)

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/pf/0704/gallery.Millionaire_Counties/5.html

That means every 1 in 10 family you meet is millionaire.

We are a fxxking rich county.

——

BTW, I doubt that number is correct.

(Another article from North County Time in 2005 said it is about 35000 HH)

 

[Borat]

That is COUNTY, not CITY. There are around 3M in the county, so approx. 3% of the population have at least a million american pesos.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Borat – I thought the same thing, but the priginal post addressed this. 2.95 million population, but less than 1 million HOUSEHOLDS. The 100K was number of HOUSEHOLDS with net worth greater than 1 mil.

[kewp]

Edited to say I can’t read.

[kewp]

Edited to say I can’t read.

[kewp]

Edited to say I can’t read.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Borat – I thought the same thing, but the priginal post addressed this. 2.95 million population, but less than 1 million HOUSEHOLDS. The 100K was number of HOUSEHOLDS with net worth greater than 1 mil.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Borat – I thought the same thing, but the priginal post addressed this. 2.95 million population, but less than 1 million HOUSEHOLDS. The 100K was number of HOUSEHOLDS with net worth greater than 1 mil.

[Borat]

That is COUNTY, not CITY. There are around 3M in the county, so approx. 3% of the population have at least a million american pesos.

[Borat]

That is COUNTY, not CITY. There are around 3M in the county, so approx. 3% of the population have at least a million american pesos.

[davelj]

According to Money Magazine (which could be wrong, of course) there are approximately 4 million millionaire households out of roughly 75 million total households nationwide. Money Magazine does not include primary residence or retirement assets in their definition of millionaire. So, that’s 5.3% of all households nationwide. Seeing as SD is a much higher-than-average income city – particularly at the high end – it doesn’t surprise me at all that 10% of the households in SD are millionaires.

[Ex-SD]

I remember reading several articles in the UT over the last couple of years that said, less than 5% of the population of SD could qualify for a median priced home. If the number of millionaire households is correct, then the other 90% of households are a long way from ever reaching millionaire status.

[Wrangler]

I believe this statistics. In my group (about 12 people), I believe there are 2 millionaires. I am very sure my boss is.

[Wrangler]

I believe this statistics. In my group (about 12 people), I believe there are 2 millionaires. I am very sure my boss is.

[Wrangler]

I believe this statistics. In my group (about 12 people), I believe there are 2 millionaires. I am very sure my boss is.

[raptorduck]

Consider the common thread among financial planners that 95% of income earning Americans have a negative net worth. That’s right, 95% of Americans are more than a million dollars short of being . . . millionairs.

And I think that does include home equity, but I am not sure about that one.

Remember, there are people who make $1 million per year and still have a negative net worth.

[Borat]

It is also funny how the word millionaire is still tossed around as if it means a person is like Jed Clampett living in his Beverly Hills mansion. $1M from the time of the Beverly Hillbillies (1967?) would be worth $5M today. And $1M in today’s money would be around $200K back then. So a million american pesos ain’t what it used to be. Soon we’ll all be millionaires!

[Borat]

It is also funny how the word millionaire is still tossed around as if it means a person is like Jed Clampett living in his Beverly Hills mansion. $1M from the time of the Beverly Hillbillies (1967?) would be worth $5M today. And $1M in today’s money would be around $200K back then. So a million american pesos ain’t what it used to be. Soon we’ll all be millionaires!

[Borat]

It is also funny how the word millionaire is still tossed around as if it means a person is like Jed Clampett living in his Beverly Hills mansion. $1M from the time of the Beverly Hillbillies (1967?) would be worth $5M today. And $1M in today’s money would be around $200K back then. So a million american pesos ain’t what it used to be. Soon we’ll all be millionaires!

[raptorduck]

Consider the common thread among financial planners that 95% of income earning Americans have a negative net worth. That’s right, 95% of Americans are more than a million dollars short of being . . . millionairs.

And I think that does include home equity, but I am not sure about that one.

Remember, there are people who make $1 million per year and still have a negative net worth.

[raptorduck]

Consider the common thread among financial planners that 95% of income earning Americans have a negative net worth. That’s right, 95% of Americans are more than a million dollars short of being . . . millionairs.

And I think that does include home equity, but I am not sure about that one.

Remember, there are people who make $1 million per year and still have a negative net worth.

[Ex-SD]

I remember reading several articles in the UT over the last couple of years that said, less than 5% of the population of SD could qualify for a median priced home. If the number of millionaire households is correct, then the other 90% of households are a long way from ever reaching millionaire status.

[Ex-SD]

I remember reading several articles in the UT over the last couple of years that said, less than 5% of the population of SD could qualify for a median priced home. If the number of millionaire households is correct, then the other 90% of households are a long way from ever reaching millionaire status.

[davelj]

According to Money Magazine (which could be wrong, of course) there are approximately 4 million millionaire households out of roughly 75 million total households nationwide. Money Magazine does not include primary residence or retirement assets in their definition of millionaire. So, that’s 5.3% of all households nationwide. Seeing as SD is a much higher-than-average income city – particularly at the high end – it doesn’t surprise me at all that 10% of the households in SD are millionaires.

[davelj]

According to Money Magazine (which could be wrong, of course) there are approximately 4 million millionaire households out of roughly 75 million total households nationwide. Money Magazine does not include primary residence or retirement assets in their definition of millionaire. So, that’s 5.3% of all households nationwide. Seeing as SD is a much higher-than-average income city – particularly at the high end – it doesn’t surprise me at all that 10% of the households in SD are millionaires.

[SD Realtor]

This does not surprise me either. The bottom line is that there are alot of people with alot of money down here. It doesn’t matter if a million now is less then a million ten years ago. There are alot of wealthy people and I don’t believe they will be going anywhere.

SD Realtor

[golfproz]

You can’t believe anything a “survey” says. They can spin the numbers to make them say anything. Similar to this old joke.

“A DAY OFF”

So you want a day off, let’s take a look at
what you are asking for.

There are 365 days per year available
for work. There are 52 weeks per year in
which you already have two days off per
week, leaving 261 day availiable for work.
Since you spend 16 hours each day away
from work, you have used up 170 days,
leaving only 91 days available. You spend 30
minutes each day on coffee break that
accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only
68 days available. with a one hour lunch
period each day, you have used up another
46 days, leaving only 22 days available for
work. You normally spend 2 days per year
on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days
available for work. We are off for 5 holidays
per year, so your available working time is
down to 15 days. We generously give you 14
days vacation per year which leaves only 1
day available for work, and I’ll be damned if
you’re going to take that day off!!!

I’m a millionaire, I have a $1,000,000 bill pinned to my cubicle wall. I just need to find a store that can make change.

[golfproz]

You can’t believe anything a “survey” says. They can spin the numbers to make them say anything. Similar to this old joke.

“A DAY OFF”

So you want a day off, let’s take a look at
what you are asking for.

There are 365 days per year available
for work. There are 52 weeks per year in
which you already have two days off per
week, leaving 261 day availiable for work.
Since you spend 16 hours each day away
from work, you have used up 170 days,
leaving only 91 days available. You spend 30
minutes each day on coffee break that
accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only
68 days available. with a one hour lunch
period each day, you have used up another
46 days, leaving only 22 days available for
work. You normally spend 2 days per year
on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days
available for work. We are off for 5 holidays
per year, so your available working time is
down to 15 days. We generously give you 14
days vacation per year which leaves only 1
day available for work, and I’ll be damned if
you’re going to take that day off!!!

I’m a millionaire, I have a $1,000,000 bill pinned to my cubicle wall. I just need to find a store that can make change.

[golfproz]

You can’t believe anything a “survey” says. They can spin the numbers to make them say anything. Similar to this old joke.

“A DAY OFF”

So you want a day off, let’s take a look at
what you are asking for.

There are 365 days per year available
for work. There are 52 weeks per year in
which you already have two days off per
week, leaving 261 day availiable for work.
Since you spend 16 hours each day away
from work, you have used up 170 days,
leaving only 91 days available. You spend 30
minutes each day on coffee break that
accounts for 23 days each year, leaving only
68 days available. with a one hour lunch
period each day, you have used up another
46 days, leaving only 22 days available for
work. You normally spend 2 days per year
on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days
available for work. We are off for 5 holidays
per year, so your available working time is
down to 15 days. We generously give you 14
days vacation per year which leaves only 1
day available for work, and I’ll be damned if
you’re going to take that day off!!!

I’m a millionaire, I have a $1,000,000 bill pinned to my cubicle wall. I just need to find a store that can make change.

[SD Realtor]

This does not surprise me either. The bottom line is that there are alot of people with alot of money down here. It doesn’t matter if a million now is less then a million ten years ago. There are alot of wealthy people and I don’t believe they will be going anywhere.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

This does not surprise me either. The bottom line is that there are alot of people with alot of money down here. It doesn’t matter if a million now is less then a million ten years ago. There are alot of wealthy people and I don’t believe they will be going anywhere.

SD Realtor

[Arraya]

Wow… Unbelievable, do you mean to say rich people like to live in beautiful beach communities. Who would have thought? What are they going to survey next? That a large number of poor people live in rural Mississippi. Big shocker…

[masayako]

It doesn’t surprise me at all.

I have 2 friends who are millionaires. First one was a realtor, the other was a HW contractor turned small HW business owner.

I hope to join the club soon.

[masayako]

It doesn’t surprise me at all.

I have 2 friends who are millionaires. First one was a realtor, the other was a HW contractor turned small HW business owner.

I hope to join the club soon.

[masayako]

It doesn’t surprise me at all.

I have 2 friends who are millionaires. First one was a realtor, the other was a HW contractor turned small HW business owner.

I hope to join the club soon.

[Arraya]

Wow… Unbelievable, do you mean to say rich people like to live in beautiful beach communities. Who would have thought? What are they going to survey next? That a large number of poor people live in rural Mississippi. Big shocker…

[Arraya]

Wow… Unbelievable, do you mean to say rich people like to live in beautiful beach communities. Who would have thought? What are they going to survey next? That a large number of poor people live in rural Mississippi. Big shocker…

[patientrenter]

“That means every 1 in 10 family you meet is millionaire.

We are a fxxking rich county.”

Very funny, pepsi. I am a “millionaire”. By my standards, I can afford to spend $190 per week, after rent and utilities and car insurance etc. That’s food and drink for a week, mostly at home, plus one cheap date or a new shirt. It ain’t what it used to be.

Consider the price of a home in coastal Southern California now versus 1970. Use that to figure out what a million dollars back then means today. We’re talking maybe $50-100 million.

Patient renter in OC

[stansd]

Obviously, age is an important component to this as well. If you are 65 and a millionaire, so what, that means you have about 40K in your first year of retirement to spend plus your social security check. Looking at some quick statistics, it looked like around 25% of SD’s population is over 50. Exclude them from the dataset, and you probably don’t have a ton of people with a boatload of money to spend today.

If you are 25 and have a million bucks in the bank, good on ya!

Stan

[one_muggle]

When I run a simple case on the numbers for money needed to retire, I am not surprised.
Plugging in a generous but reasonable current income of $200k, for a 35 year old, retiring at 62 on 65% current income, I get a required nest egg of more than $4M.
It’s not surprising that 1 in 10 people in one of the richest county’s, in the richest state, in one of the richest countries are millionaires–all denominated in dollars, I might add. Now a million Euros, that’s real money! ;^)

-one muggle

[what_a_disasta]

I read a statistic once that said 25% of Americans believe Elvis is alive… Just thought I’d share that with you.

[Coronita]

I read a statistic once that said 25% of Americans believe Elvis is alive… Just thought I'd share that with you.

 

He's dead?  Next thing you're going to tell me is that Santa Claus doesn't exist. 🙂

 

[Coronita]

I read a statistic once that said 25% of Americans believe Elvis is alive… Just thought I'd share that with you.

 

He's dead?  Next thing you're going to tell me is that Santa Claus doesn't exist. 🙂

 

[Coronita]

I read a statistic once that said 25% of Americans believe Elvis is alive… Just thought I'd share that with you.

 

He's dead?  Next thing you're going to tell me is that Santa Claus doesn't exist. 🙂

 

[what_a_disasta]

I read a statistic once that said 25% of Americans believe Elvis is alive… Just thought I’d share that with you.

[what_a_disasta]

I read a statistic once that said 25% of Americans believe Elvis is alive… Just thought I’d share that with you.

[patientrenter]

One muggle, $130,000 a year from age 62 on $4 million is 3.25%. That strikes me as below the average assumption. Any particular reason?

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

One muggle, $130,000 a year from age 62 on $4 million is 3.25%. That strikes me as below the average assumption. Any particular reason?

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

One muggle, $130,000 a year from age 62 on $4 million is 3.25%. That strikes me as below the average assumption. Any particular reason?

Patient renter in OC

[Coronita]

When I run a simple case on the numbers for money needed to retire, I am not surprised.
Plugging in a generous but reasonable current income of $200k, for a 35 year old, retiring at 62 on 65% current income, I get a required nest egg of more than $4M.
It's not surprising that 1 in 10 people in one of the richest county's, in the richest state, in one of the richest countries are millionaires–all denominated in dollars, I might add. Now a million Euros, that's real money! ;^)

-one muggle

 

 

It will be much closer to 10million, particular if healthcare continues on the trend. There is a reason why I still brown bag some of my lunches. It's not going to look pretty 30 years from now, i fear.

[Coronita]

When I run a simple case on the numbers for money needed to retire, I am not surprised.
Plugging in a generous but reasonable current income of $200k, for a 35 year old, retiring at 62 on 65% current income, I get a required nest egg of more than $4M.
It's not surprising that 1 in 10 people in one of the richest county's, in the richest state, in one of the richest countries are millionaires–all denominated in dollars, I might add. Now a million Euros, that's real money! ;^)

-one muggle

 

 

It will be much closer to 10million, particular if healthcare continues on the trend. There is a reason why I still brown bag some of my lunches. It's not going to look pretty 30 years from now, i fear.

[Coronita]

When I run a simple case on the numbers for money needed to retire, I am not surprised.
Plugging in a generous but reasonable current income of $200k, for a 35 year old, retiring at 62 on 65% current income, I get a required nest egg of more than $4M.
It's not surprising that 1 in 10 people in one of the richest county's, in the richest state, in one of the richest countries are millionaires–all denominated in dollars, I might add. Now a million Euros, that's real money! ;^)

-one muggle

 

 

It will be much closer to 10million, particular if healthcare continues on the trend. There is a reason why I still brown bag some of my lunches. It's not going to look pretty 30 years from now, i fear.

[one_muggle]

When I run a simple case on the numbers for money needed to retire, I am not surprised.
Plugging in a generous but reasonable current income of $200k, for a 35 year old, retiring at 62 on 65% current income, I get a required nest egg of more than $4M.
It’s not surprising that 1 in 10 people in one of the richest county’s, in the richest state, in one of the richest countries are millionaires–all denominated in dollars, I might add. Now a million Euros, that’s real money! ;^)

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

When I run a simple case on the numbers for money needed to retire, I am not surprised.
Plugging in a generous but reasonable current income of $200k, for a 35 year old, retiring at 62 on 65% current income, I get a required nest egg of more than $4M.
It’s not surprising that 1 in 10 people in one of the richest county’s, in the richest state, in one of the richest countries are millionaires–all denominated in dollars, I might add. Now a million Euros, that’s real money! ;^)

-one muggle

[stansd]

Obviously, age is an important component to this as well. If you are 65 and a millionaire, so what, that means you have about 40K in your first year of retirement to spend plus your social security check. Looking at some quick statistics, it looked like around 25% of SD’s population is over 50. Exclude them from the dataset, and you probably don’t have a ton of people with a boatload of money to spend today.

If you are 25 and have a million bucks in the bank, good on ya!

Stan

[stansd]

Obviously, age is an important component to this as well. If you are 65 and a millionaire, so what, that means you have about 40K in your first year of retirement to spend plus your social security check. Looking at some quick statistics, it looked like around 25% of SD’s population is over 50. Exclude them from the dataset, and you probably don’t have a ton of people with a boatload of money to spend today.

If you are 25 and have a million bucks in the bank, good on ya!

Stan

[patientrenter]

“That means every 1 in 10 family you meet is millionaire.

We are a fxxking rich county.”

Very funny, pepsi. I am a “millionaire”. By my standards, I can afford to spend $190 per week, after rent and utilities and car insurance etc. That’s food and drink for a week, mostly at home, plus one cheap date or a new shirt. It ain’t what it used to be.

Consider the price of a home in coastal Southern California now versus 1970. Use that to figure out what a million dollars back then means today. We’re talking maybe $50-100 million.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

“That means every 1 in 10 family you meet is millionaire.

We are a fxxking rich county.”

Very funny, pepsi. I am a “millionaire”. By my standards, I can afford to spend $190 per week, after rent and utilities and car insurance etc. That’s food and drink for a week, mostly at home, plus one cheap date or a new shirt. It ain’t what it used to be.

Consider the price of a home in coastal Southern California now versus 1970. Use that to figure out what a million dollars back then means today. We’re talking maybe $50-100 million.

Patient renter in OC

[gverdi]

Something seems wrong in this study since the numbers of CA millionaires are distribute as such:

23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SC

That leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?

Feels like a paid study showing that moving to CA among SO many millionaires might not be a bad idea even after the latest tragic fires …

[The-Shoveler]

Actually this is not that hard to believe, especially if you use inflated values of rental and investment properties.

That does not mean they will stay that way but if you use 2005 real-estate prices maybe.

[raptorduck]

Odd that these studies confuse millionaires with “rich.” As has been correctly pointed out to me on this board, people with less than $10 million or so in net worth are not “rich” in the sense of the word given it by society.

If you have $1 million of net worth outside your equity in your home, you are upper middle class or just financially comfortable. If you have $10 million then you are financially secure and perhaps upper upper middle class. Above that number and you might be “working rich” or lower upper class. There are lots of lawyers, investment bankers, venture capitalists, and CEO’s who are working rich. They make $1 million-$75 million per year, but they work.

On the low end of that range, many must work to support their lifestyles and do not have high net worths. On the high end, they probably don’t have to work and if they have gotten their net worth over $20-$30 million, then they are finally what I would call “rich,” which I define as someone who is financially secure enough to live 100% from conservative appreciation of their liquid or nearly liquid assets AND have the kind of lifestyle/posessions society attributes to “rich” people.

Mind you that there are pleanty of folks who live very modestly and have few possessions and are “financially independent” from frugal savings and don’t have to work either. Those are not the type of folks society thinks of when they think of “rich” people, but many are more happy than your typical rich person.

[raptorduck]

Odd that these studies confuse millionaires with “rich.” As has been correctly pointed out to me on this board, people with less than $10 million or so in net worth are not “rich” in the sense of the word given it by society.

If you have $1 million of net worth outside your equity in your home, you are upper middle class or just financially comfortable. If you have $10 million then you are financially secure and perhaps upper upper middle class. Above that number and you might be “working rich” or lower upper class. There are lots of lawyers, investment bankers, venture capitalists, and CEO’s who are working rich. They make $1 million-$75 million per year, but they work.

On the low end of that range, many must work to support their lifestyles and do not have high net worths. On the high end, they probably don’t have to work and if they have gotten their net worth over $20-$30 million, then they are finally what I would call “rich,” which I define as someone who is financially secure enough to live 100% from conservative appreciation of their liquid or nearly liquid assets AND have the kind of lifestyle/posessions society attributes to “rich” people.

Mind you that there are pleanty of folks who live very modestly and have few possessions and are “financially independent” from frugal savings and don’t have to work either. Those are not the type of folks society thinks of when they think of “rich” people, but many are more happy than your typical rich person.

[raptorduck]

Odd that these studies confuse millionaires with “rich.” As has been correctly pointed out to me on this board, people with less than $10 million or so in net worth are not “rich” in the sense of the word given it by society.

If you have $1 million of net worth outside your equity in your home, you are upper middle class or just financially comfortable. If you have $10 million then you are financially secure and perhaps upper upper middle class. Above that number and you might be “working rich” or lower upper class. There are lots of lawyers, investment bankers, venture capitalists, and CEO’s who are working rich. They make $1 million-$75 million per year, but they work.

On the low end of that range, many must work to support their lifestyles and do not have high net worths. On the high end, they probably don’t have to work and if they have gotten their net worth over $20-$30 million, then they are finally what I would call “rich,” which I define as someone who is financially secure enough to live 100% from conservative appreciation of their liquid or nearly liquid assets AND have the kind of lifestyle/posessions society attributes to “rich” people.

Mind you that there are pleanty of folks who live very modestly and have few possessions and are “financially independent” from frugal savings and don’t have to work either. Those are not the type of folks society thinks of when they think of “rich” people, but many are more happy than your typical rich person.

[JWM in SD]

“Actually this is not that hard to believe, especially if you use inflated values of rental and investment properties.

That does not mean they will stay that way but if you use 2005 real-estate prices maybe.”

Precisely!!! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read “excluding primary residence”. CA is extremely RE-Centric. If their net worth is not derived from their primary residence then there is a high possibility that it is from investment properties or RE derived somehow. The survey is backward looking. How much RE wealth, investment or otherwise, was generated over the past decade?? A Lot.

I also wouldn’t be surprised that respondants did in fact include their primary residence in their response.

[Raybyrnes]

But couldn’t you argue that same for any business that you invest in. For instance Sears owns a ton of real estate. If I own a Mutual fund and it has performed well because in part Sears is doing well, then the value of my wealth is indirectly tied to real estate aswell. There are many companies who are set up to leverage their value in the form of real estate investment trusts etc.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Also, what are the ramifications of excluding one’s primary residence. I know it’s supposed to balance things out. But what if you have 500K of equity in your house and 700K in other assets. Your net worth is 700K according to the survey. Suppose tomorrow, you take out a Home Equity Loan for 300K and put it in the bank. Presto, you are a millionaire.

Consider two cases:

Joe Frugal: Joe owns his 1.3 Million personal residence, complete with 20-acres, a fallout shelter and supplies for armageddon after the housing bust. Joe also owns 350K of gold bullion, and 350K of Euro-denominated CD’s. According to the survey his net worth is 700K. (If you included his residence it would be 2 million)

Jim Upsidown: Jim bought his house in 2005 for 2 Million with a zero-down option ARM. He used what would have been his downpayment to invest in Ostrich Futures, which paid off big.
His house is now worth 1.3 Million, but he built up an ostrich nest-egg of 1.1 Million. According to the survey Jim has a net worth of 1.1 Million. He’s on of our lucky millionaires. (unofortunately, if you include his principle residence his is worth only about 400K.)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Also, what are the ramifications of excluding one’s primary residence. I know it’s supposed to balance things out. But what if you have 500K of equity in your house and 700K in other assets. Your net worth is 700K according to the survey. Suppose tomorrow, you take out a Home Equity Loan for 300K and put it in the bank. Presto, you are a millionaire.

Consider two cases:

Joe Frugal: Joe owns his 1.3 Million personal residence, complete with 20-acres, a fallout shelter and supplies for armageddon after the housing bust. Joe also owns 350K of gold bullion, and 350K of Euro-denominated CD’s. According to the survey his net worth is 700K. (If you included his residence it would be 2 million)

Jim Upsidown: Jim bought his house in 2005 for 2 Million with a zero-down option ARM. He used what would have been his downpayment to invest in Ostrich Futures, which paid off big.
His house is now worth 1.3 Million, but he built up an ostrich nest-egg of 1.1 Million. According to the survey Jim has a net worth of 1.1 Million. He’s on of our lucky millionaires. (unofortunately, if you include his principle residence his is worth only about 400K.)

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Also, what are the ramifications of excluding one’s primary residence. I know it’s supposed to balance things out. But what if you have 500K of equity in your house and 700K in other assets. Your net worth is 700K according to the survey. Suppose tomorrow, you take out a Home Equity Loan for 300K and put it in the bank. Presto, you are a millionaire.

Consider two cases:

Joe Frugal: Joe owns his 1.3 Million personal residence, complete with 20-acres, a fallout shelter and supplies for armageddon after the housing bust. Joe also owns 350K of gold bullion, and 350K of Euro-denominated CD’s. According to the survey his net worth is 700K. (If you included his residence it would be 2 million)

Jim Upsidown: Jim bought his house in 2005 for 2 Million with a zero-down option ARM. He used what would have been his downpayment to invest in Ostrich Futures, which paid off big.
His house is now worth 1.3 Million, but he built up an ostrich nest-egg of 1.1 Million. According to the survey Jim has a net worth of 1.1 Million. He’s on of our lucky millionaires. (unofortunately, if you include his principle residence his is worth only about 400K.)

[NotCranky]

As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value? Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash? My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset. Some of you are at least as biased as Joe Realtor.

I know some you think this is very rude but I am talking to people who can presumably dish it out, and take it.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It might just be me, but ignoring what is typically one’s largest asset in computing net worth seems ridiculous.

[NotCranky]

See, you have such a way with words. I was going to say it was a system designed by bitter renters! Just kidding,Just kidding really!

Man you could not get away with this fair and balanced approach on anyone else’s blog.

Thanks Rich

[VoZangre]

RW Emerson…

“Mind you that there are pleanty of folks who live very modestly and have few possessions and are “financially independent” from frugal savings and don’t have to work either. Those are not the type of folks society thinks of when they think of “rich” people, but many are more happy than your typical rich person. ”

Plenty? While I aspire to be of the above populace…

I doubt that many is really an accurate term.

Am thinking of ways to encourage (brainwash) the bride to be toward this goal…

[JWM in SD]

Assets – Liabilities = Owners Equity

Enough Said……

[JWM in SD]

Assets – Liabilities = Owners Equity

Enough Said……

[JWM in SD]

Assets – Liabilities = Owners Equity

Enough Said……

[Eugene]

two points.

first, 11% of households and 13% of families have annual incomes of 150K or higher. (On the other and, 35% of families earn less than 50K)

second, millionaire households are predominantly white married couples aged 55+.

[Eugene]

two points.

first, 11% of households and 13% of families have annual incomes of 150K or higher. (On the other and, 35% of families earn less than 50K)

second, millionaire households are predominantly white married couples aged 55+.

[Eugene]

two points.

first, 11% of households and 13% of families have annual incomes of 150K or higher. (On the other and, 35% of families earn less than 50K)

second, millionaire households are predominantly white married couples aged 55+.

[VoZangre]

RW Emerson…

“Mind you that there are pleanty of folks who live very modestly and have few possessions and are “financially independent” from frugal savings and don’t have to work either. Those are not the type of folks society thinks of when they think of “rich” people, but many are more happy than your typical rich person. ”

Plenty? While I aspire to be of the above populace…

I doubt that many is really an accurate term.

Am thinking of ways to encourage (brainwash) the bride to be toward this goal…

[VoZangre]

RW Emerson…

“Mind you that there are pleanty of folks who live very modestly and have few possessions and are “financially independent” from frugal savings and don’t have to work either. Those are not the type of folks society thinks of when they think of “rich” people, but many are more happy than your typical rich person. ”

Plenty? While I aspire to be of the above populace…

I doubt that many is really an accurate term.

Am thinking of ways to encourage (brainwash) the bride to be toward this goal…

[NotCranky]

See, you have such a way with words. I was going to say it was a system designed by bitter renters! Just kidding,Just kidding really!

Man you could not get away with this fair and balanced approach on anyone else’s blog.

Thanks Rich

[NotCranky]

See, you have such a way with words. I was going to say it was a system designed by bitter renters! Just kidding,Just kidding really!

Man you could not get away with this fair and balanced approach on anyone else’s blog.

Thanks Rich

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It might just be me, but ignoring what is typically one’s largest asset in computing net worth seems ridiculous.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

It might just be me, but ignoring what is typically one’s largest asset in computing net worth seems ridiculous.

[JWM in SD]

“As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value?”

No, of course not. However, there are investments that will lose less and make more than RE will. Specifically SoCal RE. Why do you think Rich has a new day job???

“Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash?”

Yes, I am. But I’ve also implemented strategies to mitigate that effect. I would not have that opportunity with RE. SoCal RE is depreciating and it’s denominated in USD. Double Whammy.

“My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset.”

Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right? Come on Rustico, you know better. That is the whole reason why this site exists “…Landed Poor”. I’ve long since reconciled with the possibility of never owning again. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I have accepted it if it does. That being said, I will only buy when the price point is acceptable to me and that will be somewhere far south of where it is now. If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future. How many will have credit and cash relative to listing inventory? That is operative question.

[NotCranky]

Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right?

I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.

You can own property at any time you want and it might be a good idea. Those possible options don’t appeal to you.

“If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future.”

Not really. Yours truly hasn’t ever flipped anything. The properties I have owned previous to this one were mine and the banks) an average of 6.5 years. A low level, working class widow made a small fortune from one of them. Someone who apparently is not as bright as you or even me, bought the other one in the spring of 05.
This property is a big piece of my overall low net worth,it is also splittable. I might give it to my kids developed when I die. If I could not have afforded it here, I was headed for Arkansas..or Prescott AZ. I could sell it and diversify better but that is going away from my strengths and I like life here.The size of it means I could sell a portion or build a rent-able home or 3.The original house with a smaller property, after the split is worth almost as much as it was before the split and the new lot has a ton of potential. besides, meanwhile, I want more money, but I don’t need it. Maybe I’ll end up living on my assets when I am old,or sooner. I don’t find that so unusual be the assets be a pile of cash, stocks or property or a combination.

Soliloquy:

I think the point is , investing in RE for comfort and prestige, before you can really afford it doesn’t work well for capitalization, but that doesn’t begin to describe the potential in the asset class. I see many people on this blog who, at least for the time being, see it in the shallow way .Hopefully some of them, especially those that should(the non rich), will see it differently before they pull the trigger regardless of the timing. Sounds grandiose for a slow starting, small fish like me, I know :).

Best wishes for a bright future.

[JWM in SD]

“I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.”

Don’t worry, I know you didn’t really mean it that way…just some verbal sparring on my part.

I shouldn’t have used “you” in my response. I meant that in a generic sense. Not your situation in particular. I’m not biased against RE…I’m biased against inflated, loose credit RE.

The issue is timing Rustico. It is critical when investing in anything. If the initial investment cost is too high, then it won’t make the hurdle rate. THis is what I learned in 2 plus years of analyzing RFQs and RFPs for Borg Warner Automotive.

[JWM in SD]

“I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.”

Don’t worry, I know you didn’t really mean it that way…just some verbal sparring on my part.

I shouldn’t have used “you” in my response. I meant that in a generic sense. Not your situation in particular. I’m not biased against RE…I’m biased against inflated, loose credit RE.

The issue is timing Rustico. It is critical when investing in anything. If the initial investment cost is too high, then it won’t make the hurdle rate. THis is what I learned in 2 plus years of analyzing RFQs and RFPs for Borg Warner Automotive.

[JWM in SD]

“I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.”

Don’t worry, I know you didn’t really mean it that way…just some verbal sparring on my part.

I shouldn’t have used “you” in my response. I meant that in a generic sense. Not your situation in particular. I’m not biased against RE…I’m biased against inflated, loose credit RE.

The issue is timing Rustico. It is critical when investing in anything. If the initial investment cost is too high, then it won’t make the hurdle rate. THis is what I learned in 2 plus years of analyzing RFQs and RFPs for Borg Warner Automotive.

[NotCranky]

Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right?

I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.

You can own property at any time you want and it might be a good idea. Those possible options don’t appeal to you.

“If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future.”

Not really. Yours truly hasn’t ever flipped anything. The properties I have owned previous to this one were mine and the banks) an average of 6.5 years. A low level, working class widow made a small fortune from one of them. Someone who apparently is not as bright as you or even me, bought the other one in the spring of 05.
This property is a big piece of my overall low net worth,it is also splittable. I might give it to my kids developed when I die. If I could not have afforded it here, I was headed for Arkansas..or Prescott AZ. I could sell it and diversify better but that is going away from my strengths and I like life here.The size of it means I could sell a portion or build a rent-able home or 3.The original house with a smaller property, after the split is worth almost as much as it was before the split and the new lot has a ton of potential. besides, meanwhile, I want more money, but I don’t need it. Maybe I’ll end up living on my assets when I am old,or sooner. I don’t find that so unusual be the assets be a pile of cash, stocks or property or a combination.

Soliloquy:

I think the point is , investing in RE for comfort and prestige, before you can really afford it doesn’t work well for capitalization, but that doesn’t begin to describe the potential in the asset class. I see many people on this blog who, at least for the time being, see it in the shallow way .Hopefully some of them, especially those that should(the non rich), will see it differently before they pull the trigger regardless of the timing. Sounds grandiose for a slow starting, small fish like me, I know :).

Best wishes for a bright future.

[NotCranky]

Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right?

I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.

You can own property at any time you want and it might be a good idea. Those possible options don’t appeal to you.

“If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future.”

Not really. Yours truly hasn’t ever flipped anything. The properties I have owned previous to this one were mine and the banks) an average of 6.5 years. A low level, working class widow made a small fortune from one of them. Someone who apparently is not as bright as you or even me, bought the other one in the spring of 05.
This property is a big piece of my overall low net worth,it is also splittable. I might give it to my kids developed when I die. If I could not have afforded it here, I was headed for Arkansas..or Prescott AZ. I could sell it and diversify better but that is going away from my strengths and I like life here.The size of it means I could sell a portion or build a rent-able home or 3.The original house with a smaller property, after the split is worth almost as much as it was before the split and the new lot has a ton of potential. besides, meanwhile, I want more money, but I don’t need it. Maybe I’ll end up living on my assets when I am old,or sooner. I don’t find that so unusual be the assets be a pile of cash, stocks or property or a combination.

Soliloquy:

I think the point is , investing in RE for comfort and prestige, before you can really afford it doesn’t work well for capitalization, but that doesn’t begin to describe the potential in the asset class. I see many people on this blog who, at least for the time being, see it in the shallow way .Hopefully some of them, especially those that should(the non rich), will see it differently before they pull the trigger regardless of the timing. Sounds grandiose for a slow starting, small fish like me, I know :).

Best wishes for a bright future.

[JWM in SD]

“As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value?”

No, of course not. However, there are investments that will lose less and make more than RE will. Specifically SoCal RE. Why do you think Rich has a new day job???

“Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash?”

Yes, I am. But I’ve also implemented strategies to mitigate that effect. I would not have that opportunity with RE. SoCal RE is depreciating and it’s denominated in USD. Double Whammy.

“My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset.”

Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right? Come on Rustico, you know better. That is the whole reason why this site exists “…Landed Poor”. I’ve long since reconciled with the possibility of never owning again. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I have accepted it if it does. That being said, I will only buy when the price point is acceptable to me and that will be somewhere far south of where it is now. If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future. How many will have credit and cash relative to listing inventory? That is operative question.

[JWM in SD]

“As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value?”

No, of course not. However, there are investments that will lose less and make more than RE will. Specifically SoCal RE. Why do you think Rich has a new day job???

“Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash?”

Yes, I am. But I’ve also implemented strategies to mitigate that effect. I would not have that opportunity with RE. SoCal RE is depreciating and it’s denominated in USD. Double Whammy.

“My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset.”

Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right? Come on Rustico, you know better. That is the whole reason why this site exists “…Landed Poor”. I’ve long since reconciled with the possibility of never owning again. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I have accepted it if it does. That being said, I will only buy when the price point is acceptable to me and that will be somewhere far south of where it is now. If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future. How many will have credit and cash relative to listing inventory? That is operative question.

[NotCranky]

As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value? Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash? My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset. Some of you are at least as biased as Joe Realtor.

I know some you think this is very rude but I am talking to people who can presumably dish it out, and take it.

[NotCranky]

As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value? Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash? My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset. Some of you are at least as biased as Joe Realtor.

I know some you think this is very rude but I am talking to people who can presumably dish it out, and take it.

[JWM in SD]

“Sears is doing well”

If Sears is only doing well because of their RE holdings then I would short their stock immediately after selling my long holdings. Second, define doing well as a result of RE??? How does that affect their P&L or Cashflow? That is primarily reflected on their balance sheet.

[JWM in SD]

“Sears is doing well”

If Sears is only doing well because of their RE holdings then I would short their stock immediately after selling my long holdings. Second, define doing well as a result of RE??? How does that affect their P&L or Cashflow? That is primarily reflected on their balance sheet.

[JWM in SD]

“Sears is doing well”

If Sears is only doing well because of their RE holdings then I would short their stock immediately after selling my long holdings. Second, define doing well as a result of RE??? How does that affect their P&L or Cashflow? That is primarily reflected on their balance sheet.

[Raybyrnes]

But couldn’t you argue that same for any business that you invest in. For instance Sears owns a ton of real estate. If I own a Mutual fund and it has performed well because in part Sears is doing well, then the value of my wealth is indirectly tied to real estate aswell. There are many companies who are set up to leverage their value in the form of real estate investment trusts etc.

[Raybyrnes]

But couldn’t you argue that same for any business that you invest in. For instance Sears owns a ton of real estate. If I own a Mutual fund and it has performed well because in part Sears is doing well, then the value of my wealth is indirectly tied to real estate aswell. There are many companies who are set up to leverage their value in the form of real estate investment trusts etc.

[JWM in SD]

“Actually this is not that hard to believe, especially if you use inflated values of rental and investment properties.

That does not mean they will stay that way but if you use 2005 real-estate prices maybe.”

Precisely!!! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read “excluding primary residence”. CA is extremely RE-Centric. If their net worth is not derived from their primary residence then there is a high possibility that it is from investment properties or RE derived somehow. The survey is backward looking. How much RE wealth, investment or otherwise, was generated over the past decade?? A Lot.

I also wouldn’t be surprised that respondants did in fact include their primary residence in their response.

[JWM in SD]

“Actually this is not that hard to believe, especially if you use inflated values of rental and investment properties.

That does not mean they will stay that way but if you use 2005 real-estate prices maybe.”

Precisely!!! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read “excluding primary residence”. CA is extremely RE-Centric. If their net worth is not derived from their primary residence then there is a high possibility that it is from investment properties or RE derived somehow. The survey is backward looking. How much RE wealth, investment or otherwise, was generated over the past decade?? A Lot.

I also wouldn’t be surprised that respondants did in fact include their primary residence in their response.

[The-Shoveler]

Actually this is not that hard to believe, especially if you use inflated values of rental and investment properties.

That does not mean they will stay that way but if you use 2005 real-estate prices maybe.

[The-Shoveler]

Actually this is not that hard to believe, especially if you use inflated values of rental and investment properties.

That does not mean they will stay that way but if you use 2005 real-estate prices maybe.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SC

That leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?

A bit myopic.

You forgot the following not-so-poor counties which could easily contribute a few percent (e.g. 3-5%) of the states millionaires.
Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma, Napa, Sacramento

Throw in some rural ranchers and landowners from the other 46 counties and there you go.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SC

That leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?

A bit myopic.

You forgot the following not-so-poor counties which could easily contribute a few percent (e.g. 3-5%) of the states millionaires.
Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma, Napa, Sacramento

Throw in some rural ranchers and landowners from the other 46 counties and there you go.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SC

That leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?

A bit myopic.

You forgot the following not-so-poor counties which could easily contribute a few percent (e.g. 3-5%) of the states millionaires.
Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma, Napa, Sacramento

Throw in some rural ranchers and landowners from the other 46 counties and there you go.

[gverdi]

Something seems wrong in this study since the numbers of CA millionaires are distribute as such:

23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SC

That leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?

Feels like a paid study showing that moving to CA among SO many millionaires might not be a bad idea even after the latest tragic fires …

[gverdi]

Something seems wrong in this study since the numbers of CA millionaires are distribute as such:

23% of households in LA
10% of households in OC
9% of households in SD
6% of households in SC

That leaves 52% of the CA millionaires living in Riverside, San Fernando Valley or maybe Inland Empire?

Feels like a paid study showing that moving to CA among SO many millionaires might not be a bad idea even after the latest tragic fires …

[Author]

Posts