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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[(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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts