Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
Post Reply
User avatar
burt
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:47 am

Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by burt » Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:25 pm

Interesting Scott Burns article. Hope the link works below.

http://assetbuilder.com/scott_burns/ano ... _investing

You reach a maximum net worth between the ages of 60-69.
You are in the top 12.5% with a net worth of $712,000 - Including your home.

Even with Social Security (and maybe a pension) that is far from high living.
Modest comfortable living....maybe.

burt

User avatar
Sheepdog
Posts: 5193
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Indiana, retired 1998 at age 65

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by Sheepdog » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:05 pm

How well you live on that depends on where you live. For example, in California or Connecticut, I have seen a similar home as mine($140,000 appraisal today on 1/2 acre wooded lot) listed in areas of those states well over $500K. My net worth is not too far from that, and I live very well on that plus SS, but I do live in a low cost area of the mid-west. Plus, my net worth is higher than it ever has been at age 80.
Last edited by Sheepdog on Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's not what you gather, but what you scatter which tells what kind of life you have lived---Helen Walton

User avatar
EternalOptimist
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:21 pm
Location: New York

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by EternalOptimist » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:09 pm

Works for me. If this is modest what about the other 87.5%
"When nothing goes right....go left"

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18634
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by VictoriaF » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:19 pm

Quoting from the article,
Scott Burns wrote:Based on data from the Survey of Consumer Finances that is done every three years by the Federal Reserve, it shows that households reach the maximum wealth level at 60 to 69 years old and that the median net worth of the top 25 percent of households is $712,000. Another way of saying this is that you are in the top 12.5 percent of wealth with a net worth of $712,000.
The first question I usually have is how to compare 1-person households to 2-person households. While 2-person households offer some savings on the cost of housing, most expenses are individual. Every member of the household has her own car, her own hobbies, her own vacations, he own restaurant meals, etc.

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

IlliniDave
Posts: 2294
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:52 pm

I don't know why a median income family would be worried that they cannot entirely replicate their working income with just a portfolio alone. Half the families in this country don't earn 50K/yr, so it's not a surprise only a minority have a portfolio that will spin that off.
The first question I usually have is how to compare 1-person households to 2-person households. While 2-person households offer some savings on the cost of housing, most expenses are individual. Every member of the household has her own car, her own hobbies, her own vacations, he own restaurant meals, etc.

Victoria
Victoria, the following link will give you some wealth statistics that breaks out single person households.

http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html

It doesn't speak to "needs" , but it gives some statistical differences in singles relative to others. I'm quite unusual for a single male householder, I learned. And that's a good thing! My rule of thumb is a single can live on about 70% of what a couple needs when buying/renting. If your home is paid for can probably go down to 50%. But as with everything it depends on a lot of specifics.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

MichaelM24
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by MichaelM24 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:06 pm

Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18634
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by VictoriaF » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:12 pm

IlliniDave wrote:Victoria, the following link will give you some wealth statistics that breaks out single person households.

http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html

It doesn't speak to "needs" , but it gives some statistical differences in singles relative to others. I'm quite unusual for a single male householder, I learned. And that's a good thing! My rule of thumb is a single can live on about 70% of what a couple needs when buying/renting. If your home is paid for can probably go down to 50%. But as with everything it depends on a lot of specifics.
Dave,

Even the buying/renting comparisons are not clear-cut, because the residence for one person is optimized for that person, whereas the residence to a couple must accommodate their individual tastes, requirements and commute.

The U.S. Census data you linked shows the median values, in contrast with Scott Burns's article focusing on the wealthier part of the population. For 2011, Table 1 shows an interesting comparison of the median net worth of single men and women:

Male householder
35 to 54 years - $24,813
55 to 64 years - $55,718
65 years and over - $130,000

Female householder
35 to 54 years - $9,640
55 to 64 years - $61,879
65 years and over - $104,000

Single women make strong gains and "overtake" single men in the age group of 55-64, but after the age of 65 they again drop behind men. I am curious if there are underlying demographic reasons for this, or it's just the statistical reality that someone has to be on top.

Victoria
Last edited by VictoriaF on Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

User avatar
burt
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:47 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by burt » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:15 pm

MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Think statistics. Mean vs Average.

burt

Bacchus01
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:35 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by Bacchus01 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:19 pm

MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Um, the U.S. is not even the richest country right now, let alone ever.

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18634
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by VictoriaF » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:25 pm

MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
If you take your U.S. assets and relocate to a third-world country, you clearly move up on the wealth scale. However, when you live in the U.S. you pay the U.S. prices. One's greatest expenses are taxes and housing, and both are tied to the U.S. demographics, not to the global demographics. The medical costs reflect the costs of the U.S. doctors and pharmaceutical products. The cost of having a vehicle reflects it's marketing, delivery and service in the U.S. The cost of groceries reflects the cost of land in the U.S. and the U.S. wages of people who work in the store. And so on.

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

MichaelM24
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by MichaelM24 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:26 pm

Um, the U.S. is not even the richest country right now, let alone ever.
I was thinking market cap, but you are right.

MichaelM24
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by MichaelM24 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:27 pm

If you take your U.S. assets and relocate to a third-world country, you clearly move up on the wealth scale.
Or Texas :happy

User avatar
bengal22
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by bengal22 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:31 pm

burt wrote:
MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Think statistics. Mean vs Average.

burt
huh. mean vs. average?
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley

ddunca1944
Posts: 926
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:49 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by ddunca1944 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:32 pm

Bacchus01 wrote:
MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Um, the U.S. is not even the richest country right now, let alone ever.
What country is the richest if not the US?

Bacchus01
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:35 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by Bacchus01 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:34 pm

ddunca1944 wrote:
Bacchus01 wrote:
MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Um, the U.S. is not even the richest country right now, let alone ever.
What country is the richest if not the US?
There are six currently listed as richer than the US

Qatar
Luxembourg
Singapore
Norway
Brunei
Hong Kong (considered a City Country part of China)
United States

OCR
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:37 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by OCR » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:45 pm

MichaelM24 wrote:
If you take your U.S. assets and relocate to a third-world country, you clearly move up on the wealth scale.
Or Texas :happy
Same thing. :D

IlliniDave
Posts: 2294
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:26 pm

VictoriaF wrote:
IlliniDave wrote:Victoria, the following link will give you some wealth statistics that breaks out single person households.

http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html

It doesn't speak to "needs" , but it gives some statistical differences in singles relative to others. I'm quite unusual for a single male householder, I learned. And that's a good thing! My rule of thumb is a single can live on about 70% of what a couple needs when buying/renting. If your home is paid for can probably go down to 50%. But as with everything it depends on a lot of specifics.
Dave,

Even the buying/renting comparisons are not clear-cut, because the residence for one person is optimized for that person, whereas the residence to a couple must accommodate their individual tastes, requirements and commute.

The U.S. Census data you linked shows the median values, in contrast with Scott Burns's article focusing on the wealthier part of the population. For 2011, Table 1 shows an interesting comparison of the median net worth of single men and women:

Male householder
35 to 54 years - $24,813
55 to 64 years - $55,718
65 years and over - $130,000

Female householder
35 to 54 years - $9,640
55 to 64 years - $61,879
65 years and over - $104,000

Single women make strong gains and "overtake" single men in the age group of 55-64, but after the age of 65 they again drop behind men. I am curious if there are underlying demographic reasons for this, or it's just the statistical reality that someone has to be on top.

Victoria
Oh, I understand it's not clear cut. That's why I said it has a lot of dependence on the specifics. But most houses could equally accommodate a couple or a single, so if that's paid for it's largely a matter of two people's personal expenses versus one, and in the aggregate that will probably come out close to a 2:1 ratio. Could be more, could (more likely) be somewhat less. If there's a house payment involved, a single has twice the per capita house (or rent) payment of the couple in the aggregate. I was thinking in terms of people in retirement so commutes, kids and commensurate growth in home size requirements, and the like aren't part of my little rules-of-thumb.

Table 4 gives some insight on the distributions. I did notice that female householders tended to outpace their male counterparts and had not notice the reversal for over 65. Maybe it has something to do with the effects of relative longevity for women relative to men. I would guess the far end of that category, say 85 and up, is largely female and that's probably getting to be a time where resources have been spent down. I'd guess you also get a fair number of people just entering that category after the death of a spouse/partner (without coming up through the ranks), the majority female, possibly with depleted resources due to that event.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18634
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by VictoriaF » Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:54 pm

IlliniDave wrote:Oh, I understand it's not clear cut. That's why I said it has a lot of dependence on the specifics. But most houses could equally accommodate a couple or a single, so if that's paid for it's largely a matter of two people's personal expenses versus one, and in the aggregate that will probably come out close to a 2:1 ratio. Could be more, could (more likely) be somewhat less. If there's a house payment involved, a single has twice the per capita house (or rent) payment of the couple in the aggregate. I was thinking in terms of people in retirement so commutes, kids and commensurate growth in home size requirements, and the like aren't part of my little rules-of-thumb.
We were looking at housing from different perspectives. If you already have a house, you consider if it could easily accommodate the second person and reduce payments per person. If you don't own your residence (my case), you consider if it would be economical to live with someone else. In the latter case, the economics are more involved, because one person may want a home gym, while the other person may want a library; one person may want to give dinner parties, while the other person may want to have a large home entertainment center. When you try to accommodate the desires of both sides, the joint home may be even bigger than the sum of their individual homes. Commute is not an issue in retirement, but here also could be differences, for example, if one person wants to live in the downtown and the other person wants to be close to a hiking area.
IlliniDave wrote:Table 4 gives some insight on the distributions. I did notice that female householders tended to outpace their male counterparts and had not notice the reversal for over 65. Maybe it has something to do with the effects of relative longevity for women relative to men. I would guess the far end of that category, say 85 and up, is largely female and that's probably getting to be a time where resources have been spent down. I'd guess you also get a fair number of people just entering that category after the death of a spouse/partner (without coming up through the ranks), the majority female, possibly with depleted resources due to that event.
Table 4 is interesting. In the 55-64 group, more women than men have "Zero or Negative Household Net Worth" but there are approximately 10% more women in the $50k to $500k net-worth range. It seems that there are more poor women than men, but once women make it into the middle class, they do slightly better.

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

IlliniDave
Posts: 2294
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:59 pm

VictoriaF wrote:
We were looking at housing from different perspectives. If you already have a house, you consider if it could easily accommodate the second person and reduce payments per person. If you don't own your residence (my case), you consider if it would be economical to live with someone else. In the latter case, the economics are more involved, because one person may want a home gym, while the other person may want a library; one person may want to give dinner parties, while the other person may want to have a large home entertainment center. When you try to accommodate the desires of both sides, the joint home may be even bigger than the sum of their individual homes. Commute is not an issue in retirement, but here also could be differences, for example, if one person wants to live in the downtown and the other person wants to be close to a hiking area.

Victoria

Yes, it can get quite complicated with two people, especially if they want to make it so. At some point it doesn't make economic sense for people so disparate in their wants to live together. That's one of the reasons why, having tried that lifestyle once, I doubt I'll be going back to it. For my planning I tend to pare it down to the rough order of magnitude type stuff, rather than speculating on creating dream homes. Don't have enough money to do that, even just for myself, haha. All that said, I think in the aggregate/for most people it's far less complicated than your scenario.
Last edited by IlliniDave on Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

bobbun
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by bobbun » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:00 pm

VictoriaF wrote:Male householder
35 to 54 years - $24,813
55 to 64 years - $55,718
65 years and over - $130,000

Female householder
35 to 54 years - $9,640
55 to 64 years - $61,879
65 years and over - $104,000

Single women make strong gains and "overtake" single men in the age group of 55-64, but after the age of 65 they again drop behind men. I am curious if there are underlying demographic reasons for this, or it's just the statistical reality that someone has to be on top.
Demographics, I think. Consider age differences in marriage (on average, not in specific cases) and in life expectancy between males and females. Then consider how you get to be a single householder. Some people fall into that category lifelong, but there are other ways to land in that group. Yes, I'm speculating, but it seems much more likely that there is a significant uptick in new widows in that age group than that there was a dramatic reversal of wage disparity.

User avatar
Watty
Posts: 14615
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by Watty » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:33 pm

This quote from the article is a good example of a misleading statement that uses two unrelated facts and lets you assume that they are related.
, it shows that households reach the maximum wealth level at 60 to 69 years old and that the median net worth of the top 25 percent of households is $712,000.
It does not say that the $712K figure has anything to do with your wealth at the ages of 60 to 69.

Someone that has a peak net worth of a couple of million dollars when they retire at 65 would likely have had a more modest net worth when they were 35 or when they are 85. Their lifetime median net worth could have been a $712K even though they were multi-millionaires when they retired.

Jack
Posts: 3254
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:24 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by Jack » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:32 pm

Watty wrote:This quote from the article is a good example of a misleading statement that uses two unrelated facts and lets you assume that they are related.
, it shows that households reach the maximum wealth level at 60 to 69 years old and that the median net worth of the top 25 percent of households is $712,000.
It does not say that the $712K figure has anything to do with your wealth at the ages of 60 to 69.
Actually, those two figures are related as you see from the table at the end of this article. $712K is the median net wealth for the top 25% of the 60 to 69 age group. The 60 to 69 age group is also the peak wealth.

http://assetbuilder.com/scott_burns/the ... scoreboard

User avatar
market timer
Posts: 5969
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:42 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by market timer » Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:33 am

Bacchus01 wrote:
ddunca1944 wrote:
Bacchus01 wrote:
MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Um, the U.S. is not even the richest country right now, let alone ever.
What country is the richest if not the US?
There are six currently listed as richer than the US...
Here's a list based on net worth that puts Switzerland at the top, about 80% above the US, which is #7:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/ ... d=33703974

Will be interesting to see where the US is in another 20-30 years.

denovo
Posts: 4384
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:04 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by denovo » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:30 am

Sheepdog wrote:How well you live on that depends on where you live. For example, in California or Connecticut, I have seen a similar home as mine($140,000 appraisal today on 1/2 acre wooded lot) listed in areas of those states well over $500K. My net worth is not too far from that, and I live very well on that plus SS, but I do live in a low cost area of the mid-west. Plus, my net worth is higher than it ever has been at age 80.
Why does one need a half-acre lot? Chopping wood for fun? Raising chicken? A 2,000 SQ. ft two-story home with a decent backyard for entertaining (that is if you are in California, and not the freezing midwest) will not be more than a quarter acre, and even a lot less.
"Don't trust everything you read on the Internet"- Abraham Lincoln

Diogenes
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:58 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by Diogenes » Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:06 am

Bacchus01 wrote:
ddunca1944 wrote:
Bacchus01 wrote:
MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Um, the U.S. is not even the richest country right now, let alone ever.
What country is the richest if not the US?
There are six currently listed as richer than the US

Qatar
Luxembourg
Singapore
Norway
Brunei
Hong Kong (considered a City Country part of China)
United States
Of course by GDP the U.S. far out shadows the others listed. These statistics on a per capita basis are meaningless unless you account for cost of living and standard of living for the average person. Doing that would toss out Switzerland, Singapore and Norway first, as they are three of the most expensive places on the globe. If you account for political freedom, HK and Qatar go next.

User avatar
midareff
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by midareff » Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:19 am


User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 7372
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by jeffyscott » Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:40 am

midareff wrote:Chart says top 25% not 12.5%. http://assetbuilder.com/scott_burns/the ... scoreboard
That is the median net worth of the top 25%. So the person in the middle of the top 25% has $712,000. Since that is the middle person among that top 25%, 1/2 of that 25% or 12.5% have more than $712,000.
press on, regardless - John C. Bogle

User avatar
1210sda
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:31 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by 1210sda » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:03 am

Does the survey include the equity value of your personal assets (home, auto, personal use stuff) ??

1210

manwithnoname
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by manwithnoname » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:09 am

Why does anyone care abut this meaningless metric? It doesn't provide any information on investing or retirement income.

bradshaw1965
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by bradshaw1965 » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:54 am

jeffyscott wrote:
midareff wrote:Chart says top 25% not 12.5%. http://assetbuilder.com/scott_burns/the ... scoreboard
That is the median net worth of the top 25%. So the person in the middle of the top 25% has $712,000. Since that is the middle person among that top 25%, 1/2 of that 25% or 12.5% have more than $712,000.
To be in the top 10 percent of your age group in your twenties, for instance, you only need to have a net worth of $83,000. You’ll need more than 20 times as much, a handsome $1,955,000 to be in the top 10 percent if you are in your sixties.

Another thing to notice is that whatever your wealth level, it peaks in the same decade of life--- our sixties. The top 1 percent enjoy a peak wealth of nearly $11.7 million in their sixties while those in the top 1 percent in their eighties have a net worth of about $5.9 million. Ditto, those in the top 25 percent: Their wealth peaks at $712,000 in their sixties and falls to $514,000 in their eighties.
It may be a statistical anomaly, but that seems to be a big spread of over 1.2 million dollars between 12.5% and 10%. Median of the 25% and median of the 10%, or entering 10%? Not sure.

JoeTaxpayer
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:12 am

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by JoeTaxpayer » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:05 am

bradshaw1965 wrote:
It may be a statistical anomaly, but that seems to be a big spread of over 1.2 million dollars between 12.5% and 10%. Median of the 25% and median of the 10%, or entering 10%? Not sure.
The chart is median vs cutoff or entry level.

Median of the top 25% is actually the cutoff for top 12.5%, median of top 10% is the cutoff to be a top 5%er. It makes perfect sense that $700K gets you to 12.5%, but takes $2M to hit 5%. Then $3.8M for 2.5% level.

User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 7372
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by jeffyscott » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:31 am

bradshaw1965 wrote:
To be in the top 10 percent of your age group in your twenties, for instance, you only need to have a net worth of $83,000. You’ll need more than 20 times as much, a handsome $1,955,000 to be in the top 10 percent if you are in your sixties.

Another thing to notice is that whatever your wealth level, it peaks in the same decade of life--- our sixties. The top 1 percent enjoy a peak wealth of nearly $11.7 million in their sixties while those in the top 1 percent in their eighties have a net worth of about $5.9 million. Ditto, those in the top 25 percent: Their wealth peaks at $712,000 in their sixties and falls to $514,000 in their eighties.
It may be a statistical anomaly, but that seems to be a big spread of over 1.2 million dollars between 12.5% and 10%. Median of the 25% and median of the 10%, or entering 10%? Not sure.
I think that is just an error in what he wrote. I assume the chart has the correct labeling and the figures he stated as putting you into the top X%, actually put you at the median of that group.
press on, regardless - John C. Bogle

Bacchus01
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:35 pm

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by Bacchus01 » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:39 am

Diogenes wrote:
Bacchus01 wrote:
ddunca1944 wrote:
Bacchus01 wrote:
MichaelM24 wrote:Wow does that guy live in a bubble?

When you think being in the top 12.5% of the richest country ever is "modestly well off" you may be out of touch.
Um, the U.S. is not even the richest country right now, let alone ever.
What country is the richest if not the US?
There are six currently listed as richer than the US

Qatar
Luxembourg
Singapore
Norway
Brunei
Hong Kong (considered a City Country part of China)
United States
Of course by GDP the U.S. far out shadows the others listed. These statistics on a per capita basis are meaningless unless you account for cost of living and standard of living for the average person. Doing that would toss out Switzerland, Singapore and Norway first, as they are three of the most expensive places on the globe. If you account for political freedom, HK and Qatar go next.

Interesting, and yet not meaningful. The generally accepted measure of a country's wealth is GDP per capita. Having the biggest GDP doesn't really matter, because we aren't talking about the country, we are talking about the people IN the country and their position in it.

Bottom line, the U.S. is not and I don't believe ever has been the richest country in the world.

User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 7372
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by jeffyscott » Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:10 am

I think median net worth is more meaningful than mean net worth. According Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, it appears that the US is lower than:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Luxemburg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Qatar
Singapore
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
UAE
United Kingdom

Interestingly, according to that publication, a similar level of assets puts one in the top 1% worldwide: "To belong to the top percentile (i.e. top 1%) of the global wealth distribution requires USD 710,000 in mid 2012".
press on, regardless - John C. Bogle

User avatar
midareff
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Top 12.5% with $712,000 net worth

Post by midareff » Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:48 am

jeffyscott wrote:
midareff wrote:Chart says top 25% not 12.5%. http://assetbuilder.com/scott_burns/the ... scoreboard
That is the median net worth of the top 25%. So the person in the middle of the top 25% has $712,000. Since that is the middle person among that top 25%, 1/2 of that 25% or 12.5% have more than $712,000.

You are right Jeff and I stand corrected. .. and to go a step further, that would mean that $712K is the bottom of the barrel or cut-off for the top 12.5%.

Post Reply