Investor Behavior: Capital Flow Analysis: Rich and Poor
Investment Theory: Capital Flow Analysis: Rich and Poor
Rich and Poor
It is convenient to think of U.S. households as divided into three segments:
The Non-Rich
This segment represents the 90% of the population that had family assets in 1998 of less than $475,000.
The average per capita wealth of the Non-Rich was about $41,000, and the median was far less since the poor have few assets.
The principal asset of the Non-Rich family is a residence.
The principal asset of the typical Non-Rich family is a residence that makes up more than half of net worth.
The median Non-Rich household in 1998 had reserves that would carry a family for three months or less. The reason that the Non-Rich shift holdings of financial assets is to seek stability in their living standard.
Most saving is based on daily needs, such as home payments or maintaining bank balances.
The bottom 18% of the U.S. population lives in poverty. The Poor either have no assets or have negative net worth. The Non-Rich received 58.8% of national income in 1998 and owed 73% of personal debt.
The Rich
This segment represents the 9% of the U.S. population that had family assets in 1998 from $475,000 to $3,350,000.
Many of the Rich do not consider themselves rich, but only middle-class.
Many in this group do not consider themselves rich.
Some of their wealth is tied up in a home that yields no income, but is subject to taxes and expense.
Their savings are necessary for retirement or education of their offspring.
The more affluent Rich, those with over $2,000,000 in net assets, have sufficient resources to live for an extended period on interest if they spend frugally.
However, the Rich do not have enough to buy national political influence and are vulnerable to taxation, inflation, and bad times.
Since their combined wealth is about 32.4% of total financial assets, changes in investment preferences of the Rich move market prices.
The Rich received 24.6% of national income in 1998 and held 19.9% of personal debt.
The Super-Rich
This segment consists of the 1% of the U.S. population with family assets in 1998 of more than $3,350,000 and owning 38.1% of the nations’ wealth.
The top ½ of 1% of Americans have so much wealth that they can influence legislators and hire experts to effectively shield their assets from taxation and other risks.
The Super-Rich can protect wealth beyond their own lives, providing affluence for their descendents.
The Super-Rich, if they are reasonably prudent, will not be forced into selling assets because of loss of a job or poor economic times.
Most of their wealth is in stocks, mutual funds, bonds, bank deposits, and pensions, rather than their own home.
If they invest with care and take advantage of their ability to buy the best professional advice, the Super-Rich can protect wealth beyond their own lives and provide continued affluence for their descendents.
Many of the Super-Rich are linked to the governing class.
The Super-Rich received 16.6% of national income in 1998 and owed only 7.1% of personal debt.
A Regressive Income Tax
Contrary to popular belief, income tax in the U.S. is extremely regressive, since it does not tax wealth but income.
The income tax does not tax wealth but income.
A wealthy person may have $100 million dollars in assets, yielding, say, 2% in dividend income, or $2 million a year. If the 'progressive' income tax rate was 40%, this would reduce the multi-millionaire's assets by less than 1%.
In contrast, a middle-class owner of a restaurant (say, in rented property with $100,000 of equipment), might have annual net income of, say, $200,000 (what liberals call 'rich').
A 40% tax on this income would reduce the middle-class owner's assets by about 27%. The U.S. income tax system benefits the wealthy, since the distribution of income is different than the distribution of wealth:
% of Population |
% of Financial Assets (1998) |
% of National Income (1998) |
Ratio of Income to Assets |
% of Income Tax (1996) |
Minimum Family Wealth (1998) |
|
| Super-Rich | 1 | 47.1 | 16.6 | 0.35 | 31.7 | $3,350,000 |
| Rich | 9 | 32.4 | 24.6 | 0.75 | 30.3 | $475,000 |
| Non-Rich | 90 | 20.5 | 58.8 | 2.86 | 38.0 | Negative |
The impact of the regressive income tax has been to widen the spread between rich and poor.
'Limousine Liberals', such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Kennedy's, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Lyndon Johnson, John Edwards, Herbert Kohl, and the nabobs in Hollywood and the media, have found that by claiming to 'tax the rich', using the machinery of the Democrat Party and appealing to the 40% of the population on the low side of the Bell Curve, they can get votes and power, becoming ever richer.
How the Non-Rich Have Fared
Using the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Accounts, statistics from the Survey of Consumer Finances, and Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership 1983-1998 (Edward N. Wolff), it is possible to estimate trends in the disposition of wealth in the three great economic classes in America.
During the last two decades of the 20th century, the distribution of wealth of the Non-Rich evolved as follows:
1983 |
1987 |
1992 |
1997 |
|
Home Equity |
38.6% | 37.5% | 35.0% | 27.7% |
Deposits, Money Market Funds |
22.9% | 19.5% | 19.0% | 16.9% |
Bonds, Fixed Income Securities |
2.3% | 2.3% | 2.1% | 3.1% |
Stocks, Mutual Funds |
2.6% | 4.3% | 6.4% | 10.3% |
Life Insurance Reserves |
4.0% | 3.0% | 3.5% | 3.2% |
Pension Reserves |
12.4% | 20.1% | 22.1% | 29.6% |
Trusts |
0.4% | 0.8% | 1.1% | 0.9% |
Non Corporate Business |
6.3% | 5.0% | 4.1% | 3.4% |
Total |
100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
The Non-Rich invest conservatively in home equity, bank accounts, life insurance, and pension reserves.
The table shows that about 79% of the wealth of the Non-Rich was not directly invested in stocks and bonds, but rather in daily necessities such as a home, a bank account, life insurance, and employer directed pension reserves.
The general stance of the Non-Rich investor has been conservative.
The boom in stock prices resulted in stocks and mutual funds representing about 10% of average family wealth, however, bank deposits, money market funds, and fixed income securities represented about twice the percentage of household wealth as did direct investment in equities and mutual funds.
Although the general stance of the Non-Rich investor has been conservative, the shift into equities and pension reserves (about two-thirds of which are invested in stocks and mutual fund shares) has made the well-being of most Americans subject to fluctuations in stock prices.
In 1997, about 29% of assets of the Non-Rich were exposed to financial market risk.
This may be compared to 11% in 1983 when the boom was just beginning.
A 50% fall in stock prices would decrease the wealth of the average Non-Rich household by about 20% in 1997, compared to only 5% in 1983.
Per capita data of wealth distribution in 1997 dollars, provides another view, as shown in this table:
| 1983 | 1987 | 1992 | 1997 | Impact of 50% Fall in Equity Prices |
|
Home Equity |
$11,862 | $14,146 | $11,940 | $11,343 | $11,343 |
Deposits, Money Market Funds |
$7,042 | $7,363 | $6,473 | $6,907 | $6,907 |
Bonds, Fixed Income Securities |
$718 | $878 | $732 | $1,274 | $1,274 |
Stocks, Mutual Funds |
$797 | $1,604 | $2,167 | $4,216 | $2,108 |
Life Insurance Reserves |
$1,226 | $1,134 | $1,197 | $1,311 | $1,311 |
Pension Reserves |
$3,802 | $7,573 | $7,526 | $12,122 | $8,122 |
Trusts |
$123 | $312 | $386 | $368 | $368 |
Non Corporate Business |
$1,941 | $1,872 | $1,408 | $1,406 | $1,406 |
Total |
$30,706 | $37,691 | $34,109 | $40,944 | $32,839 |
Except for equities, mutual funds, and pension fund reserves, the average Non-Rich household did not make much progress in increasing net worth in real terms.
Holdings of home equity, deposits and money market funds, and non-corporate business interests were all down from fifteen year before.
The primary reason for the rise of equity prices over this period was that corporations were aggressively buying their own securities.
The price rise was not due to an increase in the investment merit of the securities.
The increase in per capita wealth from 1983 to 1997 reflected a long-term speculative bubble.
The increase in per capita wealth from 1983 to 1997 reflected a long-term speculative bubble, rather than values related to improved dividend paying capacity of corporations.
The last column in the table indicates the possible impact of a 50% fall in equity prices on the 1997 average household wealth of the Non-Rich.
The lack of growth of per capita wealth held as home equity, deposit accounts, and life insurance indicates the difficulty that an average person has in increasing net worth when faced by high taxation and persistent inflation.
The Non-Rich do not support political parties with $1,000 dinners, donations to presidential libraries, or funds to hire lobbyists.
Nevertheless, the American people appear satisfied in reelecting representatives from both political parties that, with minor variations, support high taxation and the gradual debasement of the currency.
The Rich Are Better Off
About 24.5 million Americans were included in the Rich category in 1998, by virtue of having family assets of between $475,000 and $3,350,000.
This group held one-third of U.S. household wealth and received one-quarter of national income.
The Rich comprise the economic and political leaders of society, including many top government officials.
The Rich comprise most of the established leaders of society, including the doctors, lawyers, politicians, engineers, and business executives.
Many top government officials are also among the Rich.
Although many of the Rich had parents that were already well up on the social ladder, many of the Rich achieved their status by hard work and thrift.
This class is generally more educated and more favored by heredity than the lower levels of society. In this respect, the Rich are often are used as examples of the claim that America is a meritocracy.
For most of society, the life of the Rich is as good as it gets. However, the Rich are very aware that there are many households with much greater wealth.
To understand the investment motivation of the Rich, we begin by recognizing that many in this class do not consider themselves wealthy.
This group is heavily taxed and usually must pay full tuition when sending their children to college.
Unless retired, most of the Rich are employed.
Unless retired, most of the Rich are employed. A mistake in investment management or a market crash can easily transform many Rich families into Non-Rich households.
Estimate of wealth distribution of this segment are shown in the following table:
| 1983 | 1987 | 1992 | 1997 | |
Home Equity |
16.3% | 18.4% | 18.9% | 16.3% |
Deposits, Money Market Funds |
11.7% | 14.0% | 12.5% | 8.9% |
Bonds, Fixed Income Securities |
3.3% | 4.5% | 6.2% | 5.4% |
Stocks, Mutual Funds |
7.2% | 9.7% | 12.3% | 19.5% |
Life Insurance Reserves |
1.2% | 1.3% | 1.6% | 2.0% |
Pension Reserves |
11.8% | 13.2% | 17.4% | 22.7% |
Trusts |
2.2% | 2.4% | 2.4% | 2.6% |
Non Corporate Business |
10.6% | 9.2% | 7.9% | 7.5% |
Total |
100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
The Rich have asset portfolios with twice the weight in equities and mutual funds as the Non-Rich.
Moreover, asset distribution is more balanced. Compared to the Non-Rich that have 47.8% of assets in “necessities” (home equity, deposits, and life insurance), the Rich hold only 27.2% of their wealth in this kind of assets.
Consistent with the rest of the household sector, pension reserves held by the Rich have become much more important, while investment in non-corporate business has decreased.
Per capita wealth distribution of the Rich is as follows:
| 1983 | 1987 | 1992 | 1997 | |
Home Equity |
$42,807 | $61,391 | $78,798 | $88,337 |
Deposits, Money Market Funds |
$30,853 | $46,453 | $52,219 | $48,544 |
Bonds, Fixed Income Securities |
$8,681 | $15,019 | $25,860 | $29,110 |
Stocks, Mutual Funds |
$18,859 | $32,311 | $50,988 | $106,043 |
Life Insurance Reserves |
$3,106 | $4,480 | $6,692 | $10,744 |
Pension Reserves |
$31,136 | $43,920 | $72,547 | $122,916 |
Trusts |
$5,764 | $7,969 | $9,956 | $13,874 |
Non Corporate Business |
$27,919 | $30,487 | $32,771 | $40,456 |
Total |
$171,107 | $244,018 | $331,823 | $462,022 |
Per capita wealth of the Rich increased faster than that of the Non-Rich during the period 1983 to 1997.
This difference is explained by the relatively higher percentage of assets that the Rich hold in stocks, mutual funds, pension reserves, and trusts.
In 1997 dollars, the net worth of the average Rich house-hold with 2.6 members increased from $448,000 in 1983 to $1,202,000 in 1997.
Potential cash yield from investment portfolios of a Rich household in 1997 averaged only about $38,000 — ten times potential investment income of the Non-Rich, but not nearly enough to retire to a life of luxury.
Because of assets linked to the stock market, a 50% fall in equity prices would decrease the average 1997 Rich household net worth by 27%.
Like the Non-Rich, most of the Rich are vulnerable to loss of employment. With an average 1997 household investment portfolio of $477,000 (deposits, bonds, equities, funds), the Rich are motivated to pay attention to asset distribution and are likely to shift portfolio composition to reflect market expectations.
Since the Rich hold about one-third of the financial wealth of the nation, their view regarding market prospects is an important determinant in market prices.
A fall in the stock market has less effect on life style of the Non-Rich or the Super-Rich and consequently less psychological impact than on the Rich.
The Super-Rich Still Rule the Roost
The top one percent of the U.S. population, 2.7 million people, have family assets in excess of $3,350,000, with upper limits that although unknown are certainly in excess of many billions of dollars.
The Super-Rich, especially at the upper levels, are owners of business interests, rather than employees.
They don’t have to work for others to survive.
At the top level, assets of the Super-Rich are spread over a number of countries and are protected from prying eyes by banks and trusts that promise secrecy.
Top-level Super-Rich, if they proceed with proper, discreet protocol, have resources to buy favored attention from legislators and government officials.
They can hire ex-tax auditors to advise them how to avoid taxation.
Highly paid legal experts from several countries can show the Super-Rich many loopholes in the tens of thousands of pages of tax regulations.
Most important, they have freedom and flexibility to arrange things so that income and assets are configured in a way to their maximum fiscal advantage.
The deployment of assets of the Super-Rich is considerably different from that of the rest of the population, with 57% of 1997 wealth in the form of business ownership (equities, mutual funds, and non-corporate business).
In comparison, the Non-Rich, on average, held less than 14% of their wealth in business ownership.
| 1983 | 1987 | 1992 | 1997 | |
Home Equity |
8.3% | 8.9% | 8.6% | 6.8% |
Deposit, Money Market Funds |
10.8% | 12.1% | 10.3% | 6.7% |
Bonds, Fixed Income Securities |
7.5% | 9.6% | 12.6% | 9.9% |
Stocks, Mutual Funds |
14.8% | 18.8% | 22.5% | 32.7% |
Life Insurance Reserves |
0.5% | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.7% |
Pension Reserves |
8.7% | 9.1% | 11.4% | 13.4% |
Trusts |
4.8% | 4.9% | 4.7% | 4.5% |
Non Corporate Business |
44.6% | 36.1% | 29.4% | 25.4% |
Total |
100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
The Super-Rich, on average, had over 49% of their wealth in stocks, bonds, funds, and bank deposits, compared to only 30% for the Non-Rich.
However, it is likely that information on the Super-Rich derived from the Flow of Fund Accounts almost certainly understates their wealth.
The reasons for this are:
- they have hidden offshore investments;
- they may have dual-citizenship and offshore family members, providing access to assets beyond the control of the U.S. government;
- they may use trusts, private foundations, and non-profit organizations to control wealth; and
- they leverage their wealth through control of businesses.
The Super-Rich can be differentiated from the Rich and Non-Rich primarily in that they do not need to work.
The can live off investment income alone.
Even when the stock market crashes, their average investment portfolios provide sufficient cash yields to maintain a comfortable life-style.
The following table, although probably understated, provides an indication of the average per capita wealth of the Super-Rich:
| 1983 | 1987 | 1992 | 1997 | |
Home Equity |
$132,341 | $189,797 | $243,611 | $273,103 |
Deposits, Money Market Funds |
$171,894 | $258,809 | $290,932 | $270,460 |
Bonds, Fixed Income Securities |
$119,185 | $206,212 | $355,055 | $399,670 |
Stocks, Mutual Funds |
$234,867 | $402,397 | $634,999 | $1,320,640 |
Life Insurance Reserves |
$7,612 | $10,980 | $16,399 | $26,329 |
Pension Reserves |
$137,664 | $194,189 | $320,762 | $543,466 |
Trusts |
$76,128 | $105,249 | $131,486 | $183,231 |
Non Corporate Business |
$708,782 | $773,993 | $831,984 | $1,027,086 |
Total |
$1,590,457 | $2,143,611 | $2,827,219 | $4,045,981 |
| Family Wealth (2.6 persons) | $4,135,188 | $5,573,389 | $7,350,769 | $10,519,552 |
The wealth of the Super-Rich increased faster during the years 1983 to 1997 than the rest of the population because they had a greater portion of their assets in equities.
The relatively high holdings in pension reserves indicate that many of the Super-Rich are employed.
Potential Super-Rich family income from cash yields on securities, deposits, and non-corporate businesses averaged about $197,000 in 1997, sufficient to survive a collapse in stock prices without the need to get a job.
Because of the element of control, most of the Super-Rich are less likely to be fired in an economic downturn and are more likely to have fringe benefits that represent an understatement of effective income.
Whereas the qualifications of many of the Rich support the claim that the United States is a meritocracy, this is hardly the case with the Super-Rich.
- Anywhere from 25% to 50% of the Super-Rich owe their fortune to birth or marriage.
- Others attained the top class by luck or with the help of a powerful friend or patron.
The Super-Rich include not only corporate executives, but also entertainment and sports stars, heads of organized crime, bankrupts, and fugitives from justice.
Although the Super-Rich have the potential for power, many lack the wit or inclination to use it.
Those that do are divided in their opinions and goals.
If the Super-Rich were all of like mind, there would be only one political party in the United States.
Under dictatorships, the supreme leader sets the goal and the Super-Rich fall in behind, and economic progress depends on whether the leader is enlightened or not. In democracies, money from a movie star or punk rocker can buy as many votes as the owner of a large corporation.
In a dictatorship, the government controls the press and ensures that society hears the same story — right or wrong. In a democracy, a small group of Super-Rich media barons control the press and ensure that society hears the same story — right or wrong.
The Super-Rich are the class least affected by taxation because of their control of organizations.
Control over assets provides the right to use and enjoy without the taxation that goes with income or ownership.
If a controlling person wants to have a private plane, he buys a corporate jet, financed on company credit and charged as business expense.
The Widening Gap: Rich and Poor
The fact that 90% of the U.S. population has not made significant material progress over the last twenty years while the Super-Rich have become even richer, will eventually have political consequences that will impact on the flow of capital.
There are several reasons for the widening gap:
- Deindustrialization: Americans on the lower half of the Bell Curve can make more money when operating machinery that requires heavy capital investment than when working in service jobs.
- The primary reasons for deindustrialization are the anti-business laws and regulations that have accumulated since the New Deal.
- The Almighty Dollar: Because the U.S. dollar is accepted as the primary international trade currency, Americans have almost unlimited credit to buy goods in third world countries where low wages and government regulations are more favorable to manufacturing than in the U.S.
- As a result, traditional constraints to trade imbalance under the gold standard are gone and the trade deficit has been steadily rising for twenty years.
- The Regressive Income Tax: By taxing income more heavily than wealth, the ability of the ordinary person to become wealthy by investing in his or her own business is reduced.
- The percent of the population self-employed has been falling for over one-hundred years.
- About the only people who become wealthy as employees (other than movie stars and sports heroes) are corporate executives who manipulate stock buybacks and options to their own benefit.
The widening gap between rich and poor works to the benefit of the Democrat Party the group whose policies have been primarily responsible for the inequality.
Since the Democrat Party also favors Big Government and since the number of public servants and other beneficiaries of the tax dollar are already dominant in U.S. elections, and since the Democrat Party has additional support from cultural, non-economic groups, current trends may continue.
Before proceeding, check your progress:
Self-Test
Over half of the wealth of the 90% of the U.S. population that is not wealthy consists of:
|
|
In 1998, the percentage of the U.S. population that had more than $3,300,000 in accumulated wealth was:
|
|
The gap between rich and poor in the U.S. has been increasing over the last half century because:
|
learning module : return to lesson 12 >
| Regressive Taxes : Virtual Economy: Income Tax Theories. [Return] |
| Limousine Liberals : 'The New Limousine Liberals', Rich Lowry, TownHall.com, February 28, 2020. [Return] |
| Franklin Delano Roosevelt : 'FDR Biography, Childhood and Youth', Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. [Return] |
| The Kennedy Dynasty : 'Heroes and Icons: The Kennedys', The Time 100. [Return] |
| John Kerry : 'John Kerry, a 'cheap' aristocrat', MSNBC News, April 7, 2020. [Return] |
| Jay Rockefeller : 'The Rockefeller Family Bibliography', The Rockefeller Archives. [Return] |
| Lyndon Johnson : Biography, PhatNav's Encyclopedia. [Return] |
| John Edwards : 'Did Junk Science Make John Edwards Rich?', CNSNews.com, January 20, 2020. [Return] |
| Herbert Kohl : 'Kohl Combines Quiet Style, Effectiveness', Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 30, 2020. [Return] |
| Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Accounts : Official source for Release Z.1. [Return] |
| Survey of Consumer Finances : A triennial survey of the balance sheet, pension, income, and other demographic characteristics of U.S. families, published by the Federal Reserve Board. [Return] |
| Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership 1983-1998 (Edward N. Wolff), Published by the Levy Economics Institute. [Return] |
| New Deal : The New Deal Network, an educational guide to the Great Depression of the 1930s, is sponsored by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. Development of the NDN was funded in part through a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. [Return] |
| Gold Standard : From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Return] |
| Trade Deficit : 'America's Maligned and Misunderstood Trade Deficit', Daniel T. Griswold, Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies. [Return] |
| Democrat Party : Democratic National Committee website. [Return] |
| Big Government : 'The Big Government Paradox', Mason A. Clark, Frontal Lobe. [Return] |
