Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Household Wealth Falls by $1.5 Trillion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 08:55 AM
Original message
U.S. Household Wealth Falls by $1.5 Trillion
via truthdig:




U.S. Household Wealth Falls by $1.5 Trillion
Posted on Sep 18, 2010


This just in: U.S. households are getting poorer. As the crisis continues to wreak havoc on our economy, new data from the Federal Reserve tells us that U.S. net household worth has dropped $1.5 trillion in the second quarter of 2010 and is down more than $10 trillion since the recession began.

U.S. net household wealth is at $53.5 trillion, a significant drop (17 percent) from the $64.2 trillion that it was at the brink of the recession in 2007. —JCL

Reuters:

U.S. household wealth fell by $1.5 trillion in the second quarter, according to Federal Reserve data on Friday that showed the strain a slow-paced recovery and high unemployment are putting on Americans.

Household net worth fell to $53.5 trillion, well below the $64.2 trillion it had reached at the end of 2007 when the recession officially began, according to the central bank’s quarterly flow of funds report.

Declines in the value of financial assets—especially in stocks and mutual funds—accounted for much of the decline in second-quarter net worth. Stocks alone were down $1.9 trillion to $14.9 trillion, more than offsetting small gains in other areas like state and local government retirement funds.

Read more



http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/us_household_wealth_falls_by_15_trillion_20100918/






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Has U.S. net wealth really disappeared that much, or has it simply been moved
Edited on Sun Sep-19-10 09:01 AM by leveymg
out of reach?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I think most of the so-called "wealth" was largely phantom wealth, anyway
Edited on Sun Sep-19-10 09:00 AM by marmar
Based on stocks and bubbled-up real estate prices.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. But, the markets haven't lost nearly that much value in Q2 '10. So, where did it go?
Edited on Sun Sep-19-10 09:06 AM by leveymg
I agree with you overall in the last couple years, but that's a big drop this quarter. Stocks and bonds and commercial real estate aren't growing, but there hasn't been nearly that kind of decline in indexes that I'm aware of.

These Fed figures also count funds in U.S. accounts. I believe that's where the decline is - money is moving offshore. Rapidly. Capital flight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Good point.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Much of what we see as indexed value reflects churn - big institutions trading shares back and forth
to create the impression of stability. They can turn that off in a heart-beat, and I predict, they will soon.

This Potemkin Village Stock Market is a cover for the offshore movement of capital accounts by multinationals. The drop in Net Household Worth reflects just an echo of these much larger movements of capital by corporations and big global banks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Here's the rest of the AP article - something's fishy here - it wasn't drop in stocks, only accounts
for 13 percent of the net worth measure. Dow dropped only a fraction. Nor was it a massive decline in real estate values in Q2.

Where's the the drain coming from? http://hosted2.ap.org/ARLID/d0732c86f9b44a428fc30e935ef90fcf/Article_2010-09-17-US-Net-Worth/id-3ef6a72318d94c0b9b5cd042f76900af.

Sep. 17, 2010 4:31 PM ET
Americans' wealth fell in spring as stocks tanked
JEANNINE AVERSA


In this Aug. 31, 2010 photograph, a home with a sold sign is shown in Palo Alto, Calif. Americans' wealth shrank in the spring for the first time since early 2009 as financial turmoil eroded stock portfolios.(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
In this Aug. 31, 2010 photograph, a home with a sold sign is shown in Palo Alto, Calif. Americans' wealth shrank in the spring for the first time since early 2009 as financial turmoil eroded stock portfolios.(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
Chart shows quarterly statistics on household net worth
. .
1 of 2
. .

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans' long journey to regain the wealth they lost in the recession is stalled.

Households failed even to run in place during the April-June quarter as sinking stock prices eroded wealth. Stocks have since rebounded. But based on last quarter's data, household net worth would have to rise 23 percent to revisit its pre-recession peak.

Net worth — the value of assets like homes and investments, minus debts like mortgages and credit cards — fell 2.7 percent last quarter, or $1.5 trillion, the Federal Reserve said Friday. It now stands at $53.5 trillion.

That's above the bottom hit during the recession, $48.8 trillion in the first quarter of 2009. But it's far below the pre-recession peak in wealth of $65.8 trillion.

The drop from April to June was the first quarterly decline in America's wealth since early 2009. Before then, net worth had risen slowly for four straight quarters.

Economists generally think household wealth has ticked up in the July-to-September quarter so far, because of higher stock prices. Yet given last quarter's setback and expectations of scant gains ahead, some economists have pushed back their forecast for when Americans will regain all their lost wealth: Not until the middle of this decade.

Their stagnant wealth is likely to keep Americans reluctant from spending freely — and the struggling economy from picking up strength. Consumers tend to spend according to how wealthy they feel. And their spending accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. In the meantime, people are saving more and paring debt, Friday's data showed.

The decline in net worth from April to June amounted to an average drop of $12,941 per household. Average household wealth now amounts to $455,173. That's up from $415,185 during the recession. But it's down from a peak of $563,438 in 2007.

One reason why economists foresee only slight gains in wealth is they expect real-estate values to stay weak. Residential real-estate accounts for 32 percent of net worth; individual stocks make up 13 percent. The balance includes retirement accounts, taxable mutual funds, bank accounts, bonds and possessions such as cars and jewelry.

During the recession, sinking home equity and stock prices made shoppers skittish. More than a year after the recession is thought to have ended, the housing and stock markets remain fragile. That's why most Americans aren't spending as freely as they typically do after recessions.

Consumer spending grew at an annual rate of just 2 percent last quarter, about the same pace as in the first three months of this year. Most economists think Americans will spend at about the same pace, or only slightly better, in the current quarter.

By contrast, after the 1981-82 recession, consumer spending averaged a robust 6.5 percent pace over the four quarters of 1983.

"Consumer spending is going to show only stunted growth this year because the wherewithal to spend — jobs, income, wealth are only inching higher," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.

Another reason why shoppers are unlikely to ramp up their spending: Their faith in the economy is sagging. Consumer confidence dropped in September, according to the University of Michigan/Reuters' consumer sentiment index fell released Friday.

Carla Fehribach, a retired airport ticket agent in St. Louis, said the stock market's failure to generate any real growth so far this year has made her more cautious about spending. "I'll feel a little more comfortable about spending more if the stock market and the economy turn around," said Fehribach, 67.

Americans saved 6.1 percent of their disposable income from April to June, the highest quarterly total in a year.

And they are slowly trimming their debt.

Overall household debt dipped to $13.45 trillion in the second quarter. That's a 3.2 percent decline from a peak in early 2008. People, on average, are carrying around $43,000 in debt — from mortgages and credit cards to auto loans and home equity lines.

People who defaulted on mortgages and other loans accounted for some of the decline in debt. But many households are paying down debts and are reluctant to take on new loans, analysts said.

The decline in net worth underscores how much household wealth depends on stock values. About a fifth of total household financial assets are in stock-market holdings. The value of households' stock portfolios dropped to $6.8 trillion last quarter — a 12 percent decline from the first three months of this year.

Americans' home equity isn't making up for the loss in their stock values. Last quarter, U.S. real estate values ticked up a scant 0.3 percent compared with the January-March quarter.

And many economists expect the home market to weaken further now that a federal home buyer tax credit has expired. Most economists expect home prices to decline around 5 percent to 10 percent by the middle of next year.

Optimism about stocks has been sparked by the gains they have made since June 30. The Standard & Poor's 500 index a broad gauge of the market, has recovered about two-thirds of the its loss during the April-through-June period. Stocks are now up just under 1 percent for 2010.

That translates into modest advances in wealth since the period covered by the latest government report. As measured by the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, stock values have gained $260 million between June 30 and the close of trading Thursday. About $11.6 billion is now invested in U.S. stocks.

Though the S&P 500 remains 28 percent below its peak on Oct. 9, 2007, employees who have stayed invested in 401(k) plans and continued to contribute have fared better. About 78 percent of them now have more money in those accounts than before the market top three years ago, according to estimates by Jack VanDerhei of the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Still, so many people have seen their overall wealth diminish since the recession that they lack confidence to spend much.

Scott Nieberg, a St. Louis veterinarian, for example, says his retirement account is worth no more than it was a decade ago. Nieberg, 53, says he's all but given up hope his nest egg will grow significantly any time soon.

His business would have to improve significantly for him to feel comfortable enough to take a vacation, he said.

"In a down economy, you just work hard," Nieberg said. "We used to take vacations. Now we take weekends."

___

AP Business Writers Dave Carpenter in Chicago, Alan Zibel and Christopher S. Rugaber in Washington and Christopher Leonard in St. Louis contributed to this report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlurker Donating Member (698 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. Lost income from unemployment
Would be my guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. Not sure, but I know many people who are cashing in 401k's etc...
just to survive. We had to tap ours earlier this year for an unexpected new roof. Luckily hubby is 62 already, and the roof wasn't a huge chunk of the total, but that $8,000 is no longer part of our 'wealth'. It was the 401k or Visa - not so tough a choice anymore.

We have friends back in Silicon Valley tho' that are surviving on their 401k's to pay monthly bills - guess their 'wealth' is diminishing quite rapidly and their chances of finding any employment are remote. The Valley was always hard on people in their mid 50's onward - now it's brutal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. mainly in the inflated values of homes that has now disappeared.
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 02:11 AM by Hannah Bell
foreclosures are still going up, too -- last month was the biggest month for foreclosures on record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. By that argument all wealth is 'phantom'
How i see it is there was a huge transfer of wealth up to the banks and corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Conincidentally, very close to the amount the wealthy got in the Bush tax cut.
Recent reports showed almost all the tax cut that went to the very top was invested in foreign markets.

I don't think it's a mystery where the money went.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. How much did it fall if the top 1 percent are excluded? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. I suspect a lot of these losses ARE from the wealthy
since they're the ones most heavily invested in stocks and real estate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. well then, lay it out...
i suspect the opposite
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. I don't
I suspect the bottom 1% hasn't lost very much of their wealth at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. It's hard to lose something you never had in the first place.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Precisely.
If you have no wealth to start off with, how are you going to lose it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. Let's do a numbers experiment
Let's say home values have dropped 20%.

A rich man with a million dollar house has lost $200,000 in assets.

A poor man with a $50,000 house has lost $10,000 in assets.

The poor man is far less able to afford that loss. But in gross amounts, the rich man has lost 20x what the poor man has lost in the downturn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. let's do an in-situ sample: on my street (about 20 houses) in a poor neighborhood of a town with
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 02:16 AM by Hannah Bell
12% unemployment, there are two empty houses:

one foreclosed, one given back to the bank by the heirs when the owner died because they would have taken a loss on it.

both worth less than 100K, one considerably less.

both now owned by bank of america.

who lost, rich or poor? who gained?

about half the units on my street = rentals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Hannah, you are seeing it as I do: a transfer occurred.
Robin Hood in reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Answer: everybody lost
The rich guy still lost value in his house. And most rich people aren't bankers. How does Bank of America's acquisition of those houses make a non-banker any richer? In fact, B of A probably lost money because those properties have lost value. They now hold the mortgage on something that's just dropped in value. That's why so many banks went under -- certainly they didn't suddenly "get richer" when owners defaulted, as you would imply.

The poorer homeowner, who can ill afford any loss in assets, also lost out when his home value dropped.

That article on "financial losses" was about raw dollar amounts. Not about suffering. Not about who is most impacted by the drop in assets. And in raw dollar amounts, the biggest losses occurred among people who actually had the assets to start off with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. What about cave holds or apartment holds? How are they holding up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. Well now ain't that a conincidink!? We (working class) lost it and the rich (owners) are now
holding on to 1.5 trillion (hoarding it is more like it)...wonder where they got all that money from!? Must have been a rich uncle!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
21. Hint, look at media culture.
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 02:07 AM by RandomThoughts
What are the tv shows about? People selling heirlooms to pawnshops, and ways to mail your gold in to make extra money.

Not only are they kicking people out of houses, they are going after anything a person has of any value.

Think about it. That pawn shop show is to get people to sell what they got. Do you see anyone buying anything from that show?

They need to feed the monster, and it requires endless money, so they wont be happy ever, or until they can think they own everything.

Think about it, not one of them has corrected what they should have corrected, not one of them, they think they will not be touched in a way that would convince them, and when they are, then it is to late for them because only elimination will convince them. It is also a paradox.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
25. Just in time for the Boomer retirement.. (told ya so)
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 03:17 AM by SoCalDem
This was no "accident"..

There was some pretty clever planning going on that allowed this to "happen"..

The wall street casinos have been playing with untouchable money for more than 3 decades now, and sooner or later we Boomers would be expecting to draw OUT, instead of put IN....

what a surprise (not!) that the money would be "gone" when it was our turn to withdraw what we have been putting aside for our whole working lives..

the "who needs defined benefit pensions...here's the shiny new 401-k" folks had to know that this scheme would only work for them.....but we all pretty much had no choice.

Saving rates have dropped for a long time...to practically nothing..

we've been paying extra ever since we started working (into SS)..to cover our grandparents & parents (many of whom had multiple pensions)

we got whacked with astronomical health care costs just as we started to get age-related illnesses

we are "helping" parents (and even a few grannies) who are living longer than at any time before

we have grown children who are moving back with us..sans jobs, but plus kids & spouses

and our jobs are exiting stage-left..

and the coup de grâce ..our houses are worth shit..at the very time many had hoped to cash out & downsize

game set match

we lost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC