New York Has the Most Millionaires

If you're not a millionaire, you have no business being in New York. Nor can you afford to be here.

A millionaire can afford...a one bedroom.

what bears on here don't acknowledge is that money is neither truly gained or lost, it's transferred...

and with the mantra of "rich get richer, poor get poorer" it would be only natural that the billionaire circle jerk in NY has a steady supply of lube.

dont count the primary residence when you count your millionaires!

hol4, r u saying you're getting mommy to cough up the impending assessment?

the lube get lubier

gcondo,

it doesn't count primary residence.....

im saying your dad still sees you as a failure.. flmaozzz how's the wife's stache ;)

"dont count the primary residence when you count your millionaires!"
And a 2 million dollar home with 3 million in paper on it don't count either... :)

But the article did specifiy $1mil in investible assets.

Of course a million here is like $2mil everywhere else.

most interesting part is that the number in NYC area is higher than it was back in 2007.

is that because you're just counting former billionaires?

I know that when you look at the top wealth lists, billionaires and such, CA beats us. I think because millionaire just means middle class in this town.

so swe, was this information surprising to you - that there are more people with investable assets >$1mm in the NYC Metro area now than there were before the mkts/economy tanked? how does the increase in the population with the means to purchase Manhattan real estate play into your expectations of further sharp declines?

given that savings rates jumped, and less folks investing in RE, that it lifted at all isn't surprising, but the level sounds very fishy. But here might be why:

they won't speak of the methodology...
"The Capgemini U.S. Metro Wealth Index leverages Capgemini’s custom market sizing modeling capability and is designed to help wealth management firms understand the scale and potential of different markets in order to identify new growth opportunities or adjust an existing footprint in specific regions. "

but keep in mind that these guys are management consultants, who are likely making assumptions and then "calculating" how many might exist. The assumptions can get a little nutty sometimes.

What they don't seem to be saying is that they actually got government data or such. And the government data says the opposite in some cases. And, portfolio sizes have shrunk by various accounts (401k coverage, major brokerages, etc.)

We really think Boston jumped 15% in millionaires?

"how does the increase in the population with the means to purchase Manhattan real estate play into your expectations of further sharp declines?"

again, printer, stop the making things up I didn't say already.

You did this yesterday, and I pointed this out, and you didn't respond. You have done it again. I didn't say that.

so clear things up for me - what are you expecting?

but, of course, your inference is off anyway.

This was in 2009! 2009 over 2008. If there was all this addition, and we still fell...
Prices in every category fell over the four quarters of 2009....

so if that came with this jump, imagine what its like without the same jump in 2010....

> so clear things up for me - what are you expecting?

Wouldn't the question be more appropriate *before* you tell me what I said?
;-)

exactly as i thought. i showed how your logic inherently led to you predicting that prices would fall another 20% or so, but you cry 'i never said that', so i ask what are you predicting? and i get crickets. typical.

New York’s millionaire population has now surpassed the boom times of 2007....some stat huh?

layoffs unfortunately happen mostly to the staff(pee ons) not the mgrs, directors, partners, vice presidents etc making the big money.....the 23 yo junior financial analyst making 50k per that is part of the NYC unemployed rate is not a factor in the manhattan real estate market.

somewhereelse is still raw that the bears' predictions of a major market crash never happened.

somewhereelse, New York City has more billioniares than any city in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/10/worlds-richest-cities-billionaires-2009-billionaires-cities.html

i would like to know the percentage of miliionaires on SE. i bet it's pretty high.
where is wonderboy to comment on all this?

"exactly as i thought. i showed how your logic inherently led to you predicting that prices would fall another 20% or so"

Let me get this straight... you predicted that your logic was bad and that I would correct you?

> but you cry 'i never said that'

And I didn't, no matter how much you repeat yourself. You made a mistake.

> and i get crickets. typical.

I pointed out your mistake, and I got crickets. Typical.

> somewhereelse is still raw that the bears' predictions of a major market crash never happened.

rotfl. I'm still hurting from laughing that LIC missed the crash.

AND that LIC still hasn't responded to where we pointed out his nonsense comments on the medians. Come on, LIC... PLEASE answer on that one. Its so funny!

> somewhereelse, New York City has more billioniares than any city in the world

But millionaires don't all live in cities, particularly in CA. CA has more than us.

Well, actually, CA State only has 1 more billionaire than the NYC Metropolitan Area. CA has 37 million people and the NY Metro has only 17 million people.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/forbes-400-gates-buffett-wealth-rich-list-09_land.html

California: 82
NYC Metro: 81

Speaks well of the NYC economy. The State of CA seems so underachieving with such a vast population.

"But millionaires don't all live in cities, particularly in CA. CA has more than us."

CA is 163,707 square miles, 37M people and made up of multiple cities/regions. Looking at things as an entire States is pretty useless information (unless we're talking tiny states like Delaware, Rhode Island, or Connecticut with one principle city.) The population makeup of Syracuse is irrelevant to New York City, for instance.

Most of NYC's Sprawl is in Connecticut/New Jersey. Not in Albany or Syracuse.

Actually, 99% CA's billionaires do live in cities....most of them just live in the suburbs surrounding the cities...aka Metropolitan Area.

Rich Americans don't want to live in Podunk. Nearly everyone with money lives in an urban region...not in the middle of nowhere on a farm.

New York Metro Area 81
San Francisco Bay Area 42
Los Angeles Metro 35
Dallas - Ft. Worth 24
Chicago Metro 18
Washington DC Metro 12
Houston Metro 9

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/forbes-400-gates-buffett-wealth-rich-list-09_land.html

....80 of CA's 81 Billionaires live in LA, SF, San Diego or its suburbs.

Yes and I counted and need a life lol.

*meant 82 of them

Are these NYers who pay NYC taxes?

"Actually, 99% CA's billionaires do live in cities....most of them just live in the suburbs surrounding the cities...aka Metropolitan Area."

Circular logic. Huge amounts don't live in cities. If you change the measure and go with the MSA (which can double or triple the population covered, the areas can include multiple cities) you'll get more, but thats self-fulfilling logic. I remember seeing MSA or DMA calculations, NYC gets listed as 20 million people.

If your claim is they leave *near* cities, thats a separate point.

> Are these NYers who pay NYC taxes?

Many, nope.

> what bears on here don't acknowledge is that money is neither truly gained or lost, it's transferred...

SO true!

bernanke would say "MONEY is also created out of thin air..."

> what bears on here don't acknowledge is that money is neither truly gained or lost, it's
> transferred...

Actually, its the bears who got this and the bulls did not.

We've been very happy to let the owners pay the bills while we pay the much cheaper rents...