Personal Wealth, 2001

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

by Barry W. Johnson and Brian G. Raub

120

he distribution and composition of personal

wealth in the United States are topics of great

interest among researchers and policy planners. Unfortunately, these issues are difficult to

research, since there are few sources of data on the

wealth holdings of the general population, especially

the very rich. Federal estate tax returns (Form 706)

provide a unique source from which to study the

nation’s wealthiest individuals. The estate tax return

contains a complete listing of a decedent’s assets and

debts, as well as a demographic profile of the decedent and information on the costs of administering the

estate. A decedent’s estate has up to 9 months to

file an estate tax return, but use of a 6-month extension is common. It is, therefore, necessary to

combine returns filed over a number of calendar

years in order to capture data representative of all

estate tax decedents dying in a single year.

The wealth of living individuals can be estimated

from Federal estate tax return data using the estate

multiplier technique. The fundamental assumption

underlying this methodology is that estate tax returns

filed for decedents who died in a particular year

represent a random sample, designated by death, of

the living population in that year. Estimates of the

wealth holdings of the living population are derived by

applying a multiplier, based on appropriate mortality

rates, to this sample. (See the Appendix to this article

for a more complete discussion of the estate multiplier technique.)

Valuation Measures

These estimates apply to individual holdings of

$675,000 or more in gross estate, the Federal estate

tax filing threshold in effect for 2001 U.S. decedents.

Gross estate is a Federal estate tax concept of

wealth that does not conform to usual definitions of

wealth, primarily because it includes components that

are not traditionally considered part of a living

individual’s portfolio and because there are features

of the tax code that allow certain real property to be

specially valued when used in farming or running a

120

Barry W. Johnson is Chief, Special Studies Special

Projects Section, and Brian G. Raub is an economist with

the same section. This article was prepared under the

direction of Janet McCubbin, Chief, Special Studies

Branch.

business. Therefore, three measures of wealth are

used in this article: gross assets (or gross estate),

total assets, and net worth.

Gross assets reflects the gross value of all

assets owned by a decedent, including the full face

value of life insurance, reduced by the value of any

policy loans, but excluding any reduction for other

indebtedness. This measure defines the individuals

included in the top wealth holder group. Total assets

is a lower wealth value but is still essentially a gross

measure. It differs from gross assets in that the

cash, or equity, value of life insurance (i.e., the value

of insurance immediately before the policyholder’s

death) replaces the “at death” value of life insurance

included in gross assets, and incorporates other

adjustments to compensate for special valuation

provisions in the tax code [1]. Net worth is total

assets minus debts.

Top Wealth Holders, 2001

In 2001, there were an estimated 7.4 million adults,

age 18 and older, with gross assets of $675,000 or

more (see Table 1). Combined, they owned almost

$15.2 trillion in total assets. After accounting for

over $1.3 trillion in debts and mortgages, this group

had a total net worth of $13.8 trillion. Although these

top wealth holders represented only 3.5 percent of

the U.S. adult population, they held an estimated 32.7

percent of the total U.S. net worth in 2001 [2, 3].

There were nearly 4.0 million male top wealth

holders in 2001, representing 53.7 percent of the top

wealth holder population. These men had a combined net worth of $8.0 trillion, for an average net

worth of nearly $2.0 million (see Table 2). About

73,000 of these men had a net worth of $10 million or

more. A large majority, 66.4 percent, of male top

wealth holders were married, while 16.3 percent

were single and 8.7 percent were widowed (see

Figure A). About 8.5 percent of wealthy males were

divorced or separated.

There were over 3.4 million female top wealth

holders, comprising 46.3 percent of the total. The

combined net worth of these women was $5.8 trillion,

while their average net worth was $1.71 million (see

Table 3). About 50,000 female top wealth holders in

2001 had a net worth of $10 million or more. In

contrast to their male counterparts, less than half,

49.0 percent, of all female top wealth holders were

married, while 26.0 percent were widowed, a much

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure A

Top Wealth Holders: Marital Status, by Sex, 2001

Marital status

Males

Percentage

(1)

Females

Percentage

(2)

(3)

(4)

Total....................... 3,953,728

100.0

3,403,522

100.0

Married........................ 2,627,212

66.4

1,668,808

49.0

Widowed.....................

343,942

8.7

884,677

26.0

Single..........................

645,570

16.3

487,786

14.3

Other ¹.........................

337,004

8.5

362,251

10.6

for male and female wealth holders is very similar for

most points, except for those above the 95th percentile, where male net worth values dominate. It is

these larger values that account for the much larger

difference in the average net worth between the

sexes. While not included in Figure B, it is interesting

to note that the left tail of the net worth distribution

for males dips much lower (larger negative values)

for points below the 1st percentile than for females.

Portfolio Composition

¹ Includes individuals who were separated or divorced and those for whom marital

status was not determinable.

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

The portfolio composition of top wealth holders in

2001 varied substantially by gender and wealth. As

shown in Figure C, men with less than $1 million in

net worth devoted the largest percentages of their

portfolios to personal residences, 20.7 percent, and

retirement assets, 18.3 percent [4]. Stock in publicly

held corporations, other real estate, and cash holdings

also represented significant portions of these individuals’ portfolios.

For males with at least $1 million but less than

$10 million in net worth, personal residences comprised

a substantially smaller portion of their total portfolio,

at 10.4 percent. Publicly traded stock comprised the

single largest component, 19.7 percent, while retirement

assets were the second largest component, 16.5

higher percentage than for men. About 14.3 percent

of wealthy females were single, while 10.6 percent

were divorced or separated.

While the average net worth of female wealth

holders was more than 15 percent lower than that of

males, averages can be very sensitive to outliers.

When significant outliers exist, the median is often a

better measure of the center of a distribution. The

median net worth for male wealth holders was approximately $978,000, while the median value for

females was nearly the same at almost $955,000. In

fact, Figure B shows that the distribution of wealth

Figure B

Top Wealth Holders, by Sex: Net Worth Distribution, 1st-99th Percentiles, 2001

Net worth (in millions)

Males

Females

100

Percentile

121

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure C

Male Top Wealth Holders: Selected Assets and Debts as a Percentage of Total Assets, by Size of

Net Worth, 2001

Percentage

Personal

residences

Other real

estate

Closely held

Publicly

stock

traded stock

Other

financial

assets ¹

Cash and

cash

management

accounts

Retirement

assets ²

Business

assets ³

Debts and

mortgages

Size of net worth

122

Under $1,000,000

$1,000,000 under $10,000,000

$10,000,000 or more

¹ Includes all government bonds, corporate bonds, bonds issued by foreign governments, and diversified mutual funds.

² Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

³ Includes noncorporate businesses, farms, and limited partnerships.

122

percent. The proportion of these individuals’ portfolios comprised of stock in closely held companies [5]

and other financial assets (such as government bonds,

corporate bonds, and foreign bonds) was markedly

higher than the corresponding proportion for men

with less than $1 million in net worth.

For the wealthiest males, those with net worth of

$10 million or more, financial assets were the dominant portfolio component. Holdings in the stock of

publicly traded corporations, 31.5 percent, and closely

traded companies, 15.0 percent, combined for nearly

one half of their portfolios. The wealthiest men also

devoted a substantially larger proportion of their

portfolios to business assets (including noncorporate

businesses, farm assets, and limited partnerships),

17.2 percent, and other financial assets, 12.0 percent,

than their peers in the lower wealth classes. In

contrast, personal residences, 3.0 percent, and retire-

ment assets, 3.7 percent, represented only small

components of their portfolios.

For female top wealth holders, the shift in portfolio composition as net worth increased followed a

pattern similar to that for their male counterparts (see

Figure D). However, there were several significant

differences in the makeup of portfolios held by male

and female top wealth holders. In each wealth class,

women held larger proportions of their assets in

personal residences and other real estate and smaller

proportions in retirement and business assets than men.

The most notable difference between the asset

mix of female and male top wealth holders was the

importance of closely held stock in their respective

portfolios. Closely held stock comprised only 1.3

percent of the portfolios of women with net worth of

less than $1 million, compared to nearly 3.9 percent

for men in the same wealth class. Likewise, women

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure D

Female Top Wealth Holders: Selected Assets and Debts as a Percentage of Total Assets, by

Size of Net Worth, 2001

Percentage

Personal

residences

Other real

estate

Closely held

Publicly

stock

traded stock

Other

financial

assets ¹

Cash and

Retirement

cash

assets ²

management

accounts

Business

assets ³

Debts and

mortgages

Size of net worth

Under $1,000,000

$1,000,000 under $10,000,000

$10,000,000 or more

¹ Includes all government bonds, corporate bonds, bonds issued by foreign governments, and diversified mutual funds.

² Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

³ Includes noncorporate businesses, farms, and limited partnerships.

with net worth of $1 million but less than $10 million

held 3.7 percent of their assets in closely held stock,

less than half the corresponding proportion for men in

this group. This proportion shifted sharply upward, to

14.4 percent, for women with a net worth of $10

million or more and nearly equals the 15.0 percent of

their wealthiest male counterparts.

Male top wealth holders in all wealth classes had

a higher ratio of debts and mortgages to total assets

than their female peers. Women, in aggregate, had a

debt ratio (debts divided by total assets) of 7.3 percent, while the comparable figure for men was 10.0

percent. Men with a net worth of less than $1 million had by far the highest debt ratio, 20.8 percent.

Age

The average age of male top wealth holders in 2001

was 55.7 years, 3.6 years younger than the average

age of female top wealth holders. Figure E shows

that the $1.7 million average net worth of males

under 50 was markedly lower than that for men in

any other age group. For men between 50 and 85

years of age, average net worth remained relatively

steady in a range between $2.1 million and $2.3

million. Males aged 85 and older were wealthier

than men in any other age group, with an average net

worth of $2.6 million.

The average net worth of females under 50 was

over $1.4 million. Although the average for women

aged 50 to 65 was significantly higher at $1.9 million,

as age increased beyond this point, there was only

scant variation in average net worth. Women aged

75 to 85 actually had a lower average net worth, $1.8

million, than their counterparts between age 50 and

75. Females 85 and older had an average net worth

of about $1.9 million, nearly identical to the average

for those in the 50-under-65 age group.

123

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure E

All Top Wealth Holders: Average and Median Net Worth, by Sex and Age, 2001

Millions of dollars

3.0

2.5

Male Average

2.0

Female Average

1.5

Male Median

1.0

Female Median

0.5

0.0

Under 50

50 under 65

65 under 75

124

75 under 85

85 and older

Age

The median net worth of top wealth holders

reveals a very different picture. For each age and

sex combination, median net worth was substantially

lower than average net worth. For both males and

females, median wealth for those in the 50-under-65

age group increased significantly from the median for

those under 50, but age had very little effect on the

median net worth of wealthy individuals over 50.

Although the average net worth of males was significantly higher than that of females in each age category, the median wealth of men and women was

very similar regardless of age. These observations

suggest that a limited number of high wealth males

have a significant effect on the data. The effect is

most striking for men aged 85 and older. While the

median net worth of this group was virtually identical

to that for the 75-under-85 age group, their average

net worth was nearly one-fifth greater. Also interesting is the fact that women under age 50 had a

higher median net worth than their male counterparts

but a lower average net worth.

While median net worth did not vary greatly

across age groups or gender, especially for those

over age 50, the data suggest that both age and

gender are important determinants of portfolio composition. As shown in Figure F, for males in all three

age groups depicted, stock held in public companies

was dominant but varied substantially in the share it

contributed to total assets. For males under age 50,

publicly traded stock comprised 21.6 percent of total

assets. Business assets made up the second-largest

share of the total for these relatively young men, 12.1

percent, followed by the value of the personal residence, 11.8 percent. For men in the 50-under-65 age

bracket, retirement assets made up the second largest share of total assets, 17.3 percent, not surprising

for a group approaching traditional retirement age.

Publicly traded stock accounted for 17.9 percent of

total assets for this group, lower than the corresponding proportion for men under age 50, while stock in

closely held companies comprised 11.8 percent.

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure F

Male Top Wealth Holders: Selected Assets and Debts as a Percentage of Total Assets, by Age, 2001

Percentage

Personal

residences

Other real

estate

Closely held

Publicly

stock

traded stock

Other

financial

assets ¹

Under 50

50 under 65

Cash and

cash

management

accounts

Retirement

assets ²

Business

assets ³

Debts and

mortgages

65 and older

¹ Includes all government bonds, corporate bonds, bonds issued by foreign governments, and diversified mutual funds.

² Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

³ Includes noncorporate businesses, farms, and limited partnerships.

For males age 65 and older, publicly traded stock

made up 25.9 percent of total assets. Men in this age

group devoted the highest proportion of any age

group to other financial assets, where tax-exempt

bonds issued by State and local governments dominated. Closely held stock and personal residences

accounted for the lowest proportion of total assets for

this group, which may reflect both lifestyle changes

expected for individuals in the post-retirement phase

of life. About 68.3 percent of men aged 65 and older

owned a personal residence compared to 75.4 percent of men younger than 65. A similar pattern can

be seen for closely held stock, as 15.0 percent of

men aged 65 and older owned these assets, significantly less than the 23.4 percent ownership rate of

men younger than 65.

For wealthy females, publicly traded stock was

also the dominant asset in each age bracket (see

Figure G). Women under 50 held 24.1 percent of

their portfolios in such stocks, along with another 6.1

percent in the stock of closely held companies. The

personal residence was the second largest asset

component for women in this age group, 18.6 percent

of total assets, followed by retirement assets. For

women in the 50-under-65 age group, the personal

residence was again the second largest portfolio

component, with investment real estate making up a

much larger share than in the portfolios held by

younger women. The 50-under-65 age group also

devoted the largest share of their portfolios to business assets and stock in closely held corporations

among the groups depicted in Figure G. For women

aged 65 and older, liquid assets, including publicly

traded stock, cash accounts, and other financial

assets, contribute substantially more to their portfolios

than to the portfolios of women in the younger age

125

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure G

Female Top Wealth Holders: Selected Assets and Debts as a Percentage of Total Assets, by Age,

2001

Percentage

Personal

residences

Other real

estate

Closely held

Publicly

stock

traded stock

126

Under 50

Other

financial

assets ¹

Cash and

cash

management

accounts

50 under 65

Retirement

assets ²

Business

assets ³

Debts and

mortgages

65 and older

¹ Includes all government bonds, corporate bonds, bonds issued by foreign governments and diversified mutual funds.

² Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

³ Includes non-corporate businesses, farms, and limited partnerships.

groups. In contrast, the personal residence comprised only 11.0 percent of the portfolios held by

women aged 65 or older, while retirement assets

accounted for only 8.3 percent for women in this

oldest age bracket.

For all top wealth holders, the debt ratio decreased steadily with age (see Figure H), declining

from 15.5 percent for wealthy individuals under age

50 to 1.7 percent for their counterparts age 85 and

older. In each age category, women had a lower

debt ratio than men, although these differences may

not be statistically significant.

126

State Data

Figure I presents the States with the largest number

of resident millionaires [6]. California, the U.S.

State with the largest overall population [7], also had

the largest number of millionaires with about 572,000.

New York had the second-largest number of millionaires, 317,000, followed by Florida and Illinois with

249,000 and 185,000, respectively.

Another way to look at the concentration of

millionaires by State is to focus on the number of

millionaires as a percentage of the adult population,

shown in Figure J. This approach eliminates distor-

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure H

All Top Wealth Holders: Debt and Mortgages as a Percentage of Total Assets, by Sex and Age,

2001

Percentage

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Under 50

50 under 65

65 under 75

75 under 85

85 and older

Age

Males

Females

Figure I

Figure J

States with the Largest Number of Resident

Millionaires, 2001 ¹

States with the Highest Concentration of Resident

Millionaires, 2001 ¹

[Numbers are in thousands]

State

Number of

millionaires

Total adult

population

Millionaires as a

percentage of

adult population

(3)

State

Number of

millionaires

Total adult

population

Millionaires as a

percentage of

adult population

(2)

(3)

(1)

(2)

California...........................

572

25,176

2.3

Connecticut........................

2,594

3.2

New York...........................

317

14,452

2.2

New Jersey........................

178

6,398

2.8

Florida...............................

249

12,566

2.0

District of Columbia............

458

2.4

Illinois................................

185

9,274

2.0

California............................

572

25,176

2.3

Texas.................................

182

15,297

1.2

New York...........................

317

14,452

2.2

New Jersey........................

178

6,398

2.8

Massachusetts...................

105

4,921

2.1

Pennsylvania.....................

135

9,418

1.4

Illinois.................................

185

9,274

2.0

(1)

Ohio...................................

114

8,540

1.3

Florida................................

249

12,566

Massachusetts...................

105

4,921

2.1

Wyoming............................

370

1.9

Virginia..............................

5,426

1.7

Delaware............................

605

1.8

¹ Millionaires are defined as individuals with net worth of $1 million or more.

² Statistics on U.S. Population, by State, for 2001 were obtained from the

U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Population by State," published online at:

¹ Millionaires are defined as individuals with net worth of $1 million or more.

² Statistics on U.S. Population, by State, for 2001 were obtained from the

U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Population by State," published online at:

http://www.census.gov/popest/states.

127

Personal Wealth, 2001

tions caused by the widely varied populations of the

States. Using this measure, Connecticut ranked first

with the highest number of millionaires per capita.

Two of the smallest States in the country by population, Wyoming and Delaware, as well as the District

of Columbia, were in the top ten by concentration of

millionaires. Six States--California, Florida, Illinois,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York--ranked

in the top ten in both the number of resident millionaires and millionaires per capita.

Millionaires, 1998-2001

The number of adult millionaires, defined as those

with net worth of $1 million or more in real terms,

increased 17.8 percent between 1998 and 2001, while

the average net worth of millionaires increased 16.1

percent [8]. Figure K shows the percentage growth

in the number of millionaires by net worth class

between 1998 and 2001. The number of millionaires

in each wealth class increased significantly between

1998 and 2001, a period generally marked by strong

economic expansion until the onset of a recession in

March 2001 [9], which was in turn worsened by the

economic impact of the September 11 terrorist

attacks. The number of millionaires with net worth

between $1 million and $5 million grew by 15.4

percent between 1998 and 2001, while the number of

millionaires in the higher wealth classes increased

more rapidly, 41.3 percent for those with net worth

between $5 million and $10 million, and 46.4 percent

for those with net worth of $10 million or more. By

comparison, the total U.S. population grew by 5.9

percent during this period.

Males made up a majority of millionaires in both

years (54.2 percent and 54.9 percent), although, on

average, they accounted for only 48.2 percent of the

adult U.S. population during this period. Figure L

displays changes in the age composition of male

millionaires in 1998 and 2001. The percentage of

male millionaires under age 50 increased markedly

Figure K

128

Percentage Growth in Number of Millionaires and Total U.S. Population, 1998-2001

Percentage

Total U.S. population

$1 million under $5 million

$5 million under $10 million

Net worth class

(constant 2001 dollars)

128

$10 million or more

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure L

Percentage of Male Millionaires, by Age, 1998 and 2001

Percentage

Under 50

50 under 65

65 under 75

75 under 85

85 and older

Age

1998

2001

over this period, from 23.2 percent in 1998 to 29.8

percent in 2001. Conversely, the percentage of male

millionaires between ages 50 and 75 declined during

this period, while the percentage of male millionaires

in the oldest age brackets was virtually unchanged.

These patterns suggest that most of the new men

who joined the millionaire population between 1998

and 2001 were under age 50.

Females accounted for 45.8 percent of the millionaire population in 1998 and 45.1 percent in 2001.

Analysis of the age composition of female millionaires in 1998 and 2001 (Figure M) reveals similarities

to the age composition of male millionaires. Women

in the youngest age brackets, through age 65, represented larger percentages of the overall female

millionaire population in 2001 than in 1998, while the

percentage of women between age 65 and 85 decreased. Between 1998 and 2001, the percentage of

millionaire women who were aged 85 and older was

unchanged.

in the portfolio allocations of men and women.

Throughout this period, female millionaires held a

higher percentage of their portfolios in real estate

than their male counterparts, while the men devoted

substantially more to retirement assets (see Figures N

and O).

Beyond these differences, however, the portfolio

composition of male and female millionaires showed

similar changes between 1998 and 2001. Real estate

made up a higher percentage of both men’s and

women’s portfolios in 2001 than in 1998. This is

consistent with a 25.9 percent increase in housing

prices from the first quarter of 1998 to the fourth

quarter of 2001 [10]. Conversely, for both sexes,

stock and other financial assets comprised a substantially smaller portion of the portfolio in 2001 than in

1998. From the beginning of 1998 through the end of

2001, the S&P 500 stock index returned a more

modest 18 percent, including a 13 percent decline

during 2001 [11].

Portfolio Composition for Millionaires

Concentration Estimates

Looking at the asset makeup of millionaires’ portfolios in 1998 and 2001 reveals significant differences

The share of U.S. wealth held by the top wealth

holders has long been a topic of interest for research-

129

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure M

Percentage of Female Millionaires, by Age, 1998 and 2001

Percentage

Under 50

50 under 65

65 under 75

75 under 85

85 and older

Age

1998

130

2001

Figure N

Male Millionaires: Selected Assets as a Percentage of Total Assets, 1998 and 2001

Percentage

All real estate

All stock ¹

Other financial assets ²

1998

130

Retirement assets ³

2001

¹ Includes publicly traded as well as closely held stock.

² Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

³ Includes noncorporate businesses, farms, and limited partnerships.

Cash and cash

management accounts

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure O

Female Millionaires: Selected Assets as a Percentage of Total Assets, 1998 and 2001

Percentage

All real estate

All stock ¹

Other financial

assets ²

1998

Retirement assets ³

Cash and cash

management accounts

2001

¹ Includes publicly traded as well as closely held stock.

² Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

³ Includes noncorporate businesses, farms, and limited partnerships.

ers and the general public. One way of looking at

year-to-year changes in the distribution of wealth is

to examine the share of total U.S. wealth held by a

constant percentage of the population. Figure P

displays the percentages of total U.S. wealth held by

the top 1.0 percent and the top 0.5 percent of the

population between 1989 and 2001 [12]. In 2001, 1.0

percent of the U.S. adult population was approximately 2.1 million individuals. These individuals

owned approximately 22.3 percent of total U.S.

individual wealth, a 1.0 percent decrease since 1998

but virtually identical to the shares of wealth held in

1995 and 1992. A similar pattern was evident in the

share of wealth held by the nearly 1.1 million individuals who made up the top 0.5 percent of the U.S.

adult population in 2001. They held about 17.9

percent of the Nation’s net worth in 2001, down

slightly from 18.1 percent in 1998 and just above the

shares held in 1995 and 1992. The slight interperiod

variations shown in Figure O are well within the

sampling error of these estimates. Overall, these

results suggest that the share of wealth held by the

very wealthiest Americans has been nearly constant

over the 12-year period [13].

Summary

There were more than 7.3 million individuals in the

United States with gross assets of $675,000 or more

in 2001. These individuals represented about 3.5

percent of the total U.S. adult population. Top

wealth holders had a combined net worth of $13.8

trillion, or 32.7 percent of total U.S. net worth.

Almost 4.0 million, or 53.7 percent, of these wealthy

individuals were male, and 3.4 million were female.

Although the median net worth of male and female

top wealth holders was similar, men had a significantly higher average net worth, reflecting the impact

of a relatively few very wealthy men at the top end

of the wealth distribution.

The age, gender, and relative wealth of top

wealth holders impacted the composition of their

portfolios. Women’s portfolios contained a greater

proportion of real estate and stock in public corporations than those of men. Conversely, men’s portfo-

131

Personal Wealth, 2001

Figure P

Percentage of Total U.S. Net Worth Held by the Top 1 Percent and 0.5 Percent of the U.S.

Population, 1989-2001

Percentage

Top 1 percent

Top 0.5 percent

1989

132

1992

1995

lios were made up of proportionately more closely

held stock, business assets, and retirement assets.

The value of the personal residence made up smaller

percentages in the portfolios of older top wealth

holders than in portfolios held by younger individuals

in the same wealth classes. Men in each wealth and

age class had a higher ratio of debts to total assets

than their female counterparts.

There was a significant increase in the number of

U.S. citizens with net worth of $1.0 million or more

between 1998 and 2001. While the number of millionaires in each wealth class grew more rapidly than

the overall U.S. population during this period, the

growth rate in the number of millionaires with net

worth of less than $5 million was slower than the rate

for millionaires with net worth of $5 million or more.

In 2001, California remained the State with the

largest number of millionaires, while Connecticut was

the State with the greatest per capita concentration

of millionaires. Estimates of the amount of wealth

held by the top 1.0 percent and 0.5 percent of the

U.S. population suggest that the percentage of overall

U.S. wealth held by these groups has not changed

significantly between 1989 and 2001.

1998

2001

Data Sources and Limitations

Statistics of Income collects data from an annual

sample of Federal estate tax returns that are used

primarily for policy and budget purposes. The sample

follows a 3-year cycle that is designed mainly to

accommodate year-of-death estimates, with each

study concentrating on decedents who died in the

first year, the focus year, of the 3-year cycle. The

annual samples are also adequate for producing

filing-year estimates. Year-of-death estimates are

desirable, because filing extensions and other filing

delays mean that returns filed in any given calendar

year may represent decedents who died in many

different years. Thus, estate tax return data for a

single filing year may reflect different economic and

tax law conditions. By concentrating on a single year

of death, these limitations can be overcome, making it

possible to study the data in the context of a single

time period.

Returns are selected using a stratified random

sample with three stratifying variables. The stratifying variables are: year of death (focus year versus

nonfocus years), total gross estate plus certain adjusted taxable gifts made during a decedent’s lifetime,

Personal Wealth, 2001

and age at death. The gross estate plus gifts variable is divided into five categories: $675,000 under

$1 million, $1 million under $2.5 million, $2.5 million

under $5 million, $5 million under $10 million, and $10

million or more. Age at death is also divided into five

categories: under 40, 40 under 50, 50 under 65, 65

under 75, and 75 and older. Sample rates vary from

3 percent to 100 percent, with over half the strata

selected with certainty, i.e., at the 100-percent rate.

SOI has combined Federal estate tax returns

filed in 2001, 2002, and 2003 to produce the estimates

of wealth for 2001 presented here. One of the

strengths of estimates derived from SOI samples of

estate tax returns is the large sample on which the

estimates are based. The 2001 sample includes more

than 25,800 returns [14].

While the sample size and richness of available

data make the estimation techniques used in this

study attractive, there are limitations to be noted.

First, and most important, estate tax returns provide a

presumably random sample, stratified by age, not of

the total population, but of living persons with gross

assets at or above the estate tax filing threshold.

Sample rates are approximated by appropriate mortality rates; however, determining appropriate mortality rates for use in calculating sample weights is by

no means a straightforward exercise. The Appendix

to this article discusses the estate multiplier technique

and recent innovations in calculating sample weights

for SOI’s personal wealth estimates.

Second, while estate tax returns are generally

prepared by professionals and are, therefore, likely to

be more accurate in detail than survey responses, the

values reported are used to compute tax liability so

that there is a natural tendency for the values to be

somewhat conservative. This is especially true for

hard-to-value assets, such as businesses and certain

types of real estate. It should also be noted that the

estate tax data used for these estimates are preaudit

figures. A Statistics of Income (SOI) study, based

on the results of IRS audits of estate tax returns filed

in 1992, estimated that detected undervaluation of

assets was about 1.2 percent of total asset holdings

[15]. In addition, it is common to claim substantial

discounts when valuing ownership interests of less

than 50 percent in small companies, partnerships, and

other, nonliquid assets. Increasingly, estate planning

techniques are used to fracture ownership interests in

a variety of business and financial assets to take

advantage of these discounts.

Third, while estate tax returns report assets that

are owned outright, total wealth might ideally include

wealth to which a person has an income interest but

not necessarily actual title. Examples of the latter

include defined-benefit pension plans and Social

Security benefits.

Finally, the wealth of some individuals near death

may differ somewhat from that of the general population in the same age cohort. For some, portfolios

may have been altered or simplified to ensure the

uninterrupted continuation of an ongoing business or

to simplify the task of executing the estate. For

others, wealth will have been reduced through expenses related to a final illness. In many cases,

effective estate planning may also have reduced the

value of the estate reportable for tax purposes.

Appendix: The Estate Multiplier Technique

The estate multiplier technique assumes that estate

tax returns, taken as a whole, represent a random

sample of the living wealthy population and thus

provide a means of producing reasonable estimates

of personal wealth [16]. Estimates of the wealth

holdings of the living population are derived by

applying a multiplier, based on appropriate mortality

rates, to this sample. The multiplier is equivalent to a

sampling weight where the probabilities of selection

include the probability of being a decedent and also

that of being included in the Statistics of Income

sample of estate tax returns. Mathematically, this is

represented as:

MULT= 1 / (p • r ) where

p = probability of selection to the estate tax

sample, and

r = mortality rate appropriate to wealthy

individuals.

Some smoothing of the multipliers was employed to

constrain both tails of the net worth distribution.

The more difficult computation is determining the

probability of being a decedent. Mortality rates for

the general population, by age and sex, are available

from the National Center for Health Statistics. However, there is much evidence that the wealthy have

mortality rates significantly lower than those of the

entire population. Research has demonstrated that

“individuals who are economically or socially better

133

Personal Wealth, 2001

134

off also live longer, on average, and are healthier”

[17]. Factors such as access to better health services, better diet and nutrition, and fewer workrelated risks seem to contribute to this phenomenon.

If mortality and wealth are inversely related, then

mortality rates unadjusted for wealth level will be too

low and, thus, undervalue wealth. Therefore, it is

important to determine a mortality rate appropriate to

the wealthy decedents in the estate tax return sample.

There have been a considerable number of

attempts to quantify differences between the mortality of the general population and that of the very

wealthy, looking at factors such as education, income,

and occupation. In years past, SOI calculated mortality rates for its Personal Weath estimates by adjusting mortality rates for the entire population using

mortality differentials derived using the National

Longitudinal Mortality Study (NLMS) sponsored by

the National Institutes of Health. However, the most

recent publicly available microdata from the NLMS

are from 1995. In order to incorporate mortality

information that was more contemporary with the

SOI data, the 2001 estate multipliers were calculated

using mortality rates for holders of large dollar value

annuity policies obtained from the Society of Actuaries (SOA). This data source has several advantages

beyond being more recently updated. First, annual

annuitant mortality rates are available. Second, use

of this source is consistent with other recent academic research within and outside the IRS.

For consistency, estimates for 1998 used in this

article were recalculated using the annuitant mortality

rates. Therefore, they differ somewhat from 1998

estimates previously published by SOI. The most

significant difference between the two weighting

methodologies is that, relative to employing the annuitant mortality data, using the NLMS data tended to

slightly underestimate the proportion of wealthy

women in the top wealth holder population.

Notes and References

134

[1] Estimates of the equity value of life insurance

included in total assets were approximated,

based on the face value reported on Federal

estate tax returns and on the decedent’s age. A

ratio of the equity value to the face value was

developed, using data from wealthy respondents

to the 1989, 1992, and 1995 Surveys of Consumer Finances. A simple regression was used

to estimate the ratio of the equity value to the

face value as a function of age in the SCF and

then applied to the Statistics of Income data.

In addition, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)

section 2032 allows executors to value property

as of the date 6 months after a decedent’s death

(or on the date property is distributed, sold,

exchanged, or otherwise disposed of, within 6

months of death) in cases where the value of

the gross estate decreased. Values presented in

this article are as reported for the decedent’s

date of death.

Finally, under IRC section 2032A, executors are

allowed to value certain qualified real property

used in a farm or other business based on its

business (qualified) use rather than at a higher

fair market value under certain circumstances.

For this article, fair market values are substituted for the qualified values used to determine

estate tax liability.

[2] Population estimates were obtained from the

Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S.

Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, various

years, Table entitled “Resident Population by

Sex and Age.”

[3] Estimate of the total net worth of the United

States is taken from household estimates derived

from the Board of Governers of the Federal

Reserve System’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), found in Kennickell, Arthur B.

(2001), “A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001,” Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve System

working paper, p. 21.

[4] Retirement assets considered part of portfolio

wealth in these estimates include contribution

type plans such as Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), 401K, and Keogh accounts,

as well as annuities.

[5] A closely held company is a corporation whose

stock is not publicly traded, usually a familyowned enterprise.

[6] While the size of the underlying sample of estate

tax returns makes estimates of wealth derived

using the estate multiplier technique fairly robust,

Personal Wealth, 2001

estimates of wealth by State can be subject to

significant year-to-year fluctuations. This is

especially true for individuals at the extreme tail

of the net worth distribution and for States with

relatively small decedent populations.

[7] Statistics on U.S. population, by State, for 2001

were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, “Population by State,” published online

at: http://www.census.gov/popest/states.

[8] Estimates for 1998 have been converted to

constant 2001 dollars for consistency, using the

GDP chain-type price index. See the Federal

Reserve Economic Data Web site at:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2.

[9] Data on business cycle expansions and contractions were obtained from the National Bureau

of Economic Research (NBER). See http://

www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html.

[10] Change in housing prices was calculated using

the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise

Oversight (OFHEO) House Price Index. See

http://www.ofheo.gov.

[11] Data on returns of the S&P 500 index were

obtained from the Standard & Poor Web site.

See http://www2.standardandpoors.com.

[12] See Footnote 2.

[13] These results are consistent with those derived

from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of

Consumer Finances. See Kennickell (2001).

[14] Although the overall sample of estate tax

returns is large, the number of decedents who

were young (less than 40) or extremely wealthy

(gross assets of $5 million or more) in any given

year varies considerably and is small in comparison to their number in the living population.

Because of this, the resulting estimates of

wealth for these two categories of living

individuals would be subject to significant

fluctuations from period to period. To reduce

this variance, the sample is “smoothed” by

including all returns for young or wealthy

decedents filed during the 3-year sample period

without regard to their years of death. These

segments of the sample are then poststratified

and reweighted to represent the true decedent

population for the year of interest. This technique reduces the effect of outliers on estimates

of personal wealth.

[15] Eller, Martha Britton (2001), “Audit Revaluation

of Federal Estate Tax Returns,” Internal

Revenue Service Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 2000-2001, Washington, DC.

[16] See Atkinson, A.B. and Harrison, A.J. (1978),

Distribution of Personal Wealth in Britain,

for a thorough discussion of the estate multiplier

technique.

[17] See Menchik, Paul (1991), “Economic Status as

a Determinant of Mortality Among Nonwhite

and White Older Males: or, Does Poverty

Kill?” Institute for Research on Poverty,

Discussion Paper Number 93891.

135

Personal Wealth, 2001

Table 1.--Personal Wealth, 2001: Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of $675,000 or More, Type of

Property by Size of Net Worth

[All figures are estimates based on samples--numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars]

Total assets

Size of net worth

Number

(1)

Number

(2)

(3)

Amount

Number

(4)

(5)

Personal residence

Amount

Number

(6)

(7)

Amount

(8)

7,357

15,181,904

5,683

1,348,314

7,357

13,833,590

5,486

1,790,585

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹..........................

$1 under $600,000............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000..............

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000...........

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000...........

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000.........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.......

$20,000,000 or more.........................

1,509

2,307

2,569

574

243

34,901

980,726

2,080,347

4,127,949

2,106,827

1,771,700

1,128,101

2,951,352

1,343

1,657

1,896

451

196

59,218

299,959

178,962

290,366

145,890

104,753

74,128

195,037

1,509

2,307

2,569

574

243

-24,318

680,767

1,901,385

3,837,583

1,960,937

1,666,947

1,053,973

2,756,315

1,182

1,654

1,904

438

187

6,897

282,507

411,849

585,453

211,564

143,179

74,680

74,457

Other real estate

Number

(9)

Total......................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹..........................

$1 under $600,000............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000..............

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000...........

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000...........

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000.........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.......

$20,000,000 or more.........................

Size of net worth

Closely held stock

Amount

Number

(10)

(11)

Publicly traded stock

Amount

Number

(12)

(13)

State and local government

bonds

Amount

Number

(14)

(15)

Amount

(16)

3,453

1,483,808

1,179

1,228,657

5,475

3,492,512

2,073

877,867

621

970

1,267

339

150

4,116

140,049

221,197

451,974

259,276

175,206

96,322

135,669

182

217

448

166

2,209

29,826

49,671

203,715

165,506

173,792

154,327

449,612

900

1,700

2,042

486

216

8,058

68,119

333,887

814,725

487,587

450,143

300,377

1,029,616

586

925

257

133

155

4,623

65,654

191,683

133,125

165,256

99,247

218,124

Federal savings bonds

Other Federal bonds

Corporate and foreign bonds

Bond funds

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

Amount

(24)

Total......................................................

867

34,918

1,068

237,996

1,155

123,750

377

28,251

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹..........................

$1 under $600,000............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000..............

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000...........

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000...........

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000.........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.......

$20,000,000 or more.........................

189

312

287

1,425

11,985

17,810

2,566

663

214

254

-65

349

466

109

-2,992

28,393

60,430

28,846

21,077

18,637

77,621

386

469

120

515

2,944

20,311

40,260

20,599

11,775

7,609

19,737

-32

138

153

-714

6,589

11,924

3,782

2,358

844

2,041

Footnotes at end of table.

136

Amount

Net worth

Total......................................................

Size of net worth

136

Debts and mortgages

Personal Wealth, 2001

Table 1.--Personal Wealth, 2001: Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of $675,000 or More, Type of

Property by Size of Net Worth--Continued

[All figures are estimates based on samples--numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars]

Size of net worth

Diversified mutual funds ²

Cash

Cash management accounts

Mortgages and notes

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

Amount

(32)

Total......................................................

1,616

141,541

6,936

836,805

4,656

583,257

1,455

379,574

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹..........................

$1 under $600,000............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000..............

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000...........

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000...........

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000.........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.......

$20,000,000 or more.........................

236

544

586

144

7,597

25,201

38,836

22,725

8,833

5,366

32,973

1,426

2,172

2,418

548

229

1,698

52,750

185,816

278,841

108,247

67,677

46,625

95,150

684

1,457

1,772

432

194

844

19,482

87,089

170,679

86,697

79,643

49,364

89,459

201

384

558

169

783

18,876

47,220

106,889

52,727

60,807

31,962

60,310

Size of net worth

Cash value life insurance

Number

(33)

Total......................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹..........................

$1 under $600,000............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000..............

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000...........

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000...........

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000.........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.......

$20,000,000 or more.........................

Noncorporate business assets

Amount

Number

(34)

(35)

Farm assets

Amount

Number

(36)

(37)

Limited partnerships

Amount

Number

(38)

(39)

Amount

(40)

4,936

257,998

1,052

646,274

726

356,921

747

408,577

1,354

1,472

1,547

324

139

3,086

76,095

53,199

76,310

24,754

14,170

4,925

5,459

189

205

368

135

1,837

20,768

33,456

99,258

84,715

84,869

87,094

234,278

211

304

1,964

25,522

65,491

128,713

45,387

34,624

15,628

39,592

148

300

117

2,428

10,696

43,421

38,668

55,530

40,503

217,325

Size of net worth

Total..........................................................................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹...............................................................................

$1 under $600,000.................................................................................

$600,000 under $1,000,000...................................................................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000................................................................

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000................................................................

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000..............................................................

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000............................................................

$20,000,000 or more.............................................................................

Retirement assets ³

Art

Other assets

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

Amount

(46)

5,541

1,802,138

235

60,915

6,549

409,565

1,204

1,729

1,915

414

178

931

184,939

358,632

697,096

273,472

160,929

66,207

59,934

329

886

3,483

7,176

3,553

4,772

40,683

1,366

2,002

2,288

524

225

1,754

38,743

63,127

106,453

49,412

57,617

23,400

69,059

¹ Includes individuals with zero net worth.

² Mutual funds with a single investment objective are grouped with similar direct investments in this table.

³ Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

137

Personal Wealth, 2001

Table 2.--Personal Wealth, 2001: Male Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of $675,000 or More, Type

of Property by Size of Net Worth

[All figures are estimates based on samples--numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars]

Total assets

Size of net worth

Total........................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

Size of net worth

Personal residence

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Amount

(8)

3,953

8,890,276

3,050

890,738

3,953

7,999,538

2,893

887,979

919

1,083

1,363

333

155

32,272

562,062

984,350

2,243,244

1,222,038

1,148,462

624,240

2,073,608

815

758

993

268

125

56,118

178,495

93,780

189,812

92,767

84,312

43,765

151,689

919

1,083

1,363

333

155

-23,846

383,567

890,570

2,053,432

1,129,271

1,064,150

580,475

1,921,920

715

746

989

251

118

5,907

158,339

162,180

284,976

110,947

83,846

30,216

51,568

Other real estate

(9)

Closely held stock

Amount

Number

(10)

(11)

Publicly traded stock

Amount

Number

(12)

(13)

State and local government

bonds

Amount

Number

(14)

(15)

Amount

(16)

Total........................................................

1,895

848,748

822

883,579

2,822

1,946,329

947

451,288

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

344

501

683

202

100

3,400

74,712

114,128

247,600

143,503

115,265

50,809

99,331

139

142

305

114

2,209

23,875

35,262

145,384

121,794

150,390

77,985

326,681

517

759

1,046

281

137

8,026

38,808

141,310

385,646

253,438

269,144

159,053

690,904

243

405

135

155

2,334

25,164

80,165

59,062

87,486

52,029

144,893

Size of net worth

Total........................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

Footnotes at end of table.

138

Net worth

Number

138

Debts and mortgages

Federal savings bonds

Other Federal bonds

Corporate and foreign bonds

Bond funds

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

Amount

(24)

471

14,227

475

135,232

531

61,662

174

12,541

135

138

153

(²)

653

4,788

6,351

1,741

360

128

206

-30

152

189

-498

12,022

25,036

14,818

12,554

11,457

58,848

139

227

515

1,563

5,912

17,669

8,117

6,325

4,272

17,288

-19

-270

2,241

4,947

2,014

1,877

319

873

Personal Wealth, 2001

Table 2.--Personal Wealth, 2001: Male Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of $675,000 or More, Type

of Property by Size of Net Worth--Continued

[All figures are estimates based on samples--numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars]

Size of net worth

Diversified mutual funds ³

Cash management accounts

Mortgages and notes

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

796

78,572

3,744

485,476

2,337

320,619

842

215,185

147

199

298

4,385

10,152

18,898

7,752

5,693

2,417

29,261

875

1,020

1,286

321

150

1,670

32,038

79,495

146,168

69,611

49,352

30,554

76,588

368

620

912

243

122

843

8,551

36,773

77,647

48,475

50,212

29,452

68,665

120

209

317

100

783

9,795

19,629

60,888

31,307

35,377

16,859

40,546

Total........................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

Size of net worth

Cash

Cash value life insurance

Number

(33)

Noncorporate business assets

Amount

Number

(34)

(35)

Farm assets

Amount

Number

(36)

(37)

Amount

(32)

Limited partnerships

Amount

Number

(38)

(39)

Amount

(40)

Total........................................................

3,072

198,673

698

440,794

442

238,942

418

281,092

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

864

786

997

237

112

2,787

55,230

35,977

61,317

21,615

13,016

4,352

4,380

148

128

229

1,813

16,429

20,334

65,926

44,834

57,511

54,237

179,711

130

173

1,549

19,939

41,324

81,308

31,289

18,926

10,590

34,016

155

1,595

6,288

26,433

26,556

35,791

22,873

161,549

Size of net worth

Retirement assets

Number

(41)

Total.............................................................................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹.................................................................................

$1 under $600,000...................................................................................

$600,000 under $1,000,000.....................................................................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000..................................................................

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000..................................................................

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000................................................................

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000..............................................................

$20,000,000 or more................................................................................

Art

Amount

Number

(42)

(43)

Other assets

Amount

Number

Amount

(44)

(45)

3,091

1,147,780

110

21,083

3,516

220,478

(46)

728

843

1,071

258

123

910

88,220

199,488

446,225

193,665

120,919

52,954

45,400

132

742

1,389

5,770

1,036

2,269

9,713

830

942

1,212

300

143

1,653

24,695

31,141

59,273

25,730

33,383

11,414

33,189

¹ Includes individuals with zero net worth.

² Less than $500,000.

³ Mutual funds with a single investment objective are grouped with similar direct investments in this table.

Includes individual retirement accounts, annuities, and self-employed retirement or Keogh plans.

139

Personal Wealth, 2001

Table 3.--Personal Wealth, 2001: Female Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of $675,000 or More,

Type of Property by Size of Net Worth

[All figures are estimates based on samples--numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars]

Total assets

Size of net worth

Total........................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

Size of net worth

Personal residence

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Amount

(8)

3,404

6,291,628

2,633

457,576

3,404

5,834,052

2,592

902,607

589

1,224

1,206

240

2,628

418,664

1,095,997

1,884,705

884,789

623,239

503,862

877,743

528

899

903

183

3,100

121,464

85,182

100,554

53,123

20,441

30,363

43,349

589

1,224

1,206

240

-472

297,201

1,010,815

1,784,151

831,666

602,798

473,498

834,395

467

908

916

186

990

124,168

249,669

300,477

100,617

59,333

44,464

22,889

Other real estate

(9)

Closely held stock

Amount

Number

(10)

(11)

Publicly traded stock

Amount

Number

(12)

(13)

State and local government

bonds

Amount

Number

(14)

(15)

Amount

(16)

Total........................................................

1,558

635,060

357

345,078

2,653

1,546,183

1,127

426,579

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

276

469

584

137

716

65,337

107,069

204,374

115,773

59,941

45,513

36,338

-43

143

-5,951

14,409

58,332

43,712

23,402

76,342

122,931

384

940

996

205

29,311

192,577

429,079

234,149

180,999

141,324

338,713

-50

343

520

122

-2,289

40,490

111,518

74,063

77,769

47,218

73,231

Size of net worth

Total........................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

Footnotes at end of table.

140

Net worth

Number

140

Debts and mortgages

Federal savings bonds

Other Federal bonds

Corporate and foreign bonds

Bond funds

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

Amount

(24)

396

20,691

593

102,764

624

62,088

203

15,711

173

135

772

7,198

11,459

825

303

-34

197

278

-2,493

16,371

35,394

14,028

8,524

7,180

18,773

-44

247

242

-1,381

14,399

22,591

12,482

5,449

3,336

2,449

-13

-444

4,348

6,977

1,768

481

525

1,167

Personal Wealth, 2001

Table 3.--Personal Wealth, 2001: Female Top Wealth Holders with Gross Assets of $675,000 or More,

Type of Property by Size of Net Worth--Continued

[All figures are estimates based on samples--numbers are in thousands, money amounts are in millions of dollars]

Size of net worth

Diversified mutual funds ²

Cash management accounts

Mortgages and notes

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

Amount

Number

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

820

62,969

3,193

351,329

2,320

262,638

613

164,389

-88

345

289

-3,212

15,048

19,937

14,972

3,140

2,948

3,712

551

1,152

1,132

227

20,713

106,321

132,673

38,635

18,325

16,071

18,563

317

836

860

189

10,931

50,316

93,032

38,222

29,431

19,912

20,793

-81

175

240

-9,081

27,591

46,001

21,419

25,430

15,103

19,764

Total........................................................

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

Size of net worth

Cash

Cash value life insurance

Number

Noncorporate business assets

Amount

Number

(35)

Farm assets

Amount

Number

(36)

(37)

Amount

(32)

Limited partnerships

Amount

Number

(38)

(39)

Amount

(33)

(34)

Total........................................................

1,864

59,325

353

205,480

284

117,979

329

127,485

Size of net worth:

Negative net worth ¹............................

$1 under $600,000..............................

$600,000 under $1,000,000................

$1,000,000 under $2,500,000.............

$2,500,000 under $5,000,000.............

$5,000,000 under $10,000,000...........

$10,000,000 under $20,000,000.........

$20,000,000 or more...........................

491

686

551

298

20,865

17,222

14,992

3,139

1,154

574

1,079

139

4,339

13,122

33,332

39,882

27,358

32,857

54,567

131

415

5,583

24,166

47,405

14,098

15,698

5,038

5,576

-31

145

-833

4,408

16,988

12,112

19,739

17,629

55,776