Wealth Inequality in the United
States since 1913
Emmanuel Saez (UC Berkeley)
Gabriel Zucman (LSE)
October 2014
Introduction
US Income inequality has increased sharply since the 1970s
Mixed existing evidence on wealth inequality changes
⇒ Is inequality increase driven solely by labor income?
We capitalize income tax return data to estimate new annual
series of US wealth concentration since 1913
Key result: Wealth inequality has surged but phenomenon is
concentrated mostly within the top .1% (=wealth above $20m)
U-Shaped Wealth Concentration
Top 0.1% wealth share in the United States, 1913-2012
25%
15%
10%
2013
2008
2003
1998
1993
1988
1983
1978
1973
1968
1963
1958
1953
1948
1943
1938
1933
1928
1923
0%
1918
5%
1913
% of total household wealth
20%
This figure depicts the share of total household wealth held by the 0.1% richest families, as estimated by capitalizing income tax
returns. In 2012, the top 0.1% includes about 160,000 families with net wealth above $20.6 million. Source: Appendix Table B1.
Surge in top wealth shares concentrated
in top 0.1%
Top wealth shares: decomposing the top 1%
14%
% of total household wealth
12%
Top 0.5%-0.1%
10%
8%
6%
Top 1%-0.5%
Top 0.1%-0.01%
4%
Top 0.01%
2%
0%
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Outline of the talk
I.The capitalization method
II. The distribution of wealth
III. Robustness and comparison with existing estimates
IV. Decomposing wealth accumulation: income and saving rates
I- The capitalization method
To obtain wealth, we divide capital
income by the rate of return
How the capitalization technique works:
Start from each capital income component reported on individual
tax returns
Compute aggregate rate of return for each asset class (using
Flow of Funds and aggregate tax data)
Multiply each individual capital income component by 1/rate of
return of corresponding asset class
Simple idea, but lot of care needed in reconciling tax with Flow
of Funds data
Key assumption: uniform return within asset class
⇒ Need detailed income components to obtain reliable results
Aggregate income and wealth
Aggregate wealth
W = Total assets minus liabilities of households at market value
Excludes durables, unfunded DB pensions, non-profits
Source: Flow of Funds since 1945, Goldsmith, Wolff (1989),
Kopczuk and Saez (2004) before
Aggregate income
NIPA since 1929, Kuznets (1941) and King (1930) before 1929
returns
Family unit
Top 1% = Top 1% of all family units [as in Piketty and Saez]
defs
A U-shaped wealth-income ratio
The composition of household wealth in the U.S., 1913-2013
500%
Pensions
300%
Currency, deposits and bonds
Equities
200%
100%
Sole proprietorships
& partnerships
2013
2008
2003
1998
1993
1988
1983
1978
1973
1968
1963
1958
1953
1948
1943
1938
1933
1928
1923
1918
Housing (net of mortgages)
0%
1913
% of national income
400%
Distributional data: income tax returns
Consistent, annual, high quality data since 1913:
Composition tabulations by size of income 1913IRS micro-files with oversampling of the top 1962Various additional IRS published stats (estates, IRAs, trusts,
foundations)
Detailed income categories:
Dividends, interest (+ tax exempt since 1987), rents,
unincorporated business profits (S corporations, partnerships,
sole prop.), royalties, realized capital gains, etc.
A lot of income “flows to” individual income tax returns
Mutual funds, S corporations, partnerships, holding companies,
trusts, etc.
Concentration of reported capital income
has increased dramatically
The top 0.1% taxable capital income share
45%
% of taxable capital income
40%
35%
30%
Including capital gains
25%
20%
15%
Excluding capital gains
10%
5%
0%
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
How we deal with non-taxable
components
Owner-occupied housing
Home values set proportional to property tax paid
Home mortgages set proportional to mortgage interest paid
We assume (based on SCF) that itemizers have 75% of home
wealth and 80% of home mortgages
Pensions
Pension wealth set proportional to pension distributions and
wages above 50th percentile
Consistent with SCF and with direct information on IRA wealth
from IRS (IRAs ≈ 30% of pension wealth)
⇓
Only matters for top 10% but irrelevant for top 1% and
above, because pensions and housing very small there
How we deal with avoidance and evasion
Tax avoidance:
Systematic reconciliation exercise with national accounts to
identify potential gaps in tax data kinc
E.g., trust income → imputations on the basis of distributions
(Retained trust income ≈ 2% of household capital income)
trusts
charitable
Tax evasion:
Third-party reporting means all dividends and interest earned
through domestic banks are reported
Offshore wealth: If anything increases the trend in rising wealth
top wealth shares by about 2 points offshore
Is the return constant within asset class?
Two potential issues:
Maybe the very rich have higher equity/bond returns (e.g.,
better at spotting good investment opportunities) → level bias
Maybe this differential has increased since the 1970s (e.g., due to
financial globalization/innovation) → trend bias
⇓
Two checks show that return within asset class is flat and has
remained flat
Check 1: No evidence that the wealthy
have higher returns within asset class
10.0%
Returns by asset and wealth class, 2007
(matched tabulated estates and income tax data)
9.0%
8.0%
Dividends + capital gains
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
Dividends yield
3.0%
2.0%
Interest yield
1.0%
0.0%
up to $3.5m
$3.5m-$5m
$5m-$10m
$10m-$20m
Total net wealth at death
$20m+
The very rich did collect a lot of
dividends in the 1970s
Dividend yield by wealth class in 1976
(matched micro estate and income tax data)
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
P90-95
P95-99
P99-99.5
P99.5-99.9
P99.9-99.99
Fractiles of the distribution of net wealth at death
P99.99-100
Check 2: The capitalization method
works for SCF and foundations
Capitalization method can be checked with joint income and
wealth micro-data:
1) SCF Data: provides individual micro-data for both wealth and
(tax return) income component by component since 1989
2) Foundation Data: publicly available IRS micro-data with
information on both market value wealth and income returns
We apply same rates of returns & capitalization technique as for
individual tax returns
⇓
By capitalizing income we are able to reproduce the correct
wealth distribution
Top household wealth shares: reported SCF wealth vs.
capitalized SCF incomes
100%
Top 10%
80%
Wealth
60%
Top 1%
40%
Capitalized income
20%
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
0%
1988
Top 0.1%
1990
% of household wealth excluding pensions and owneroccupied housing
Capitalization method works for the SCF
The figure compares direct SCF wealth shares to wealth shares estimated by capitalizing SCF income. Wealth excludes
pensions and owner-occupied net housing. Source: Appendix Table C1.
Capitalization works for foundations
Top foundations wealth shares: reported wealth vs.
capitalized income
80%
Wealth
Top 1%
60%
50%
40%
Capitalized income
Top 0.1%
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
20%
1987
30%
1985
% of foundation net wealth
70%
The figure compares top foundation wealth shares obtained by using balance sheet wealth data as reported to the IRS and
obained by capitalizing IRS-reported income. Source: Appendix Tables C11 and C13.
II- The US Wealth Distribution,
1913-2012
Wealth in 2012 is very concentrated
Table 1: Thresholds and average wealth in top wealth groups, 2012
Wealth
group
Number of families
Wealth threshold
Average wealth
Wealth share
$343,000
100%
A. Top Wealth Groups
Full Population
160,700,000
Top 10%
16,070,000
$660,000
$2,560,000
77.2%
Top 1%
1,607,000
$3,960,000
$13,840,000
41.8%
Top 0.1%
160,700
$20,600,000
$72,800,000
22.0%
Top .01%
16,070
$111,000,000
$371,000,000
11.2%
$84,000
22.8%
$660,000
$1,310,000
35.4%
B. Intermediate Wealth Groups
Bottom 90%
144,600,000
Top 10-1%
14,463,000
Top 1-0.1%
1,446,300
$3,960,000
$7,290,000
19.8%
Top 0.1-0.01%
144,600
$20,600,000
$39,700,000
10.8%
Top .01%
16,070
$111,000,000
$371,000,000
11.2%
Wealth inequality is making a comeback
Main long-run trends in the distribution of wealth:
Long run U-shaped evolution for the very rich
(top 0.1%: >$20 million today)
Long run L-shaped evolution for the rich
(top 1% to 0.1%: between $4 million and 20 million today)
Long-run ∩-shaped for the middle-class
(top 50% to 90%: less than $650K today)
(Memo: Bottom 50% always owns ≈ 0 net wealth)
Wealth has always been concentrated
Top 10% wealth share in the United States, 1917-2012
90%
80%
Capitalized income
75%
SCF
70%
The figure depicts the share of total household wealth owned by the top 10%, obained by capitalizing income tax returns
versus in the Survey of Consumer Finances. The unit of analysis is the familly. Source: Appendix Tables B1 and C4.
2012
2007
2002
1997
1992
1987
1982
1977
1972
1967
1962
1957
1952
1947
1942
1937
1932
1927
60%
1922
65%
1917
% of total household wealth
85%
Top 1% has gained more than top 10%
Top 10-1% and 1% wealth shares, 1913-2012
55%
Top 10% to 1%
45%
40%
35%
Top 1%
30%
2013
2008
2003
1998
1993
1988
1983
1978
1973
1968
1963
1958
1953
1948
1943
1938
1933
1928
1923
20%
1918
25%
1913
% of total household wealth
50%
Top 1% surge is due to the top 0.1%
Top 1-0.1% and top 0.1% wealth shares, 1913-2012
30%
Top 1% to 0.1%
20%
15%
10%
Top 0.1%
2013
2008
2003
1998
1993
1988
1983
1978
1973
1968
1963
1958
1953
1948
1943
1938
1933
1928
1923
0%
1918
5%
1913
% of total household wealth
25%
Top 0.01% share: × 4 in last 35 years
Composition of the top 0.01% wealth share, 1913-2012
12%
8%
Fixed income
claims
6%
4%
Equities
2%
2008
2003
1998
1993
1988
1983
1978
1973
1968
1963
1958
1953
1948
1943
1938
1933
1928
1923
Other
1918
0%
1913
% of total household wealth
10%
The rise and fall of middle-class wealth
Composition of the bottom 90% wealth share
40%
35%
25%
Pensions
20%
Equities & fixed claims
(net of non-mortgage debt)
15%
Business assets
10%
5%
2012
2007
2002
1997
1992
1987
1982
1977
1972
1967
1962
1957
1952
1947
1942
1937
1932
1927
1922
0%
Housing (net of mortgages)
1917
% of total household wealth
30%
Wealth is getting older, but at the very
top remains younger than in the ’60s-’70s
Share of wealth held by elderly households (65+)
60% % of each group's total wealth
50% Top 0.1%
40% 30% Total population
20% Bottom 90%
10% 0% 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Share of income and labor income of top
wealth holders has grown a lot
Share of income earned by top 0.1% wealth-holders
8%
% of total pre-tax income
7%
6%
National income
5%
4%
3%
2%
Labor income
1%
0%
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
This figure shows the share of total pre-tax national income and pre-tax labor income earned by top 0.1% wealth-holders. Labor
income includes employee compensation and the labor component of business income. Source: Appendix Tables B25 and B28.
III- Robustness and comparison
with existing estimates
Findings are robust to different
methodological choices
Robustness checks:
Different treatment of capital gains
Capitalizing dividends only (Bill Gates world)
Capitalizing dividends plus capital gains (Warren Buffet world)
Capitalizing dividends plus capital gains for shares but not
ranking (the best of both worlds)
Allowing for bond yield rising with wealth
Different imputations for pension wealth
⇓
All show wealth inequalities rising fast at the very top, but
not below the top 0.1%
Results robust to alternative treatment of
pensions, capital gains, bond returns
Figure B27: Top 0.1% wealth share, all methods
25%
Top 0.1% Baseline
Top 0.1% KG capitalized
20%
Top 0.1% KG not capitalized
Top 0.1% pensions proportional to pension distributions
Top 0.1% higher bond return for the rich
15%
10%
5%
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Link with previous studies using
alternative data
Forbes 400 rich list: large increase in wealth concentration
Surveys: SCF shows increase in top 10% but less in top 1%
SCF excludes Forbes 400 and under-estimates capital income
concentration increases since 1989
Estate tax multiplier: No increase in top 1% wealth share
since 1980s (Kopczuk-Saez 2004, SOI studies)
Estate tax multiplier method fails to take into account widening
mortality differential by wealth class
⇓
Our capitalization analysis can help SCF weights and estate
multiplier weights
Our estimate for top 0.01% is consistent
with Forbes rankings
3.0%
12%
2.5%
10%
Top 0.00025%, Forbes magazine
(left-hand scale)
2.0%
8%
1.5%
6%
Top 0.01%, capitalized income
(right-hand scale)
1.0%
4%
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
0%
1988
0.0%
1986
2%
1984
0.5%
The figure depicts the top .00025% wealth share as estimated from the Forbes 400 list on the left axis. For comparison, the figure
reports our top 0.01% wealth share obtained by capitalizing income tax returns (on the right axis). Source: Appendix Table C3.
Top .01% share (% of total household wealth)
14%
1982
Top 0.00025% share (% of total household wealth)
Forbes 400 (top .00025%) and top .01% Wealth Shares
3.5%
Estate tax returns fail to capture rising
top wealth shares
Top 0.1% wealth share: comparison of estimates
25%
Capitalized income
SCF
adjusted
15%
10%
SCF
baseline
5%
The figure depicts the top 0.1% wealth share obained by capitalizing income, by using the Survey of Consumer Finances
(SCF baseline and adjusted), and by using estate tax data (Kopczuk and Saez, 2004). Source: Appendix C4 and C4b.
2012
2007
2002
1997
1992
1987
1982
1977
1972
1967
1962
1957
1952
1947
1942
1937
1932
1927
0%
1922
Estate multiplier
1917
% of total household wealth
20%
SCF does not fully capture rising top
capital income share
Top 0.1% Capital Income Share in the SCF and Tax Data
45%
Tax data
40%
% taxable capital income
35%
30%
25%
20%
SCF
15%
10%
5%
0%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
The figure compares the top 0.1% capital income shares estimated with the SCF data vs. the income tax data. Capital
income includes realized capital gains, dividends, interest, net rents, and business profits. Source: Appendix Table C2.
Estate multiplier issue: mortality gradient
by wealth within top 10%
Mortality (relative to full population)
Relative Mortality by Age and Wealth Group, Men, 1999-2008
100%
80%
60%
top 10%
40%
top 5%
top 1%
20%
Kopczuk-Saez
0%
30-49
50-64
65-79
80+
Age groups
The figure depicts the relative mortality rate by age and wealth group for men in 1999-2008. E.g., male top 1% wealth
holders aged 30-49 mortality rate is 40% of males aged 30-49 population wide. Kopczuk-Saez is based on the mortality
of white college goers relative to population in the 1980s. The graph shows that mortality decreases with wealth (even
within the top 10%) and that the wealth mortality advantage decreases with age. Source: Appendix Table C7.
Estate multiplier issue: mortality gradient
by wealth widens over time
Mortality (relative to full population)
Evolu&on of Mortality Advantage, Men, Aged 65-­‐79 100%
80%
top 10%
60%
top 5%
top 1%
Kopczuk-Saez
40%
1979-­‐1984 1984-­‐1988 1989-­‐1993 1994-­‐1998 1999-­‐2003 2004-­‐2008 The figure depicts the relative mortality rate for men aged 65-79 by wealth group and period. E.g., male top 1% wealth
holders aged 65-79 mortality rate is 90% of males aged 65-79 population wide in 1979-1984. Kopczuk-Saez is based on
the mortality of white college goers relative to population in the 1980s. The graph shows that the wealth mortality
advantage increases overtime and more so for the top 1% wealthiest. Source: Appendix Figure C7.
IV- Decomposing Wealth Accumulation:
Saving Rates and Income Shares of Top
Wealth Holders
Top 1% vs. bottom 90% wealth growth
Real average wealth of bottom 90% and top 1% families
140,000
Top 1% (left y-axis)
120,000
Bottom 90% (right y-axis)
10,000,000
100,000
8,000,000
80,000
6,000,000
60,000
4,000,000
40,000
2,000,000
20,000
Real values are obtained by using the GDP deflator, 2010 dollars. Source: Appendix Tables B3.
2010
2006
2002
1998
1994
1990
1986
1982
1978
1974
1970
1966
1962
1958
1950
0
1946
0
1954
Top 1% real average welath
12,000,000
Bottom 90% real average wealth
14,000,000
Wealth distribution Dynamics
Individual i wealth accumulation can always be written:
i
Wt+1
= (1 + qti ) · (Wti + sti · Yti )
where Wti is wealth, Yti is income, sti is net savings rate, 1 + qti is
pure price effect on assets in year t
We define synthetic savings rate stp for fractile p (e.g., top 1%):
p
Wt+1
= (1 + qtp ) · (Wtp + stp · Ytp )
where 1 + qtp is price effect for fractile p based on Wtp composition
p
⇒ long-run steady state: shW
= shYp ·
sp
s
p
where shW
is fractile p share of wealth, shYp is fractile p share of
income, and s p /s is relative savings rate of fractile p
Saving rates typically rise with wealth
Top 1%
Top 10 to 1%
2010-12
2000-09
1990-99
1980-89
1970-79
1960-69
1950-59
1940-49
1930-39
1920-29
Bottom 90%
1917-19
% of each group's total primary income
Saving rates by wealth class (decennial averages)
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
The bottom 90% massively dis-saved in
the decade preceding the crisis
Saving rate of the bottom 90%
% of bottom 90% primary income
15%
10%
5%
0%
1975
-5%
-10%
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Bottom 90% wealth share decline due to
(a) savings collapse, (b) income share fall
Share of income and wealth of bottom 90% wealth holders
70%
Income share
60%
50%
Simulated 1985-2012 wealth share (constant
3% saving rate and constant income share)
40%
30%
20%
Simulated 1985-2012 wealth share
(constant 3% saving rate)
10%
2012
2007
2002
1997
1992
1987
1982
1977
1972
1967
1962
1957
1952
1947
1942
1937
1932
1927
1922
1917
0%
Observed wealth share
Since the 1980s the share of total household wealth owned by families in the bottom 90% of the wealth distribution has fallen
proportionally more than the share of total pre-tax national income earned by these families. Source: Appendix Tables B1, B25 and B33c.
Table 2: Rates of growth, saving and return by wealth group
Real growth Private saving
Real growth
rate of
rate (personal Real rate of Total pre-tax
rate of wealth
income per
+ retained capital gains rate of return
per family
family
earnings)
gwf
gyf
1.8%
-0.4%
2.3%
3.6%
0.5%
0.0%
1.2%
1.4%
s = S/Y
q
r+q
0.9%
0.2%
1.0%
1.5%
9.0%
7.9%
9.2%
10.5%
-0.6%
-0.2%
-0.9%
-1.1%
6.6%
6.2%
6.8%
7.2%
0.9%
1.3%
0.7%
0.9%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.9%
1917-1929
All
Bottom 90%
Top 10%
Top 1%
10%
1%
23%
28%
1929-1986
All
Bottom 90%
Top 10%
Top 1%
1.5%
3.0%
1.0%
0.3%
2.0%
2.3%
1.4%
0.5%
12%
6%
24%
24%
1986-2012
All
Bottom 90%
Top 10%
Top 1%
1.9%
0.1%
2.7%
3.9%
1.3%
0.7%
2.3%
3.4%
9%
0%
22%
36%
Effects of Savings and Income Inequality
Bottom 90%: Since mid-1980s, plummeting savings rate s p for
bottom 90% relative to aggregate s [due to surge in debt]
⇒ Decline in bottom 90% wealth share, and expected to continue
Top 1%: Since mid-1970s, surge in income share held by top
wealth holders and solid savings rate s p (relative to aggregate s)
⇒ Short-run: Large increase in top wealth shares, and expected to
continue
⇒ Long-run: Self-made wealth could become inherited wealth and
lead to the “patrimony society” of Piketty (2014)
Policies to Reduce Wealth Inequality
Top 1%: Progressive taxation (income, wealth, inheritance) is a
proven historical tool to reduce income/wealth concentration
Progressive income and wealth tax reduce income and savings
incentives at the top
Estate taxation can prevent self-made wealth from becoming
inherited wealth
Bottom 90%: Collapse in savings due to surge in debt [due to
present bias for consumption? stagnating incomes? financial
de-regulation?]
⇒ Middle class income support + financial regulation
⇒ Need to encourage savings / discourage debt [= nudged savings +
borrow against yourself?]
Conclusion
A first step toward DINA
We are constructing new, consistent series on the distribution of
wealth W and income Y = YK + YL fully consistent with flow of
funds and national accounts
Next step: construct a microfile with individual-level income
(pre-tax and post-tax) and wealth consistent with macro flow of
funds and national income accounts
= distributional national accounts (DINA), reconciling
macro growth and inequality studies
Need for better wealth and savings data
Using additional data would enable us to refine our estimates:
E.g., matched property and individual income tax data
Modest additional administrative data collection effort could
have high value:
401(k) taccounts balance reporting (and not only IRAs)
Mortgage balances on forms 1098
Market value of portfolio securities on forms 1099
Purchases and sales of securities (to measure saving and
consumption)
⇒ Necessary to obtain fully accurate distributional national
accounts
Supplementary Slides
Wealth categories definition
Equities: corporate equities, including S corporation equities,
and money market fund shares (treated as dividend-paying for
income tax purposes)
Fixed claims: currency, deposits, bonds, and other
interest-paying assets, net of non-mortgage debts
Business assets: sole proprietorships, farms (land and
equipment), partnerships, intellectual property products
Housing: owner- and tenant-occupied housing, net of mortgage
debt
Pensions: funded pension entitlements, life insurance reserves,
IRAs. Excludes social security and unfunded defined benefit
pensions
back
Rates of returns on wealth around 7%
No long-run price effects
Figure A8: Yield and total return on U.S. private wealth
(decennial averages)
14%
12%
Pure yield
10%
8%
6%
4%
back
2010-13
2000-09
1990-99
1980-89
1970-79
1960-69
1950-59
1940-49
1920-29
1913-19
0%
1930-39
Total return = pure yield + asset price effect
2%
What tax data miss
From reported to total capital income, 1920-2010
0.35
Retained earnings
% of factor-price national income
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Non-filers
&
unreported sole
prop. profits
Corporate income tax
Income paid to pensions &
insurance
Imputed rents
Didivends, interest, rents & profits reported on tax returns
0
1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
back
Most trusts generate income taxable at
the individual level
Wealth held in estates & trusts
12%
% net household wealth
10%
8%
Total estate & trust wealth
6%
4%
2%
0%
1952
back
Estate & trust wealth that does not generate distributable income
1962
1972
1982
1992
2002
2012
Charitable giving follows top incomes ⇒
Surge in top incomes is real
25% 80% 60% 15% 50% 40% 10% 30% Mean charitable giving of top 1% divided by mean income [leA y-­‐axis] 20% 2010 2006 2002 1998 1994 1990 1986 1982 1978 1974 1970 0% 1966 Top 1% Income Share [right y-­‐axis] 10% Top 1% income share 20% 70% 1962 Mean charitable giving of top 1% incomes / mean income Charitable Giving of Top 1% Incomes, 1962-­‐2012 90% 5% 0% Source: The figure depicts average charitable giving of top 1% inomes (normalized by average income per family) on the
left y-axis. For comparison, the figure reports the top 1% income share (on the right y-axis).
back
Off-Shore Tax evasion, if anything, has
probably increased since the 1970s
U.S. equities held by tax haven firms and individuals
% of U.S. equity market capitalization
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
In 2012, 9% of the U.S. listed equity market capitalization was held by tax haven investors (hedge funds in the Caymans,
banks in Switzerland, individuals in Monaco, etc.). Source: Zucman (2014) using US Treasury International Capital data.
back
Total returns of foundations grow with
wealth but realized returns do not
Figure C4: Return on foundation wealth, 1990-2010 average
Returns including realized & unrealized gains
7%
Realized return
6%
Unrealized capital gains
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
1m-10m
back
10m-100m
100m-500m
500m-5bn
5bn+