Why Investors Prefer Real Estate to Stocks, Bond and Gold

Why Investors Prefer Real Estate to Stocks, Bond and Gold

iStockphoto/The Fiscal Times
By Suelain Moy

Americans still feel skittish about the stock market. When it comes to long-term investments, real estate is still preferred over cash or the stock market, Bankrate.com reports in a new study. For long term investments over 10 years or more, 27 percent chose real estate, 23 percent preferred cash investments, and 17 percent opted for the stock market. Gold and precious metals came in fourth at 14 percent, and bonds debuted at 5 percent.

Related: Clinton’s Capital Gains Tax Plan Aims at Long-Term Investment

Although the S&P 500 has risen 27 percent over the past two years, Americans were only slightly more inclined to favor stocks in 2015 than they were in 2013.

The only exception to the brick and mortar policy? Households headed by college graduates were the most likely to prefer stocks. In the western U.S., real estate was preferred nearly two to one over any other investment choice.

The survey of 1,000 adults living in the continental U.S. yielded some surprises across gender, age, income, location, and political party. Men were more likely to favor real estate, while women were more likely to favor cash investments.

At 32 percent, the majority of millennials--those between 18 and 29 years old--favored cold, hard cash, while 32 percent of participants between the ages of 30 and 40 stuck with real estate.

Related: U.S. Real Estate ETF Rally Faces Test With Rate Rise

Lower-income workers with salaries of less than $50,000 felt “more secure” than their higher earning counterparts, who were making $50,000 to $74,900. And Republicans were three times more likely to say they felt “less secure” about their jobs as Democrats.

Bankrate’s Financial Security Index for July remained positive for the 14th consecutive month. However the July reading was the second lowest in 2015, due in part to a decline in job security with 22 percent feeling “more secure” about their jobs than 12 months ago and 14 percent feeling “less secure.” Sixty-two percent felt “about the same.”

Trump Falls to Second in Michigan Poll

By The Fiscal Times Staff

 

Michigan GOP Poll

Ben Carson Gains in New Hampshire

By The Fiscal Times Staff

  

Ben Carson Is Catching Up to Trump in New National GOP Poll

By The Fiscal Times Staff

 

The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

Like all of these “commodities,” even if you don’t need it yourself, odds are that someone in your economic circles does. (When Americans on welfare get their checks, formula and diapers are some of their first purchases.) It’s portable, there’s no ready
Temych/iStockphoto
By Millie Dent

The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.

Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.

A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.

Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.  

Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?

On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby.  Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.

Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:

Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby

1. Mississippi

  • Budget Rank: 18
  • Health Care Rank: 51
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29

2. Pennsylvania

  • Budget Rank: 37
  • Health Care Rank: 36
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51

3. West Virginia

  • Budget Rank: 13
  • Health Care Rank: 48
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50

4. South Carolina

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 43
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49

5. Nevada

  • Budget Rank: 39
  • Health Care Rank: 35
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46

6. New York

  • Budget Rank: 46
  • Health Care Rank: 12
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47

7. Louisiana

  • Budget Rank: 8
  • Health Care Rank: 50
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26

8. Georgia

  • Budget Rank: 6
  • Health Care Rank: 46
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43

9. Alabama

  • Budget Rank: 3
  • Health Care Rank: 47
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44

10. Arkansas

  • Budget Rank: 12
  • Health Care Rank: 49
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37

Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby

1. Vermont

  • Budget Ranks: 17
  • Health Care Rank: 1
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5

2. North Dakota

  • Budget Rank: 10
  • Health Care Rank: 14
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10

3. Oregon

  • Budget Rank: 38
  • Health Care Rank: 2
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14

4. Hawaii

  • Budget Rank: 31
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1

5. Minnesota

  • Budget Rank: 32
  • Health Care Rank: 5
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12

6. Kentucky

  • Budget Rank: 1
  • Health Care Rank: 33
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20

7. Maine

  • Budget Rank: 25
  • Health Care Rank: 10
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15

8. Wyoming

  • Budget Rank: 22
  • Health Care Rank: 17
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7

9. Iowa

  • Budget Rank: 14
  • Health Care Rank: 25
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9

10. Alaska

  • Budget Rank: 50
  • Health Care Rank: 6
  • Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times

Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit

Another <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/08/cnn-opinion.research.corporation.poll.pdf" target="_blank">recent survey</a> found that 48 percent of Americans believe that it is likely that another great Depression will begin within the n
Dorothea Lange/Library of Congress
By Beth Braverman

The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.

Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.

If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.

The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.

Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning

While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.

A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times: