62% of Americans Have Under $1,000 in Savings, Survey Finds

[timosman]

http://www.gobankingrates.com/saving...-survey-finds/

Having a savings fund is one of the keys to financial health. Yet trying to save is a struggle, especially because the biggest money challenge for Americans is sticking to a budget — a central skill to ensure enough money is left over each month to save.

To gauge how well Americans are saving, GOBankingRates conducted a survey that posed the question, “How much money do you have saved in your savings account?” The good news is that over half (51.3 percent — totaling all answers besides $0 and “I don’t have a savings account”) have at least something socked away in savings. But the survey findings also reveal that most Americans’ savings account balances are falling far short of where they should be.

“It’s worrisome that such a large percentage of Americans have so little set aside in a savings account,” said Cameron Huddleston, a personal finance expert and columnist for GOBankingRates. “It suggests that they likely don’t have cash reserves to cover an emergency and will have to rely on credit, friends, and family, or even their retirement accounts to cover unexpected expenses.”



The overall results from the survey show that 62 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts, and a third of those under-savers have no savings account at all. The portion of savers with balances over $1,000 is 29.1 percent.

The most frequently selected amount that people say they have in savings is also the lowest $0; 28 percent of people selected this answer. Even worse, the next-most-common answer is “I don’t have a savings account,” selected by one in five people (20.7 percent).

Of people who have something in their savings accounts, the most common balance is $10,000 or more, a sign of financial health for those savers (14.2 percent). This amount is followed by 5 percent who have saved between $5,000 and $9,999, 9.9 percent who have saved $1,000 to $4,999, and 13 percent who have less than $1,000 in savings.

Another 9.2 percent of people say they keep just enough money in their savings accounts to meet the minimum balance requirements — a smart move that at least helps those depositors avoid maintenance fees. Minimum balance requirements can vary widely, however, and can be set relatively high compared with what most people are able to save. Bank of America, for example requires a minimum average balance of $1,500 a month to avoid its savings account fee, while Chase’s requirement is only $300.

[Ronin Truth]

FWIW, I'd SWAG that's probably just about right.

[Zippyjuan]

Not a valid measure of assets. I don't have a savings account. That doesn't mean I don't have any savings. Savings account is just one place you may have money. My checking account has over $10k in it.

[Ronin Truth]

Not a valid measure of assets. I don't have a savings account. That doesn't mean I don't have any savings. Savings account is just one place you may have money. My checking account has over $10k in it.

It's most probably valid, it's just not yours or mine. Welcome to the other 38%.

[Zippyjuan]

Thanks!

[timosman]

Savings account offers no advantage over checking. The rate on both is close to zero thanks to ZIRP.

[Ronin Truth]

Savings account offers no advantage over checking. The rate on both is close to zero thanks to ZIRP.

Do you have over a thousand in checking?

[HVACTech]

Not a valid measure of assets. I don't have a savings account. That doesn't mean I don't have any savings. Savings account is just one place you may have money. My checking account has over $10k in it.

was that EVER supposed to be the intention of "savings"
I don't think that it was.

today. my "savings" are all in physical silver.
"savings" are a hedge zip.

[HVACTech]

Do you have over a thousand in checking?

yes actually. but I call that "operating capital" it is not an asset or savings.

[HVACTech]

Not a valid measure of assets. I don't have a savings account. That doesn't mean I don't have any savings. Savings account is just one place you may have money. My checking account has over $10k in it.

that's odd. I have never seen you post in a fund raising effort for Rand..
it also appears that you do not contribute to this website either.

I am not sure as to whether I should call bull$#@! or $#@!.

have a nice day!

[phill4paul]

If Americans do not have FN's in savings then the question should be...where are they?

[HVACTech]

If Americans do not have FN's in savings then the question should be...where are they?

well, within that context, I am going to have to side with Zippy.

the fed is punishing savers. saving "money" (FRN's) is now stupid.
(which is not really a new thing, now that I come to think about it..)

[heavenlyboy34]

well, within that context, I am going to have to side with Zippy.

the fed is punishing savers. saving "money" (FRN's) is now stupid.
(which is not really a new thing, now that I come to think about it..)

This^^ I am in the process of transferring a good chunk of my FRNs into a 100% gold-backed account.

[HVACTech]

This^^ I am in the process of transferring a good chunk of my FRNs into a 100% gold-backed account.

aw hell, I guess it had to happen..
we agree on something!

physical silver (or gold) meets all the definitions of "savings".
+rep.

physical lead is also a good investment.

[Zippyjuan]

This^^ I am in the process of transferring a good chunk of my FRNs into a 100% gold-backed account.

What does "gold backed account" mean? Can you withdraw bullion?

[Uriel999]

I have 1192 dollars in savings. Woohoo! I made it!

It doesn't really count though...I have too much debt.

[brandon]

Savings account offers no advantage over checking. The rate on both is close to zero thanks to ZIRP.

You should shop around banks. I've been using ally for the past few years which gives about 1% on savings. There's a few really great internet banks if you shop around.

[oyarde]

You should shop around banks. I've been using ally for the past few years which gives about 1% on savings. There's a few really great internet banks if you shop around.

I have one that guarantees a certain minimum , certain percentage ea yr , usually around 4 to 6 , past 18 yrs or so , but I really do not use it .Figured I could do better with Carson City , football , you know , LOL

[oyarde]

I have 1192 dollars in savings. Woohoo! I made it!

It doesn't really count though...I have too much debt.

Meh , does not matter , today , at this moment , I may have ten times that in savings & checking , but it is only because I may owe , maybe 126,000 on three houses and five estates and , maybe , I will pay it all off next month and have 3k in savings .So , you see, it does not matter. Or , I am 65 yrs old , have no job , only 1k in savings , but I bring in 2 or 3 K ea month and have no bills ....

[devil21]

What do you expect when federal taxes and debt interest eats up at least half of a paycheck? All is tribute to bankers for the service of providing people "money" they already have the power to control without bankers.

You should shop around banks. I've been using ally for the past few years which gives about 1% on savings. There's a few really great internet banks if you shop around.

Like Ron said, if you subsidize something you get more of it. Ally is the reincarnation of GMAC bank. Remember them? They were owned, then bailed out, by the same equity group that now owns a very large chunk of the firearms production capability in the US now. They literally used their bailout money to restart the bank with a different name (no branches now...a digital currency and labor-free NWO dream) and also take control of the gun industry. So yeah, keep giving them your money and make it even easier to steal.

This^^ I am in the process of transferring a good chunk of my FRNs into a 100% gold-backed account.

Is that related to lawful money?

[luctor-et-emergo]

Holy $#@!, I'm rich...

Apparently. Ah well, got no debt, so I guess the balance is ok.

[Ronin Truth]

Holy $#@!, I'm rich...

Apparently. Ah well, got no debt, so I guess the balance is ok.

Congrats! FWIW, I consider being debt free as being rich.

[acptulsa]

the fed is punishing savers. saving "money" (FRN's) is now stupid.
(which is not really a new thing, now that I come to think about it..)

This. These lame attempts to get people to leave their money to shrink in a bank are just ridiculous.

What's more, boys and girls, you should store your wool clothes for the summer in a hot dryer. Be sure to get them good and wet before you put them in!

[Madison320]

In a free market banking system you could easily save for retirement by simply depositing a little money in a savings account each paycheck. It's a win-win situation. You get paid interest and the banks loan the money to businesses that use it for investment. That's how economies grow. But we've short circuited that process with ZIRP. Back in the old days you could get 5% interest in a savings account. And more if you put it in a CD.

[timosman]

In a free market banking system you could easily save for retirement by simply depositing a little money in a savings account each paycheck. It's a win-win situation. You get paid interest and the banks loan the money to businesses that use it for investment. That's how economies grow. But we've short circuited that process with ZIRP. Back in the old days you could get 5% interest in a savings account. And more if you put it in a CD.

Wait till we go negative on interest rates. You will have to run really fast in order not to fall off the treadmill.

[DFF]

We've already had backdoor negative interest rates for some time....checking account fees, overdraft fees, and atm fees.

Contrast this to Europe where some of these fees don't exist and banks actually pay you a reasonable rate of interest for your deposits.

[acptulsa]

Wait till we go negative on interest rates. You will have to run really fast in order not to fall off the treadmill.

Savings account interest is, at most, one percent and inflation is at least three percent, and you think interest rates aren't negative already...?

[Zippyjuan]

In a free market banking system you could easily save for retirement by simply depositing a little money in a savings account each paycheck. It's a win-win situation. You get paid interest and the banks loan the money to businesses that use it for investment. That's how economies grow. But we've short circuited that process with ZIRP. Back in the old days you could get 5% interest in a savings account. And more if you put it in a CD.

Bank interest rates have always been lower than the rate of inflation. When you got five percent, inflation was running like eight percent. A "free banking system" won't pay above inflation rates on accounts. Their interest rate includes the expected rate of inflation plus their desired profit margin. On loans, the add on the profit margin to the rate you pay. On deposits, they subtract the profit margin from what they pay you. "Real" (after inflation) rates on deposits are always negative. Unless you locked in a long term CD and rates fell.

[acptulsa]

Bank interest rates have always been lower than the rate of inflation.

Liar.

Banks paid interest when the dollar was a certain smidgeon of gold and the long term inflation rate was zero. The U.S. has had banks longer than it has had inflation. And since banks had a lot fewer money handling services to offer, of course they paid interest on savings. They had to.

So if the banks were once upon a time paying interest when there was no inflation at all, how could they pay less than zero and still pay interest? Explain that, please. Or does the word 'always' in your book only go back to the creation of your boss the Fed in 1913?

We know you get paid to post Fed Revisionist History, but you could at least try not to insult our intelligence when you do.

[Zippyjuan]

Liar.

Banks paid interest when the dollar was a certain smidgeon of gold and the long term inflation rate was zero. The U.S. has had banks longer than it has had inflation. And since banks had a lot fewer money handling services to offer, of course they paid interest on savings. They had to.

So if the banks were once upon a time paying interest when there was no inflation at all, how could they pay less than zero and still pay interest? Explain that, please. Or does the word 'always' in your book only go back to the creation of your boss the Fed in 1913?

We know you get paid to post Fed Revisionist History, but you could at least try not to insult our intelligence when you do.

Examples of when inflation was zero and what interest rates on savings accounts were at the time? What were the banks paying depositors in 1800? In 1900?

Or just blowing air?