# Median family net worth



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The median net worth of Canadian families was $295,100 last year with most of the net worth gain coming from real estate. That number is for everyone, whether single or in a family (2 or more people). It can also be broken down like this:

Families ... 478,600
Singles ... 77,200

I'm surprised by this part of it. Median net worth of 2+ people families is 479 K which seems surprisingly high to me. Median net worth of single people is 77 K which is more like what I'd expect. Any idea why the 2+ people NW is so much larger? One might expect 2x assuming two income earners, but this is 6x.

I wonder if it's because single people likely don't have a house, whereas couples have houses and benefitted from a very strongly performing asset class. Or is it something else?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/statistics-canada-family-income-survey-1.4437137
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/171207/t001b-eng.htm


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I suspect the 'family' number is skewed by empty nesters and even senior couples, who have also paid off their mortgages for the most part. They tend to own the bigger houses while a single is likely to own a much smaller residence (as I would if single) or not own at all. A couple of sound bites from the CBC link.


> Still, nearly 30 per cent of Canadians were debt free last year. Seniors were the most likely to have no debt, at 58 per cent of older Canadians last year. But that ratio is down sharply — on the eve of the 21st century, nearly three-quarters of Canadian seniors had no debt





> Aside from the their principal residences, about a fifth of Canadian families owned some sort of secondary property, such as a family cottage, time share or other income property


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> ....Still, nearly 30 per cent of Canadians were debt free last year. Seniors were the most likely to have no debt, at 58 per cent of older Canadians last year. But that ratio is down sharply — on the eve of the 21st century, nearly three-quarters of Canadian seniors had no debt....


An unkind person might attribute that to the fact that the "seniors" demographic now includes Baby Boomers, who are noted for their more profligate ways.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A likely possibility. The oldest boomers are now 71 and more of them may be carrying debt longer than their frugal seniors in their 80s and beyond that were born in the pre-war era. Low interest rates and the promotion of HELOCs the past 5 or so years may also impact it. Maybe also the impact of the 'bank of mom and dad' for their own children.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

That's a good point, senior couples are probably the best off. According to the StatsCan table the highest median net worth is in Senior Families at 763 K, wow.

I'm in my mid to late 30s and am single, renting an apartment. Which category do you think I should be comparing myself to, if I want to see where I stand vs median?


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Median - as in middle value. Seems realistic. 

Not the same as average and I suspect you are well above average wealth James for a 30-something.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

DB pensions probably affect the net worth of baby boomers.

Yup..........._Private pensions was the second-largest asset category at 29.2% of assets, rising 17.7% from 2012 to $3.5 trillion. The majority of this growth came from employer-sponsored registered pension plans (EPPs), which increased 17.4% to $2.3 trillion in 2016. For those Canadians holding an EPP, the median value rose 20.1% to $156,200. _


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> DB pensions probably affect the net worth of baby boomers.


Yeah, but that doesn't explain the multiple between singles and families. Singles have DB pensions too. It's the 6:1 ratio that is baffling when it would be more likely 2:1 or 3:1. It's the family/single ratio that merits understanding.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am thinking that is likely a typo because it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> I am thinking that is likely a typo because it doesn't make any sense.


StatsCan doesn't publish mistakes of that kind. The median numbers for 'lone parent families' and non-senior singles are disproportionately low compared to anyone else.... but that may be part of the distortion. These folks are more likely to be younger (e.g. as young as 18 years old and not forming family units until age 30 or more). IOW, the median is highly distorted to a bulge of singles in the 20 something demographic.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I wonder if the singles category includes some down-and-out groups such as prisoners & people in shelters which brings the singles median way down.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Families are formed so late now that "singles" will be skewed towards the 18-30 group which is likely to have negative NW (student debt).

The separation between singles and families would be much more interesting within small age groups. Over the whole population, it seems entirely useless.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I agree with the above comments. You need to compare your net worth to a similiar age and family demographic to determine how well you are doing relative to your peers. I always try determine our financial health by comparing our net worth to the median for married retired couples in the 55-64 age group. 

The Stats Can figures don’t make it as easy as I would like. The median senior family in our age group is 762,900 but I am unsure if that includes the commuted value of pensions. It is also unclear how they account for RSPs and equity capital gains which will be subject to taxation.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I have trouble with any study that ascribes value to net worth. Is a couple in Vancouver has gained $1 million in net worth is the last 5 years, what does that mean to anyone? Sure they can cash out of their PR and move. Provided they are not working to pay off their debts.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

I believe couples tend to have and qualify for larger homes in which the equity brings their net worth much higher. 

+ all the other points made by the other posts.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We never really cared about average net worth. We were fully consumed with what our net worth was and how we were going to grow it.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Probably reasonable Ian, but I always wanted to know how we are doing relative to others as an indicator of our financial health and the lifestyle sustainability. There was a time when a million dollars made you rich. Nowadays, it barely gets you into the middle class. 

Income is the real measure but how do you quantify income when all you have is assets? If you use the optimistic 4% rule then the million dollar nest egg generates 40K. That doesn't seem like much when the median household income in my city is almost 90K. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Median_household_income_of_cities_in_Canada


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I just hate that term "net worth". Of course I calculate it probably as frequently as anyone else and I think the result of those types of calculations are important for people to know. I just hate using that term. People are worth more then just the money they have, especially if I am personally fond of them.

Anyway, my spreadsheets are always titled "net assets". I just think it sounds better and is probably more appropriate.

Anyway, just my rant. Not overly important.


----------

