CFED Assets & Opportunity Scorecard
Liquid Asset Poverty Rate
Definition
Percentage of households without sufficient liquid assets to subsist at the poverty level for three months in the absence of income, 2009.
Liquid assets are those that are held in cash or can be liquidated quickly: bank accounts and other interest-earning assets; and equity in stocks, mutual funds and retirement accounts (IRAs, 401(k)s and KEOGH accounts). Liquid assets exclude equity in businesses, vehicles, homes and other real estate.
The threshold used to determine the liquid asset poverty rate varies by family size. A family of three with liquid assets less than $4,632 in 2011 is asset poor.
Data are point estimates produced from a national survey with relatively small samples for some states, which can result in imprecise estimates and ranks. For more information on how we measured precision and to download margin of error data for each state, see here.
Description
Liquid asset poverty only includes resources that can easily be converted into cash, like checking and savings accounts. Liquid asset poverty is a more realistic picture of the resources families have to meet emergency needs since it excludes assets such as a home, car or business that are not easy to liquidate on short notice. The liquid asset poverty rate is higher than the asset poverty rate in every state, except the District of Columbia. For example, in Alabama 24.1% of households are asset poor, but the liquid asset poverty rate is 64.5% – more than 2.5 times higher.
Liquid Asset Poverty Rate
| State | Liquid Asset Poverty Rate (%) | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 43.1% | |
| Alabama | 64.5% | 39 |
| Alaska | 38.8% ** | N.R. |
| Arizona | 44.4% | 25 |
| Arkansas | 50.8% | 34 |
| California | 43.1% | 23 |
| Colorado | 42.0% | 21 |
| Connecticut | 35.2% | 14 |
| Delaware | 33.8% | 9 |
| District of Columbia | 37.2% | 16 |
| Florida | 48.4% | 32 |
| Georgia | 57.4% | 38 |
| Hawaii | 22.8% | 1 |
| Idaho | 44.3% ** | N.R. |
| Illinois | 39.8% | 18 |
| Indiana | 42.2% | 22 |
| Iowa | 29.0% | 4 |
| Kansas | 35.0% | 12 |
| Kentucky | 47.3% | 29 |
| Louisiana | 46.8% | 28 |
| Maine | 48.0% ** | N.R. |
| Maryland | 32.3% | 6 |
| Massachusetts | 34.9% | 11 |
| Michigan | 39.8% | 19 |
| Minnesota | 26.6% | 3 |
| Mississippi | 56.5% | 37 |
| Missouri | 38.2% | 17 |
| Montana | 39.8% * | N.R. |
| Nebraska | 26.0% * | N.R. |
| Nevada | 52.2% | 35 |
| New Hampshire | 24.1% | 2 |
| New Jersey | 41.2% | 20 |
| New Mexico | 49.1% ** | N.R. |
| New York | 46.4% | 27 |
| North Carolina | 46.3% | 26 |
| North Dakota | 35.1% | 13 |
| Ohio | 43.6% | 24 |
| Oklahoma | 48.2% | 31 |
| Oregon | 37.6% ** | N.R. |
| Pennsylvania | 34.6% | 10 |
| Rhode Island | 33.5% | 8 |
| South Carolina | 47.6% | 30 |
| South Dakota | 43.4% ** | N.R. |
| Tennessee | 53.5% | 36 |
| Texas | 50.6% | 33 |
| Utah | 35.0% ** | N.R. |
| Vermont | — | — |
| Virginia | 35.9% | 15 |
| Washington | 30.7% | 5 |
| West Virginia | 55.6% ** | N.R. |
| Wisconsin | 33.2% | 7 |
| Wyoming | 46.4% ** | N.R. |
Source
Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 Panel, Wave 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2009. Data calculated by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.
"—" indicates that no data is available, or data is suppressed due to a margin of error that is greater than 50% of the estimate.
"N.R." indicates that data are not ranked because the estimate or rank is too imprecise to say with confidence how the state compares to other states.
Footnotes
* Indicates that the margin of error is greater than 25% of the estimate, and as such, this estimate is too imprecise to rank. Caution should be used when using this data.
** Indicates that estimate is unable to be ranked because the ranks are too closely clustered to say with confidence how the state compares to other states.
Copyright © 2012 CFED — Corporation for Enterprise Development 
1200 G Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202.408.9788
Powered by ARCOS