Obamas Are Strangers to the Investor Class

Barack Obama released his tax returns since 2000 last night, and we learned something interesting about Barack and Michelle.  They have next to no stake in the investor class.

Here's what they reported in qualified dividends per year, and the implied taxable portfolio holdings from them (assuming a 3% dividend yield):

2006: $1188 ($39,204 in implied holdings with an AGI of $983,826)
2005: $2754 ($90,882 in implied holdings with an AGI of $1.65 million)
2004: $0 ($0)
2003: $0 ($0)
2002: $0 ($0)
2001: $0 ($0)

Surely, you might protest, Obama simply held securites that issued no dividends until 2005 (unlikely), or he held all his investments in IRAs, 401(k)s, annuities, etc. (more likely).  That's belied by two observations:

1. Michelle Obama earned a quite lucrative annual self-employment contract from the University of Chicago Hospital System (in some years, approaching $1 million).  Yet, Mrs. Obama didn't appear to have a self-employed 401(k) plan or a SEP-IRA to make retirement contributions from.  This implies that the Obamas are not exactly the best tax-deferred investors in the world.
2. In 2000, the Obamas cashed out $6260 from either a DB pension or a 401(k) plan.  This is a sure sign of a household that does not build and accumulate a nest egg for their future.

Why is Barack Obama so hell-bent on pursuing policies that would wreck America's retirement savings?  Because, by and large, he doesn't have any skin in the game.

Comments

[SAM]

Question: Why is Barack Obama so hell-bent on pursuing policies that would wreck America's retirement savings?

An additional answer: ask Al Gore; he'll retire to more book writing and speaking engagement gigs.

What I don't understand is who'd pay to hear these and others like them?