一百万美元不再像过去那么举足轻重了。

固然，它仍足以让你过上舒适的退休生活，而且富裕水平可在美国成年人中位居前2%。

但它不会让你过上奢侈的生活，这主要是由于通货膨胀、2000年以来房地产市场的繁荣，以及股市和债券价格的长期上扬。

--辉煌不再。不要错误理解了我：我不是说一百万美元不是个大数目。

的确，这超出了大多数美国人最大胆的梦想。比如，家长年龄在55至64岁之间的家庭是美国最富裕的家庭。而根据美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve) 2004年的消费者经济状况调查，即使对这些距退休不远的人来说，他们的家庭净资产（包括房屋净值）中值也不到25万美元。

不过，百万美元还是失去了一些辉煌。由于20年来的通货膨胀，目前一百万美元的购买力仅相当于1987年时的54万美元。

而且，许多人只是因为房价上涨就成为了百万富翁。根据全国地产经纪商协会(National Association of Realtors)的数据，最近单户型成屋在洛杉矶地区的销售价中值为590,000美元，在纽约是521,000美元，在旧金山是748,000美元。

如果你的房屋净值较高，你可以通过换取一套较小的房屋等做法享受这笔财富。但你总得有地方住，因此无法将全部所得挥霍到鱼子酱和香槟上面。

--花掉本金。如果你有一百万美元的股票和债券会怎样？金融市场自上世纪80年代初以来一直表现抢眼，令许多投资者加入到百万富翁行列。

但长期的牛市已经出现了放缓的迹象：如今的投资回报已经不如从前了。现在，10年期美国国债的收益率约为5%，而1981年底时约为16%。同样，标准普尔500指数成份股公司的回报率不足2%，而1982年中期时是6%。

为了让已变得如此微薄的投资收入升值，可以看看通货膨胀指数型国债的收益率。这类债券的本金值可随通货膨胀率的上升而增长，同时你还可以在本金价值增长的基础上获得利息。

换言之，如果你花掉了通货膨胀债券的利息，但本金未动，你可以获得一笔政府担保的通货膨胀指数收入。这是相当安全的。

不幸的是，这还是有点令人失望。如果你现在退休，手中有一百万美元，并将这笔钱投入到10年期通货膨胀指数型国债中，你可以锁定大约2.7%的收益，这意味着你最初的年收入仅为27,000美元。但如果你在2000年初购买了新发行的10年期通货膨胀指数型国债，那你现在每年已能得到43,000美元。

的确，你可以将部分资金投入到股票中，以提高收益，然后将股息作为支出，也可不时将上涨的股票变现一部分。不过，福特基金会(Ford Foundation)投资部门的研究主管劳伦斯•西格尔(Laurence Siegel)指出，无法保证这种策略一定获得回报。

他说，并不是说不能购买股票，而是要认识到风险。

郁闷吧？有一个抵消因素，不过这很难说是值得庆祝的理由。正如西格尔所指出的，你不会永远活着。你可以花掉你的本金。

实际上，如果你愿意接受退休期间投资组合价值的逐步减少，那么尽管如今的投资收益率较低，你还是能够获得可观数量的收入。假设你准备在30年的退休期内花掉你的一百万美元，同时希望你的年收入随通货膨胀的上升而增加。

如果你购买了通货膨胀指数型国债，将获得2.7%的排除通货膨胀因素后的收益，这样在退休第一年你可用于生活费的资金将达47,000多美元（包括利息）所得。除此之外，你可能还有社会保障金收入。尽管不会赚大钱，但你将比大多数美国人过得舒服。

以下是有关美国百万富翁的一些数据：

--45%的百万富翁是女性。
--16%生活在加州，9%生活在纽约州，7%在佛罗里达州。
--百万富翁在康涅狄格州最常见。在该州，百万富翁占成年人口的3.2%。

来源：美国国税局(IRS) Statistics of Income Bulletin, 2005-2006冬季版

A million dollars isn't what it used to be.

Sure, it's still enough to pay for a comfortable retirement, and it will put you among the richest 2% of American adults.

But it won't put you in the lap of luxury -- and for that you can thank inflation, the current decade's housing boom, and the long rise in stock and bond prices.

-- Losing luster. Don't get me wrong: I am not claiming $1 million isn't a huge sum.

Indeed, it's beyond the wildest dreams of most Americans. Take households headed by someone 55 to 64 years old, which is America's wealthiest age group. Even for these folks, who are on the cusp of retirement, the median household net worth -- including home equity -- is under $250,000, according to the Federal Reserve's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances.

Still, notching seven figures has lost some of its luster. Thanks to 20 years of inflation, $1 million today has just 54% of the purchasing power of $1 million in 1987.

Moreover, many folks have ended up as millionaires simply because of rising home prices. According to the National Association of Realtors, the recent median selling price for an existing single-family home was $590,000 in the Los Angeles area, $521,000 in New York and $748,000 in San Francisco.

If you have a heap of home equity, you could tap into this wealth by, say, trading down to a smaller place. But you need to live somewhere, so not all of your equity can be lavished on caviar and champagne.

-- Sacrificing principal. What if you have $1 million in stocks and bonds? Financial markets have been booming since the early 1980s, catapulting many investors into the millionaires' club.

But there's a downside to this long bull market: You now get less income for every dollar invested. Today, 10-year Treasury notes yield around 5%, versus almost 16% in late 1981. Similarly, the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index are collectively yielding less than 2%, versus 6% in mid-1982.

To appreciate just how scarce investment income has become, check out the yield on inflation-indexed Treasury bonds. The principal value of these bonds is stepped up with inflation, plus you receive interest based on this rising principal value.

In other words, if you spent the interest from your inflation bonds but didn't touch the principal, you could collect a government-guaranteed stream of inflation-indexed income. That's about as safe as it gets.

Unfortunately, it's also a tad disappointing. If you retired today with $1 million and invested that money in 10-year inflation-indexed Treasurys, you could lock in a yield of around 2.7%, which means your initial annual income would be just $27,000. By contrast, if you had bought newly issued 10-year inflation-indexed Treasurys in early 2000, you would have garnered $43,000.

True, you could likely boost your income by allocating part of your portfolio to stocks and then spending your dividends and occasionally cashing in some of your gains. There's no guarantee, however, that this strategy will pay off, notes Laurence Siegel, research director of the Ford Foundation's investment division.

'I'm not saying you shouldn't buy equities,' he says. 'But you should be aware of the risk.'

Depressing stuff? There is an offsetting factor -- but it's hardly a cause for celebration. As Mr. Siegel points out, 'you won't live forever. You can spend down your principal.'

In fact, if you're willing to nibble away at your portfolio's value during retirement, you can generate a decent amount of income, despite today's lowly yields. Suppose you're aiming to spend down your $1 million over a three-decade retirement, and you want annual income that climbs with inflation.

If you bought inflation-indexed Treasurys and were able to clock a 2.7% after-inflation yield, you could make a total withdrawal -- including interest -- of more than $47,000 in the first year of retirement. On top of that, you would likely have Social Security. You won't exactly be rolling in dough -- but you will be more comfortable than most Americans.
---
Meet the Rich

Here's a look at America's millionaires:
-- 45% of them are women.
-- 16% live in California, 9% in New York and 7% in Florida.
-- They're most common in Connecticut, where they account for 3.2% of the adult population.
Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 2005-2006