Connect with us

Business

States with the most unfunded retirement benefits

Published

1 year ago

on

Stacker examined pension liability data compiled by Pew Trusts to see which states have the highest rates of unfunded retirement benefits.  
Share this:

Most U.S. states promise their employees pensions upon retirement, but aren’t saving enough money to be able to deliver on those promises. The fallout could threaten state budgets more broadly.

In a pension plan, employees and employers both pay into a system which the employer invests in order to be able to make payouts when the employee retires. Employees’ contributions are deducted from every paycheck.

But when state budgets are tight, many states put off paying the employer’s share. This leaves them with payments due to fund future pension payments. This debt tends to be a state’s largest financial liability, according to Pew, ahead of retiree health care benefits and overall debt. When the liabilities get too high, states may be forced to take money out of health care, safety, and education to meet minimum requirements for funding pension plans.

Stacker examined pension liability data compiled by Pew Trusts to see which states have the highest rates of unfunded retirement benefits. The analysis shows the states that have the highest unfunded pension liabilities (for state-administered defined benefit plans), unfunded retiree health care costs, and tax-supported state debt. These figures are all expressed as a share of overall personal income in a state, excluding capital gains, to normalize the size of the liability based on the state’s potential tax income. States are ranked by the ratio of unfunded pension liabilities to income, with ties broken by the percentage point change from 2007 to 2019.

Liabilities vary depending on the size of a state’s budget and population, as well as the health of the overall economy. Collectively, states’ unfunded pension benefits added up to $1.25 trillion in fiscal year 2019. That’s 6.8% of total income.

Only two states, South Dakota and Wisconsin, had pension plan savings that were equal to or higher than what they owed.

You may also like: Former jobs of every Supreme Court justice

Madison state capitol in the daytime.

Sean Pavone // Shutterstock

#50. Wisconsin

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): -1.0%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -1.2
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.5% (tied for #14 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.2
– Debt (2020): 2.7%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -1.1

Elderly couple putting coin into money box.

Inside Creative House // Shutterstock

#49. South Dakota

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 0.0%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -0.6
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.0% (#3 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.2
– Debt (2020): 0.8%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.4

Social security administration brick sign.

Jerome L Lawson // Shutterstock

#48. Tennessee

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 0.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -0.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.5% (tied for #14 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.2
– Debt (2020): 0.5%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.1

Close up of a nurse helping a patient.

Dmytro Zinkevych // Shutterstock

#47. New York

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 0.6%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +1.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 7.7% (#7 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: +1.7
– Debt (2020): 4.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.9

Seattle downtown skyline and Mt. Rainier.

SCStock // Shutterstock

#46. Washington

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 0.8%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +0.7
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 2.7% (#23 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: 0
– Debt (2020): 3.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.5

Close up of a hand on a calculator.

wutzkohphoto // Shutterstock

#45. Nebraska

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 1.1%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +0.1
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.0% (tied for #1 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: 0
– Debt (2020): 0.0%
— Percentage point change since 2007: 0

Boise street leading to the capitol building in fall.

Charles Knowles // Shutterstock

#44. Idaho

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 1.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +2.4
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.2% (tied for #9 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.1
– Debt (2020): 1.0%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.1

Salt Lake City downtown city skyline at dusk.

Sean Pavone // Shutterstock

#43. Utah

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 2.0%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +0.8
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.1% (tied for #7 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.3
– Debt (2020): 1.7%
— Percentage point change since 2007: 0

Senior couple sitting on a wooden dock by a lake.

Monkey Business Images // Shutterstock

#42. North Carolina

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 2.6%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3.4
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 7.5% (#8 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -2.1
– Debt (2020): 1.0%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -1.5

Aerial view of downtown Council Bluffs.

Jacob Boomsma // Shutterstock

#41. Iowa

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 3.7%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +1.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.4% (#12 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: 0
– Debt (2020): 0.3%
— Percentage point change since 2007: 0

Elderly person reads a printed letter, sitting at a desk.

Sergii Gnatiuk // Shutterstock

#40. Delaware

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 3.9%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3.6
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 15.4% (#3 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.3
– Debt (2020): 6.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +1.3

Senior couple holding hands walking on the beach.

J.A. Dunbar // Shutterstock

#39. Florida

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 4.0%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +4.3
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.0% (#17 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: +0.3
– Debt (2020): 1.3%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -1.2

Oklahoma City downtown skyline in the afternoon.

Sean Pavone // Shutterstock

#38. Oklahoma

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 4.1%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -4.8
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.0% (tied for #1 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: 0
– Debt (2020): 0.7%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.6

Retired couple sitting outdoors having coffee.

Monkey Business Images // Shutterstock

#37. Maine

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 4.1%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -1.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 3.0% (#21 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -1.8
– Debt (2020): 1.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.2

West Virginia State Capitol on the Kanawha River in Charleston, West Virginia.

Sean Pavone // Shutterstock

#36. West Virginia

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 4.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -3.7
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 4.0% (#14 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -7.5
– Debt (2020): 3.6%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.1

Senior talking on phone while holding paper looking concerned.

Prostock-studio // Shutterstock

#35. Indiana

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 4.3%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -0.6
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.1% (#7 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.1
– Debt (2020): 0.4%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.9

Minnesota welcomes you sign at the state border.

photo.ua // Shutterstock

#34. Minnesota

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 4.6%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +0.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.3% (#11 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.2
– Debt (2020): 2.3%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.2

View of Virginia beach homes near the beach.

John S. Quinn // Shutterstock

#33. Virginia

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 4.7%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +1.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.2% (#21 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.2
– Debt (2020): 2.8%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +1.1

Senior's hands holding a piggy bank.

Piyaset // Shutterstock

#32. Georgia

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.0%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3.8
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 3.7% (#16 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -1.9
– Debt (2020): 1.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.8

Elderly people enjoy a view of a lake.

Maria Surtu // Shutterstock

#31. Arkansas

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.3%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +2.4
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.9% (#23 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.1
– Debt (2020): 1.2%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.4

Man and woman with a walker witting on a bench.

R.A. Walker Photography // Shutterstock

#30. Texas

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.4%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3.9
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 6.8% (#9 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: +1.2
– Debt (2020): 0.7%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.6

Elderly hands and younger hands solving a jigsaw puzzle together.

Robert Kneschke // Shutterstock

#29. New Hampshire

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.6%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +1.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 3.9% (#15 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -1.3
– Debt (2020): 1.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: 0

Aerial view of Lawrence and Kansas State University.

Jacob Boomsma // Shutterstock

#28. Kansas

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.7%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +0.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.2% (#10 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.3
– Debt (2020): 2.6%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.6

Senior couple working on finances together.

StockImageFactory.com // Shutterstock

#27. Missouri

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.7%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +1.7
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.1% (#19 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.2
– Debt (2020): 0.8%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -1.1

Senior with laptop and smartphone.

Ground Picture // Shutterstock

#26. Maryland

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.7%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +2.1
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 3.5% (#19 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -2.1
– Debt (2020): 3.6%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.9

Aerial view of Grand Forks in autumn.

Jacob Boomsma // Shutterstock

#25. North Dakota

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 5.7%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3.4
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.2% (tied for #9 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.1
– Debt (2020): 0.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.9

Smiley people doing yoga class at city park.

DisobeyArt // Shutterstock

#24. Ohio

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.9% (#24 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -3.8
– Debt (2020): 2.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.5

Elderly couple enjoying cotton candy at Pacific Park in Santa Monica.

Rawpixel.com // Shutterstock

#23. California

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.3%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +4
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 3.5% (#20 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -1.3
– Debt (2020): 3.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.9

Elderly couple working on a budget on couch.

PeopleImages.com – Yuri A // Shutterstock

#22. Colorado

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.5%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +1
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.7% (#16 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.2
– Debt (2020): 1.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.4

Aerial view of Peacham in the fall.

NEKVT // Shutterstock

#21. Vermont

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.5%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +6.8
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 5.8% (#10 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.4
– Debt (2020): 1.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.1

Couple reviewing and signing paperwork in kitchen.

Monkey Business Images // Shutterstock

#20. Wyoming

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.8%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +6.3
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 2.1% (#25 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: +1.2
– Debt (2020): 0.0%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.2

Sunrise view of Portland from the Pittock Mansion.

Josemaria Toscano // Shutterstock

#19. Oregon

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.8%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +12.7
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.1% (tied for #7 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.3
– Debt (2020): 3.6%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -1

Retired couple walking around the town with a map.

Jacob Lund // Shutterstock

#18. Alabama

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.9%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +2.7
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 4.6% (#13 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -4.6
– Debt (2020): 2.2%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.4

Person fishing on small boat on lake.

Michael Sean OLeary // Shutterstock

#17. Massachusetts

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 7.9%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +4.2
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 3.7% (#17 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.6
– Debt (2020): 8.0%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.9

Senior couple working with their bills at home.

wavebreakmedia // Shutterstock

#16. Arizona

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 8.0%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +4.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.0% (#4 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.3
– Debt (2020): 0.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.9

Couple walking by stores in downtown New Orleans.

Kristi Blokhin // Shutterstock

#15. Louisiana

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 8.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +1.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 2.7% (#22 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -4
– Debt (2020): 3.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.7

Elderly person using wooden walking cane.

Ground Picture // Shutterstock

#14. Montana

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 8.4%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3.9
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.0% (#18 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.5
– Debt (2020): 0.3%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.7

Michigan Theater on State Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

Hanson L // Shutterstock

#13. Michigan

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 8.4%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +6.2
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 2.1% (#25 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -10.4
– Debt (2020): 1.2%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.9

Senior relaxing in hammock with e-book.

Monkey Business Images // Shutterstock

#12. Nevada

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 8.6%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +2.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.1% (#20 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.5
– Debt (2020): 1.1%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.5

Downtown skyline of Pittsburgh.

Sean Pavone // Shutterstock

#11. Pennsylvania

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 8.8%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +6.8
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 3.6% (#18 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: +0.4
– Debt (2020): 2.3%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.2

Close up shot of person opening empty wallet.

Me dia // Shutterstock

#10. Rhode Island

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 9.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: -2.1
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 1.4% (#22 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.5
– Debt (2020): 3.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.4

Historical downtown area of Charleston.

f11photo // Shutterstock

#9. South Carolina

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 11.1%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +3.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 5.2% (#11 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.8
– Debt (2020): 0.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -2.1

Group of smiling senior people dancing.

SeventyFour // Shutterstock

#8. Connecticut

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 14.8%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +7.3
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 8.8% (#5 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -3.2
– Debt (2020): 8.9%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +2.5

Aerial view of Covington and downtown Cincinnati from Devou Park.

Rotorhead 30A Productions // Shutterstock

#7. Kentucky

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 15.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +7.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 2.6% (#24 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -2.6
– Debt (2020): 4.2%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.2

The Mississippi State Capitol Building in downtown Jackson.

Katherine Welles // Shutterstock

#6. Mississippi

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 15.3%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +6.8
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 0.7% (#15 lowest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.1
– Debt (2020): 4.5%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +0.2

Side view of a happy senior smiling while painting.

belushi // Shutterstock

#5. New Mexico

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 15.7%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +8.6
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 4.7% (#12 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.1
– Debt (2020): 2.2%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -2.4

Alaska welcome sign.

Ingo70 // Shutterstock

#4. Alaska

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 16.3%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +4.3
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 19.7% (#1 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: +2.2
– Debt (2020): 1.8%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.3

Senior couple sitting at table doing finances.

bbernard // Shutterstock

#3. Hawaii

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 18.0%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +8.5
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 12.7% (#4 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -15.3
– Debt (2020): 10.4%
— Percentage point change since 2007: +1.7

Senior couple walking in Millennium Park.

Page Light Studios // Shutterstock

#2. Illinois

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 19.4%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +11.6
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 8.0% (#6 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.1
– Debt (2020): 4.5%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.2

Close up shot of a person signing a document.

Jacob Lund // Shutterstock

#1. New Jersey

– Unfunded pension liabilities (2019): 20.2%
— Percentage point change from 2007: +13.7
– Unfunded retiree health care costs (2016): 15.5% (#2 highest)
— Percentage point change from 2010: -0.4
– Debt (2020): 6.2%
— Percentage point change since 2007: -0.7

Share this:
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Business

Is real estate actually a good investment?

Published

2 days ago

on

April 22, 2024

By

Wealth Enhancement Group analyzed data from academic research, Standard and Poor's, and Nareit to compare real estate to stocks as investments.
Share this:

It’s well-documented that the surest, and often best, return on investments comes from playing the long game. But between stocks and real estate, which is the stronger bet?

To find out, financial planning firm Wealth Enhancement Group analyzed data from academic research, Standard and Poor’s, and Nareit to see how real estate compares to stocks as an investment.

Data going back to 1870 shows the well-established power of real estate as a powerful “long-run investment.” From 1870-2015, and after adjusting for inflation, real estate produced an average annual return of 7.05%, compared to 6.89% for equities. These findings, published in the 2019 issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics, illustrate that stocks can deviate as much as 22% from their average, while housing only spreads out 10%. That’s because despite having comparable returns, stocks are inherently more volatile due to following the whims of the business cycle.

Real estate has inherent benefits, from unlocking cash flow and offering tax breaks to building equity and protecting investors from inflation. Investments here also help to diversify a portfolio, whether via physical properties or a real estate investment trust. Investors can track markets with standard resources that include the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, which tracks residential real estate prices; the Nareit U.S. Real Estate Index, which gathers data on the real estate investment trust, or REIT, industry; and the S&P 500, which tracks the stocks of 500 of the largest companies in the U.S.

High interest rates and a competitive market dampened the flurry of real-estate investments made in the last four years. The rise in interest rates equates to a bigger borrowing cost for investors, which can spell big reductions in profit margins. That, combined with the risk of high vacancies, difficult tenants, or hidden structural problems, can make real estate investing a less attractive option—especially for first-time investors.

Keep reading to learn more about whether real estate is a good investment today and how it stacks up against the stock market.


A line chart showing returns in the S&P 500, REITs, and US housing. $100 invested in the S&P 500 at the start of 1990 would be worth around $2,700 today if you reinvested the dividends.

Wealth Enhancement Group

Stocks and housing have both done well

REITs can offer investors the stability of real estate returns without bidding wars or hefty down payments. A hybrid model of stocks and real estate, REITs allow the average person to invest in businesses that finance or own income-generating properties.

REITs delivered slightly better returns than the S&P 500 over the past 20-, 25-, and 50-year blocks. However, in the short term—the last 10 years, for instance—stocks outperformed REITs with a 12% return versus 9.5%, according to data compiled by The Motley Fool investor publication.

Whether a new normal is emerging that stocks will continue to offer higher REITs remains to be seen.

This year, the S&P 500 reached an all-time high, courtesy of investor enthusiasm in speculative tech such as artificial intelligence. However, just seven tech companies, dubbed “The Magnificent 7,” are responsible for an outsized amount of the S&P’s returns last year, creating worry that there may be a tech bubble.

While indexes keep a pulse on investment performance, they don’t always tell the whole story. The Case-Shiller Index only measures housing prices, for example, which leaves out rental income (profit) or maintenance costs (loss) when calculating the return on residential real estate investment.

A chart showing the annual returns to real estate, stocks, bonds, and bills in 16 major countries between 1870 and 2015.

Wealth Enhancement Group

Housing returns have been strong globally too

Like its American peers, the global real estate market in industrialized nations offers comparable returns to the international stock market.

Over the long term, returns on stocks in industrialized nations is 7%, including dividends, and 7.2% in global real estate, including rental income some investors receive from properties. Investing internationally may have more risk for American buyers, who are less likely to know local rules and regulations in foreign countries; however, global markets may offer opportunities for a higher return. For instance, Portugal’s real estate market is booming due to international visitors deciding to move there for a better quality of life. Portugal’s housing offers a 6.3% return in the long term, versus only 4.3% for its stock market.

For those with deep enough pockets to stay in, investing in housing will almost always bear out as long as the buyer has enough equity to manage unforeseen expenses and wait out vacancies or slumps in the market. Real estate promises to appreciate over the long term, offers an opportunity to collect rent for income, and allows investors to leverage borrowed capital to increase additional returns on investment.

Above all, though, the diversification of assets is the surest way to guarantee a strong return on investments. Spreading investments across different assets increases potential returns and mitigates risk.

Story editing by Nicole Caldwell. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.

This story originally appeared on Wealth Enhancement Group and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.

Share this:
Continue Reading

Business

5 tech advancements sports venues have added since your last event

Published

5 days ago

on

April 19, 2024

By

Uniqode compiled a list of technologies adopted by stadiums, arenas, and other major sporting venues in the past few years.
Share this:

In today’s digital climate, consuming sports has never been easier. Thanks to a plethora of streaming sites, alternative broadcasts, and advancements to home entertainment systems, the average fan has myriad options to watch and learn about their favorite teams at the touch of a button—all without ever having to leave the couch.

As a result, more and more sports venues have committed to improving and modernizing their facilities and fan experiences to compete with at-home audiences. Consider using mobile ticketing and parking passes, self-service kiosks for entry and ordering food, enhanced video boards, and jumbotrons that supply data analytics and high-definition replays. These innovations and upgrades are meant to draw more revenue and attract various sponsored partners. They also deliver unique and convenient in-person experiences that rival and outmatch traditional ways of enjoying games.

In Los Angeles, the Rams and Chargers’ SoFi Stadium has become the gold standard for football venues. It’s an architectural wonder with closer views, enhanced hospitality, and a translucent roof that cools the stadium’s internal temperature. 

The Texas Rangers’ ballpark, Globe Life Field, added field-level suites and lounges that resemble the look and feel of a sports bar. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Clippers are building a new arena (in addition to retail space, team offices, and an outdoor public plaza) that will seat 18,000 people and feature a fan section called The Wall, which will regulate attire and rooting interest.

It’s no longer acceptable to operate with old-school facilities and technology. Just look at Commanders Field (formerly FedExField), home of the Washington Commanders, which has faced criticism for its faulty barriers, leaking ceilings, poor food options, and long lines. Understandably, the team has been attempting to find a new location to build a state-of-the-art stadium and keep up with the demand for high-end amenities.

As more organizations audit their stadiums and arenas and keep up with technological innovations, Uniqode compiled a list of the latest tech advancements to coax—and keep—fans inside venues.


A person using the new walk out technology with a palm scan.

Jeff Gritchen/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register // Getty Images

Just Walk Out technology

After successfully installing its first cashierless grocery store in 2020, Amazon has continued to put its tracking technology into practice.

In 2023, the Seahawks incorporated Just Walk Out technology at various merchandise stores throughout Lumen Field, allowing fans to purchase items with a swipe and scan of their palms.

The radio-frequency identification system, which involves overhead cameras and computer vision, is a substitute for cashiers and eliminates long lines. 

RFID is now found in a handful of stadiums and arenas nationwide. These stores have already curbed checkout wait times, eliminated theft, and freed up workers to assist shoppers, according to Jon Jenkins, vice president of Just Walk Out tech.

A fan presenting a digital ticket at a kiosk.

Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox // Getty Images

Self-serve kiosks

In the same vein as Amazon’s self-scanning technology, self-serve kiosks have become a more integrated part of professional stadiums and arenas over the last few years. Some of these function as top-tier vending machines with canned beers and nonalcoholic drinks, shuffling lines quicker with virtual bartenders capable of spinning cocktails and mixed drinks.

The kiosks extend past beverages, as many college and professional venues have started using them to scan printed and digital tickets for more efficient entrance. It’s an effort to cut down lines and limit the more tedious aspects of in-person attendance, and it’s led various competing kiosk brands to provide their specific conveniences.

A family eating food in a stadium.

Kyle Rivas // Getty Images

Mobile ordering

Is there anything worse than navigating the concourse for food and alcohol and subsequently missing a go-ahead home run, clutch double play, or diving catch?

Within the last few years, more stadiums have eliminated those worries thanks to contactless mobile ordering. Fans can select food and drink items online on their phones to be delivered right to their seats. Nearly half of consumers said mobile app ordering would influence them to make more restaurant purchases, according to a 2020 study at PYMNTS. Another study showed a 22% increase in order size.

Many venues, including Yankee Stadium, have taken notice and now offer personalized deliveries in certain sections and established mobile order pick-up zones throughout the ballpark.

A fan walking past a QR code sign in a seating area.

Darrian Traynor // Getty Images

QR codes at seats

Need to remember a player’s name? Want to look up an opponent’s statistics at halftime? The team at Digital Seat Media has you covered.

Thus far, the company has added seat tags to more than 50 venues—including two NFL stadiums—with QR codes to promote more engagement with the product on the field.  After scanning the code, fans can access augmented reality features, look up rosters and scores, participate in sponsorship integrations, and answer fan polls on the mobile platform.

Analysts introducing AI technology at a sports conference.

Boris Streubel/Getty Images for DFL // Getty Images

Real-time data analytics and generative AI

As more venues look to reinvigorate the in-stadium experience, some have started using generative artificial intelligence and real-time data analytics.  Though not used widely yet, generative AI tools can create new content—text, imagery, or music—in conjunction with the game, providing updates, instant replays, and location-based dining suggestions

Last year, the Masters golf tournament even began including AI score projections in its mobile app. Real-time data is streamlining various stadium pitfalls, allowing operation managers to monitor staffing issues at busy food spots, adjust parking flows, and alert custodians to dirty or damaged bathrooms. The data also helps with security measures. Open up an app at a venue like the Honda Center in Anaheim, California, and report safety issues or belligerent fans to help better target disruptions and preserve an enjoyable experience.

Story editing by Nicole Caldwell. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.

This story originally appeared on Uniqode and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.

Share this:
Continue Reading

Business

Import costs in these industries are keeping prices high

Published

2 weeks ago

on

April 11, 2024

By

Machinery Partner used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to identify the soaring import costs that have translated to higher costs for Americans.  
Share this:

Inflation has cooled substantially, but Americans are still feeling the strain of sky-high prices. Consumers have to spend more on the same products, from the grocery store to the gas pump, than ever before.

Increased import costs are part of the problem. The U.S. is the largest goods importer in the world, bringing in $3.2 trillion in 2022. Import costs rose dramatically in 2021 and 2022 due to shipping constraints, world events, and other supply chain interruptions and cost pressures. At the June 2022 peak, import costs for all commodities were up 18.6% compared to January 2020.

While import costs have since fallen most months—helping to lower inflation—they remain nearly 12% above what they were in 2020. And beginning in 2024, import costs began to rise again, with January seeing the highest one-month increase since March 2022.

Machinery Partner used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to identify the soaring import costs that have translated to higher costs for Americans. Imports in a few industries have had an outsized impact, helping drive some of the overall spikes. Crop production, primary metal manufacturing, petroleum and coal product manufacturing, and oil and gas extraction were the worst offenders, with costs for each industry remaining at least 20% above 2020.


A multiline chart showing the change in import costs in four major product industries.

Machinery Partner

Imports related to crops, oil, and metals are keeping costs up

At the mid-2022 peak, import costs related to oil, gas, petroleum, and coal products had the highest increases, doubling their pre-pandemic costs. Oil prices went up globally as leaders anticipated supply disruptions from the conflict in Ukraine. The U.S. and other allied countries put limits on Russian revenues from oil sales through a price cap of oil, gas, and coal from the country, which was enacted in 2022.

This activity around the world’s second-largest oil producer pushed prices up throughout the market and intensified fluctuations in crude oil prices. Previously, the U.S. had imported hundreds of thousands of oil barrels from Russia per day, making the country a leading source of U.S. oil. In turn, the ban affected costs in the U.S. beyond what occurred in the global economy.

Americans felt this at the pump—with gasoline prices surging 60% for consumers year-over-year in June 2022 and remaining elevated to this day—but also throughout the economy, as the entire supply chain has dealt with higher gas, oil, and coal prices.

Some of the pressure from petroleum and oil has shifted to new industries: crop production and primary metal manufacturing. In each of these sectors, import costs in January were up about 40% from 2020.

Primary metal manufacturing experienced record import price growth in 2021, which continued into early 2022. The subsequent monthly and yearly drops have not been substantial enough to bring costs down to pre-COVID levels. Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting shows that increasing alumina and aluminum production prices had the most significant influence on primary metal import prices. Aluminum is widely used in consumer products, from cars and parts to canned beverages, which in turn inflated rapidly.

Aluminum was in short supply in early 2022 after high energy costs—i.e., gas—led to production cuts in Europe, driving aluminum prices to a 13-year high. The U.S. also imposes tariffs on aluminum imports, which were implemented in 2018 to cut down on overcapacity and promote U.S. aluminum production. Suppliers, including Canada, Mexico, and European Union countries, have exemptions, but the tax still adds cost to imports.

U.S. agricultural imports have expanded in recent decades, with most products coming from Canada, Mexico, the EU, and South America. Common agricultural imports include fruits and vegetables—especially those that are tropical or out-of-season—as well as nuts, coffee, spices, and beverages. Turmoil with Russia was again a large contributor to cost increases in agricultural trade, alongside extreme weather events and disruptions in the supply chain. Americans felt these price hikes directly at the grocery store.

The U.S. imports significantly more than it exports, and added costs to those imports are felt far beyond its ports. If import prices continue to rise, overall inflation would likely follow, pushing already high prices even further for American consumers.

Story editing by Shannon Luders-Manuel. Copy editing by Kristen Wegrzyn.

This story originally appeared on Machinery Partner and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.

Share this:
Continue Reading

Featured