Home Blog

Wealth is Pouring Into These Five States—What Does it Mean For Investing in Those Markets?


You’ve probably heard the phrase “misery loves company.” Turns out, money loves it too.

The latest IRS migration data, set to visuals on Realtor.com, show that well-heeled individuals are quietly packing their bags and leaving high-tax coastal markets for lower-tax Sunbelt and Mountain states.

The wealth migration isn’t just for the likes of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk; smaller real estate landlords are getting in on the exodus and, in doing so, reshaping rents, demand, and long-term appreciation.

The New Map of American Money

Visual Capitalist released its own map of the movement in America in 2023 based on IRS data and the Realtor.com analysis. It shows that, by far, Florida is the most popular state for Americans to move to, followed by Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada, bringing their billions with them from other states. 

Rank

State

Net Interstate Income Flows

1 Florida $21B
2 Texas $6B
3 North Carolina $4B
4 South Carolina $4B
5 Arizona $3B

Conversely, California and New York, where residents are taxed at higher rates and real estate is more expensive, saw large population outflows.

Why Wealth Loves Florida

Despite its unpredictable weather and high insurance costs, Florida attracted roughly $20.65 billion in taxpayers’ money—more than any other state. Texas followed with $5.5 billion in net gains, with South Carolina at around $4.1 billion and North Carolina at $3.9 billion, highlighting the attraction to America’s Southeast. 

Meanwhile, the coastal hubs are bleeding taxpayers’ cash. The Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley said on the Potomac Watch podcast:

“You see the same trends that were already occurring before the pandemic, and in part, you’ve got a lot of people from New York, New Jersey, the Northeast who are moving down to lower tax climates in the Sunbelt. So the top states that have lost adjusted gross income, and that’s how the IRS actually breaks down the data, by adjusted gross income…New York lost $9.9 billion. Illinois’s $6 billion. Massachusetts, $4 billion, New Jersey, 2.6 billion. Maryland, $1.8 billion. And Minnesota, $1.5 billion.”

Fellow podcast host Kyle Peterson was quick to point out that it wasn’t just the Sunbelt that was attracting residents: “New Hampshire, Wyoming, and South Dakota are gaining income in this IRS data. You’re not moving to South Dakota for the weather.”

High Earners Are Leading the Exodus of High-Tax States

While large swaths of everyday workers and real estate investors have decided to give up on higher-tax states, it is billionaires and multimillionaires who are making the headlines, encouraging others to follow suit.

“You’re driving away at the top earners, and you saw that with Washington State…which has lost Jeff Bezos as well as Howard Schultz (founder of Starbucks), entrepreneurs who started their businesses in Washington State,” Finley said in the podcast.

Jasper County in South Carolina Is the Fastest-Growing County in The U.S.

The loss of tax revenue is directly linked to housing supply, with Sunbelt states not only having the additional cash to support housing initiatives but also residents to absorb the new construction of condos and apartments.

One of the immediate beneficiaries of the exodus from high-tax states has been South Carolina’s Jasper County, where the U.S. Census Bureau shows the population has increased by 9,000 in the last six years to 38,000 residents, making it the fastest-growing county in the U.S. centered on its main city, Hardeeville. That has resulted in a housing boom, according to the New York Times.

“Our goal is not to get to 100,000 people, although that may happen someday,” Hardeeville Mayor Harry Williams told the Times. “Our goal is to bring job opportunities to our young people.”

What This Means For Investors

The equation is simple: The wealthier the state, the more people will pay for rent, and the greater the population, the greater the incentive to build more housing, which in turn will help equalize home prices.

The IRS data shows that Florida’s Palm Beach County received about $3.04 billion in income in 2023, with residents’ average income around $178,085. The greater the diversity of migrants in a state, the greater the need for diverse housing that supports mom-and-pop landlords rather than just deep-pocketed investors buying pricey condos or second homes to rent out on a short-term basis when they are not there.

“Texas is growing fast, but its migration story is broader and more working- and middle-class than Florida’s,” journalist Jack Salmon wrote on The Unseen and The Unsaid Substack when commenting on the same 2022-2023 IRS data as Realtor.com.

While much of the country struggles with affordability, Forbes notes that the rising share of wealth held by the top 1% “has reached a new record,” which, when combined with the migration patterns across the U.S., portends high rent growth and property values, though it must be noted that many of the extremely rich will buy rather than rent. Still, the increase in property values, like an incoming tide, causes all else to rise up with it.

Final Thoughts: Using the Migration Map to Create a Practical Investment Game Plan

If you are not looking for a simple, safe place to park your cash but rather to leverage it, there’s no point in investing in Miami and the other pricey metros attracting high-income residents. The rental market generally won’t support cash flow from rentals.

Instead, look to more affordable markets in North Carolina and away from the big tourist attractions, where a mix of retirees, remote workers, and future first-time homeowners might want to rent for flexibility or to save. There are also higher-end homes here that could double as short-term rentals. But again, the more expensive, the less sense it makes to leverage.

Elsewhere, Tennessee, Georgia, and Arizona will also offer pockets of investor-friendly real estate that might not cash flow given current interest rates but could look like a prescient move when the hallowed day of sizable rate drops finally arrives, or you simply hold on to them long enough to pay down the mortgage while rents increase.

Manufactured Homes On Leasehold Properties: Fannie Mae Vs. Freddie Mac Guidelines


Financing a manufactured home can already involve additional layers of review, and when that home is located in a leasehold community, the rules become even more specific.

One of the most important distinctions to understand is how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac differ with respect to manufactured homes on leasehold land.

Fannie Mae: Leasehold Manufactured Homes Not Eligible

Fannie Mae will not finance a manufactured home that:

  • Is comprised of multiple sections
  • Was assembled on-site
  • Is located on land that is part of a leasehold community

Even if the home is permanently affixed and otherwise meets manufactured housing requirements, the property’s leasehold land status alone makes it ineligible under Fannie Mae guidelines.

For borrowers pursuing conventional financing, this restriction can immediately eliminate Fannie Mae as an option.

Freddie Mac: Leasehold Allowed, With a Key Limitation

Freddie Mac takes a more flexible approach.

Freddie Mac will allow financing for manufactured homes located on leasehold properties, provided one critical condition is met:

  • The subject property may NOT have an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit)

If any type of ADU is present, detached, attached, or converted,  the loan becomes ineligible under Freddie Mac guidelines.

This distinction makes Freddie Mac a potential solution when Fannie Mae cannot be used, but only if the property meets this strict requirement.

Required Documentation: Data Plate & HUD Certification Label

Regardless of which agency is used, documentation is non-negotiable.

Both of the following must be present on the manufactured home:

  • Manufacturer’s Data Plate
  • HUD Certification Label

In addition:

  • Clear photos of both items must be included in the appraisal report

If either item is missing or not photographed, the loan cannot proceed until the issue is resolved.

Maximum Financing: Up to 95% LTV with MI

For eligible transactions, the maximum loan-to-value (LTV) is 95%, provided mortgage insurance (MI) can be obtained.

This allows qualified borrowers to achieve high leverage while still remaining within agency guidelines.

Have a Manufactured Home Scenario?

Contact us to discuss your scenario. We work with all 3 agencies and are very big in non-QM loans, so reach out and see if we have a program for you.

 

Harvard policy expert: ‘I am certain’ Iran war will cost U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion



Following the 2003 Iraq war, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the U.S. had spent $500 billion in direct costs on the conflict, but economics and policy experts Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes begged to differ. In a 2006 study, they calculated the war was in fact four times more expensive than the CBO had calculated, costing U.S. taxpayers more than $2 trillion in their moderate estimate. In 2013, Bilmes revised the costs and concluded about $4 trillion to $6 trillion was spent on both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

The U.S. once again is locked in conflict in the Middle East. Bilmes, a Harvard Kennedy School public policy lecturer and author of The Ghost Budget: Paying for America’s 9/11 Wars, is once again sounding the alarm on the true cost of the war with Iran. 

“I am certain we will spend one trillion dollars for the Iran war,” she said in an interview this month at the Harvard Kennedy School. “Perhaps we have already racked up that amount.”

Bilmes’s 13-figure estimation dwarfs initial projections of spending on the conflict, at $1 billion per day. The Pentagon told Congress the first week of the war reportedly cost about $11.3 billion alone. If that rate of spending continued, the cost of the war would have exceeded $35 billion by April 1, according to the thinktank American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI economists suggested that the first month of war cost each American household $260—which seems small but there are over 150 million taxpaying households in the United States. Currently, Bilmes estimates the U.S. is spending about $2 billion per day on the war.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the war could end “very soon” as the U.S. engages in peace talks with Iran as it continues to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has repeated this rhetoric over the course of the conflict. Last month, the Pentagon asked the White House to approve $200 billion in additional funding toward efforts in Iran, the Washington Post reported.

Bilmes said just like 20 years ago, the U.S. is continuing to underestimate how much money will be required to find the war and its after effects. In an interview with Fortune, she outlined the often-overlooked war spending that persists even years after the conflict is over, arguing the expenses could further burden America’s $39 trillion debt.

“Wars always have a long tail of costs,” she told Fortune. “Wars cost more than we expect. Wars take the cost to go on for longer than we expect, and some of these costs are very consequential.”

Short-term costs

When most people talk about the cost of war, they are thinking of the direct costs of munitions and combat, according to Bilmes, “which are themselves understated.” 

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington, D.C., think tank, estimated projected spending was $11.3 billion by the sixth day of the war on munitions alone, $1.4 billion on combat loss and infrastructure damage, and $26.5 million on operations, totaling about $16.5 billion by day 12. But this number increases when considering the cost to replace munitions, which could range from 50% to nearly double the initial cost, Bilmes said. And as a result of tariffs and supply chain disruptions exacerbated by the Russian-Ukraine war, some U.S. munitions makers have warned the price to produce ammo has increased 8% to 14% since 2024 

Additional spending will depend on damage to key infrastructure in the Gulf, and with the U.S. operating 19 military sites in the region, some have already sustained damage, which CSIS assessed to cost $800 billion within the first two weeks of the war.

Some U.S. spending on the war may also be disproportionate to Iran’s spending. For example, the drones Iran uses are much less expensive than the weapons the U.S. need to destroy those drones. A Shahed drone used by Iran can cost between $20,000 and $50,000, according to Reuters, while a Patriot interceptor used to shoot down the drone may cost about $4 million because they require much more sophisticated technology to function.

“Not only are the costs high, but we have these in this imbalanced situation where costs are disproportionately high compared to the cost of producing drones,” Bilmes said.

The Pentagon declined to respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

Long-term impact

According to Bilmes, war spending calculations seldom touch on long-term expenditures, particularly the cost of disability benefits to veterans. The Department of Veteran Affairs reported providing $195 billion in compensation to more than 6.9 million veterans and their families through fiscal 2025, according to the Government Accountability Office, an increase from $136 billion in fiscal year 2023.

Spending on veteran disability benefits increases in times of war, when more individuals are deployed and placed in conditions where they may be exposed to contaminants and chemicals leading to chronic health problems, Bilmes noted. There are now about 60,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East region. Since the Gulf War, about 50% of veterans claimed disability benefits, with 37% of Gulf war veterans receiving lifetime disability benefits of some kind, according to Bilmes.

But the Trump administration’s efforts to increase the Department of War budget amid the ongoing conflict presents among the greatest increase in spending, Bilmes argued. Trump has called for $1.5 trillion to be added to the military budget for 2027, up from the $1 trillion proposed earlier. Because of the war, she suggested, Congress is more likely to approve a budget increase, which likely means hundreds of billions of dollars in additional military spending each year, indirectly a result of the Iran war.

“Before this war, Congress was lukewarm toward this idea, but the the obvious depletion of many, many stockpiles and inventories and munitions and so forth, is leading to an environment in which probably the president will secure a much larger increase to the defense budget,” Bilmes said.

The policy expert warned that because a lion’s share of that spending will be borrowed as the Trump administration slashes tax revenue, the Iran war will further weigh on the country’s $39 trillion national debt. Compared to the Iraq war in 2003 when nearly $4 trillion of the debt was held by the public and 7% of the total national budget was for paying interest, today about $31 trillion of debt is held by the public, with almost 15% of the total budget being spent on interest, Bilmes said.

“In this case, we’re borrowing high rates, largely for things that will end up in the sand,” she concluded.

Capital One Venture Business Review (2026.4 Update: Rebranded; 150k Offer)