Driving Global Wealth
Mapping ultra high net worth individuals around the globe
in association with:
Table of Contents
Key findings
3
Introduction: Emerging Wealth Takes Over
4
The Lingering Impact of the Global Downturn
5
Emerging Wealth from Emerging Markets
6
Managing Family Involvement
8
Creating a Philanthropic Legacy
11
Finding Success in Public Service
13
Global Citizens Who Stay Put
15
Conclusion: Emerging Wealth, Emerging Markets, Emerging Opportunities
16
Methodology16
© Copyright Forbes 2011
Appendix A: Ultra High Net Worth Individuals by Country
17
Appendix B: Research Definitions
29
2
he last few years have been historic for wealthy individuals—not so much in their importance but in
how they’ve changed some of the attitudes and characteristics of this unique investment sector. The
global credit crisis had an impact on all levels of society, including the very wealthy, that saw gains
they had made disappear in the sudden market volatility. And while signs of recovery appeared during the
past year, the wealthy, as everyone else, have been taking a more guarded approach to risk.
At the same time, entering the second decade of the
21st century, the balance of global wealth has begun to
shift from traditional western economies to the newer
emerging markets. The unprecedented growth of the
Chinese economy, the expansion of India as a repository
for innovation, and the ongoing progress of markets in
Russia, Brazil and other developing nations, has led to
this swing in the nature of the world’s richest individuals and families.
In fact, our study suggests that the center of growth for
UHNWIs has shifted eastward. While the U.S. still has
the greatest number of UHNWIs, China, Russia and India
have overtaken Western Europe in the number of billionaires they produce. This marks a fundamental shift in the
demographics of the world’s ultra-rich, and this could have
an impact on spending and investing in the future.
Simply put, it is not just the number of wealthy individuals in these emerging markets, but how money is
flowing into these areas from around the globe. As they
look for new investing opportunities, UHNWIs saw that
these emerging markets were less affected by the 2008-09
downturn than were funds and investments in the U.S. and
Europe. Today, they are adding these opportunities to their
wealth management portfolios.
To gain a greater understanding of the characteristics
of ultra high net worth individuals (UHNWIs), and how
this investment segment is developing, Forbes Insights,
in association with Societe Generale Private Banking,
conducted an in-depth analysis of the world’s wealthiest individuals. This exclusive data is derived from Forbes
Magazine’s database of the world’s wealthiest people, looking at both people who made the “billionaire’s” list in
2010, as well as other UHNWIs.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
This study looks at the characteristics of UHNWIs in
a dozen global markets: Brazil, China, France, Germany,
Hong Kong, India, Mexico, the Middle East, Russia,
Singapore, the U.K., and the U.S. Analysis was conducted
on ten different criteria, including:
• S
ource of wealth: Is the wealthy individual self-made,
or did he or she inherit wealth?
• Company ownership: Is the individual’s company
private or publicly held?
• Family: Does the individual have children or other
relatives involved in his or her business?
• Employment: Is the individual still involved in the
venture, retired, or a full-time investor?
• Net worth: What is the range of the net worth of the
individuals being analyzed?
• C
itizenship and residence: Does the individual hold
citizenship and residence in the same country or in different countries?
• Political involvement: How involved is the individual
in national or local politics?
• Charitable foundation: Does the individual fund or
run his or her own charitable foundation, or does the
individual otherwise make philanthropy and giving a
large part of his or her life?
• Age: How old is the individual?
• Gender: Is the individual male or female?
3
Key Findings
Forbes Insights, in association with Societe Generale Private Banking, examined the unique characteristics of ultra high net worth
individuals (UHNWIs) in a dozen countries. The analysis is based on exclusive data from Forbes Magazine’s database of the world’s
wealthiest people. The minimum net worth of the individuals studied was US$1 billion, with three exceptions: India ($500 million
minimum), China ($425 million minimum), and Singapore ($190 million minimum).
Key findings from this analysis include:
• W
hile recovery seems to have come quickly to many UHNWIs, there are still lingering effects from the 2008-09
global downturn. In particular, the impact has been on some of their investing attitudes and actions. Based on interviews
and conversations with UHNWIs, they appear to have reduced their risk exposure, but have significant concerns about the
possible impact of inflation over the coming years. In addition, many are revising their portfolios with greater investment in
emerging markets such as China and the Asia Pacific region, where they believe there is less potential volatility. Finally, for
some UHNWIs, the post-downturn timeframe has been an opportunity to review their advisor relationships.
• T
he greatest area of UHNWI growth has been in the world’s emerging economies, particularly the so-called BRIC
nations of Brazil, Russia, China, and India. Today, both China and Russia have more than 100 billionaires in their ranks,
putting them second and third behind the U.S. But UHNWIs in these emerging markets are different from those elsewhere in
the world. They are younger; the average age of the UHNWI in Russia is just 49 and in China it is 50. They are predominantly
self-made, having been responsible for creating their own wealth. They remain involved in their businesses. But they are still
determining what they will do with their wealth, trailing other markets in areas such as philanthropy, for example.
• T
here are extremely strong family links among the UHNWIs studied. This is a global phenomenon present in nearly all
markets, with a few notable exceptions such as Russia. In many societies, keeping family close is a priority, as they have their
children and other family members involved in their businesses. Still, as generations pass, some conflicts can arise, particularly
when investments are managed by a family office.
• P
hilanthropy and charity remain priorities for many UHNWIs as they look for ways to create a more lasting
legacy and have a greater impact on society. In three quarters of the markets studied, more than 40% of the UHNWIs
fund their own charitable foundation, or run a charitable foundation founded or started by other family members. Yet this is
not yet universal. China remains a significant outlier, as only 7% of UHNWIs have foundations. But efforts are underway to
encourage greater giving and philanthropy from the emerging Chinese billionaires.
• H
aving made their marks in the business world, some UHNWIs see their next steps as shaping policy and debate
in the public sector. Tracking the political activity of the world’s richest people is difficult. In some nations such as the U.S.
or India, many UHNWIs individuals are open in their support of certain political causes, and some billionaires have turned
from business to politics. But elsewhere in the world (such as in Europe), UHNW individuals have been less open in their
political involvement, either not being involved or keeping their positions unknown.
• D
espite being global citizens, many UHNWI maintain citizenship and residence in the same country. The figure is
over 90% for most markets studied. The biggest outlier is Hong Kong—still maintaining its image as a haven for global
wealth—where 28% of the UHNW individuals studied hold citizenship and residence in different countries.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
4
The Lingering Impact of the Global Downturn
Nobody was untouched by the global recession of 200809, and the effect of the downturn lingered into 2010 for
some UHNWIs. Still, the overall impact wasn’t just related
to the value of portfolios. Certainly those were affected,
but, for many UNHWIs, the biggest shift may have been
related to their investing attitudes and actions.
Based on conversations and interviews with UHNWIs
across the globe, as well as with some of their advisors,
many of the world’s wealthiest were stung by the downturn, but not to the same extent as other investors. (Most
of these interviews were conducted on the condition that
they would be used for background and that information
not be attributable to the individual.) In the words of
a U.S.-based technology investor: “The thing to consider is that in this downturn, it wasn’t just a few assets,
it was nearly all asset classes. So everyone got burned
nearly equally.”
Still, the recession has influenced how some of these
UHNWIs are investing today, and how they interact with
their advisors, as the anecdotes below describe:
A speedy recovery
Many of the UHNWIs interviewed indicated they felt their
investments had recovered more quickly after the downturn than perhaps the “general public” had. In some cases,
they felt their advisors had helped them move away from
the more volatile real estate and public markets prior to the
depth of the downturn, and encouraged them to return
to some of those investments at the right time. “I’ve done
well,” said one U.S.-based investor in charge of his family’s
office. “I feel we saw what was coming and moved away at
the right time.”
Lowering risk, but fearing inflation
UNHWIs, almost as a rule, are often more moderate risk takers, focused more on wealth preservation and strategic growth
rather than high-return/high-risk investment. Following the
recession, some of those interviewed who had dabbled with
higher-risk investments such as hedge funds were retreating
from those in favor of more mainstream equities.
The biggest concern many of the UHNWIs is inflation.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
“Our advisors have been warning us about the risk of
inflation,” said a second-generation Europe-based manufacturer. “It makes sense to prepare for it.” While he would
not disclose his specific investing plan, he did allude to
moving away from the dollar.
Looking at developing nations
As they assess their investment portfolios, some of the
UHNWIs interviewed are examining putting a greater
share of their capital into emerging markets, particularly in
the Asia Pacific area. While investments in emerging markets also fell during the economic downturn, they were not
as volatile as those in developed markets, and they recovered more quickly, said one interviewee.
Noted a U.K.-based investment advisor for UHNWIs,
“The emerging markets as a whole are growing at a 7 percent clip. The developed countries have enormous debt
whereas the emerging nations have healthy balance sheets.”
The advisor added that he has recommended building
portfolios that “decouple the emerging world with the
developed world. I believe that’s going to play a role in
nearly all strategic wealth management.”
Turnover in investor relationships
It’s hard to say whether it is attributable to the post-downturn hangover or simply a matter of it being an opportunity
to shake things up, but a number of UHNWIs indicated
they were assessing new advisor relationships, or looking to
restructure their existing investment advisor roster.
For one UHNWI who made his money in the U.S.
retail industry, its nothing more than a matter of regular
due diligence. “I’m not looking to have different brokerage advisors compete against each other, but I want to
be sure that the people I work with are the best at executing my investment strategy.” As he has rebalanced his
assets to achieve his goals, he’s also replaced a couple of
his advisors because their areas of expertise no longer fit
the portfolio’s approach.
Or as another UHNWI indicated, “There’s been some
churn in relationships because sometimes, it’s just time for
a change.”
5
Emerging Wealth from Emerging Markets
Emerging market UHNWIs are generally younger
The average age of the UHNW individual in Russia is 49
and is 50 in China. (Fig. 1) Compare that to more established economies such as the U.S., where the average age
of a UHNWI is 66, or France, where it is 74. In other
words, emerging market UHNWIs are often just establishing themselves, so their overall influence and activity
will likely continue for an additional decade or two. Their
wealthy status has just begun, and the long-term impact is
likely to be sizable.
Few economic developments have compared to the meteoric growth of China both as a global industrial powerhouse,
and as a creator of unprecedented wealth for those entrepreneurs, industrialists, and investors who have succeeded
over the past decade. While other economies contracted
during the global credit crisis, China remained strong and
vibrant, and today it leads the so-called BRIC nations—
Brazil, Russia, India and China—as the greatest areas of
growth for UHNWIs.
Consider some recent numbers: In the 2011 Forbes billionaire’s list, the BRIC nations produced more than half
of the new billionaires to join the ranking. Until the past
12 months, no nation other than the U.S. was home to
more than 100 billionaires—today China has 115 and
Russia 101.
The analysis shows that UHNWIs in these emerging
markets—while they have much in common with their
counterparts elsewhere in the world—also have a number
of unique characteristics.
Emerging market UHNWIs are self-made
Entrepreneurship is alive and well in the BRIC nations,
and is paying off handsomely for those that have succeeded.
100% of the UHNWIs studied in Russia are self-made—
meaning every single one was responsible for creating their
own wealth and did not inherit it.
Figure 1: Average age of UHNWIs, by country
74
68
The ultra-rich in emerging markets are
making their fortunes at a younger age than
UHNWIs in the West. China’s and Russia’s
wealthy are, on average, 15 years younger
than their counterparts in the U.S., U.K.
or Germany.
France
© Copyright Forbes 2011
Brazil
68
Hong
Kong
66
Germany
66
U.S.
65
U.K.
64
62
61
Mexico Singapore Middle
East
60
India
50
49
China
Russia
6
For UHNWIs in emerging
markets, determining how
to give money away
may be more difficult
than earning it.
While Russia may be an extreme in that area—especially given its political history over the past 90 years—other
wealthy individuals in the BRIC nations have been similarly entrepreneurial. In China, two thirds (66%) of the
UHNWIs studied were self-made. For India, that figure is
65%, and for Brazil it is 67%. The impact of this entrepreneurialism is further evident in the ongoing involvement of
these individuals in their businesses (see below), and what is
likely to be a continued expansion of their wealth based on
their desire for ongoing success.
BRIC UHNWIs are involved in their business
Whereas UHNWIs and entrepreneurs in some western
markets appear eager to sell their companies once they
are successful, most of those in the BRIC nations remain
actively involved with their businesses. This may be
because they are younger and not yet ready to take a more
passive role. Or it may be attributable to the high growth
trajectories for many of these companies, and the desire of
the leaders to see that growth through.
Among the UHNWIs studied, 93% of Russian UHNW
individuals, and 85% of Chinese UHNWIs are employed
full time, meaning they are in control of, directing, or running their companies. The figures for India and Brazil are
78% and 75%, respectively.
Emerging market UHNWIs are still determining
how to give back
Philanthropy is a mixed bag among UHNWIs in emerging markets. For many, determining how or when to give
money away has been more difficult than earning it. As this
new generation of titans emerges, it is unclear whether they
will be as committed to giving back their wealth as some
of their western counterparts have been. For instance, just
7% of Chinese UHNWIs analyzed in the study have their
own charitable foundations, a far cry from the 55% that do
so in the U.S.
It may be premature to say that these individuals will
not be philanthropic, however, as many may see themselves
as being at the stage of “building” their wealth. There are
also social and political issues that are unique to these markets that are affecting giving strategies—for example, is
philanthropy seen as a way to help a nation’s people, or is
that a role for the government?
Ultimately, how a select number of UHNWIs in
emerging markets approach philanthropy may end up guiding others. These nations have yet to have their Carnegies
or Rockefellers to usher in their ages of philanthropy.
Still a Man’s World
Gender diversity has not yet come to the world of ultra-high net worth.
In most of the markets studied, UHNW individuals are predominantly male. Of the markets studied, the ones with
the highest percentage of female UHNW individuals were Hong Kong (23%) and Germany (17%).
In most other markets, more than 90% of UHNW were male.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
7
Managing Family Involvement
There are extremely strong family links among the
UHNWIs studied. This is a global phenomenon, and it is
present in nearly all markets, with a few notable exceptions
such as Russia.
Clearly, in certain societies, keeping family close is
a priority, and UHNWIs in these countries are more
likely to have children or other family members working in the business. (Fig. 2) More than half of UHNWIs
from the Middle East have their children involved in
their businesses, and a similar percent have other family members involved (note that a person can have both
children and other family members employed). Similarly,
in India, 58% of UHNWIs have their children working
with them.
Within many of these developing nations, one person’s
wealth is often seen as something to be shared—a legacy
that can enrich both the immediate and the extended family. “In our culture, family still comes first. Wealth becomes
a way to bring everyone closer together,” said a wealthy
finance executive from Latin America. “It is important to
share our advantages with those closest to us.”
But involving family in wealth strategies certainly
comes with its challenges. Once a family has significant
wealth, the problem becomes how to preserve it for future
generations. This is often a surprisingly difficult task,
as it may require the family to tackle personal issues as
much as they need to deal with investment and financial
uncertainties.
Figure 2: Family in Business
Brazil
13
25
China
12
27
France
50
25
Germany
19
34
Hong Kong
55
30
India
58
37
Mexico
11
56
Middle East
53
53
Russia
8
17
Singapore
25
45
U.K.
UHNWIs in India, Hong Kong, the Middle East, and
France are most likely to have children involved in their
business, while those in Mexico, the Middle East, and
Singapore involve other family.
11
14
U.S.
21
28
0%
• Children in Business
© Copyright Forbes 2011
50%
100%
• Other Family in Business
8
To manage such conflicts, many UHNWIs turn to a
single-family office (SFO), a professional organization dedicated specifically to managing their personal fortunes.
While SFO involvement was not directly analyzed in the
Forbes wealth list data, other studies have looked at the
issues and characteristics of the SFO. According to a 2009
study from the Wharton Global Family Alliance, SFOs
and the families behind them are generally entrepreneurial, insofar as the families involved are often still majority
shareholders involved (similar in profile to the UHNWIs
from the Forbes list). These families tend to view their
SFOs as private investment services, more focused on maintaining and growing wealth than on “softer” services—a
hedge fund expert shouldn’t be distracted by having to deal
with domestic staff issues.
“In our culture, family still
comes first… It is important
to share our advantages
with those closest to us.”
Issues in the Family Office
For a second-generation European business owner, managing multigenerational wealth through a single-family office is at
times both a godsend and a curse. It both eases some of the issues related to investing and growth of the family fortune,
but it also sets up a number of conflicts as different segments of the family have different opinions regarding allocation and
risk profiles.
“Our goal for the past several decades and going forward has been to manage our wealth independently so that the principals
have enough time to devote to the business,” said the executive. “Staffing our office with professionals that don’t have a direct
link to the family has been beneficial.” He added that the group has a staff of 9, including tax advisors and legal counsel.
Still, he has found that as a third generation has become more involved in the SFO’s business and now sits on its committees,
it is becoming increasingly necessary to outsource some of its functions. For example, the group recently decided to restaff
its investing team to focus its expertise primarily on private equity placements (they used a unique performance bonus structure
to lure a high-performer into the organization). Other portfolio matters are being contracted with several independent
investment professionals.
“We try to have a long-term investing vision and adhere to investing best practices,” he added. This helped the family ride
out the 2009 downturn, and will help them find value in their future investments.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
9
Globally, many expect the biggest growth in family
offices to occur in Asia, as UHNWIs in that region who
have gained their wealth over the past two decades look
to come up with ways to pass it on to the next generation.
“We’ve been pretty unsophisticated investors compared to
Americans and Europeans,” said a Singapore-based investor specializing in biotech. “Wealthy Asians need to look
for ways to grow their assets and preserve them for future
generations.”
The importance of using
Entrepreneurial activity still drives
services such as an SFO
most wealth creation in both
or private bank is further
emerging and established markets
demonstrated by underas most UHNWIs fall into the
category of “self-made” wealth.
standing the source of the
UHNWI’s wealth.
Entrepreneurial activity still drives the vast majority
of wealth creation in most markets—the defining characteristic of the “self-made” individual. In half the markets
studied—Brazil, China, India, Russia, the U.K., and the
U.S.—more than 60% of the UHNWIs were “self-made,”
meaning that they “earned” their wealth through the success and growth of their business ventures.
But even in those markets where the majority of
UHNWIs received their wealth through inheritance,
many are actively involved in growing that financial legacy. (Fig. 3) For example, in France, two thirds of the
UHNWIs inherited their wealth, but half are actively
involved today in growing the fortunes. Similarly, in the
Middle East, 42% of UHNWIs inherited their fortunes,
but are still looking to grow them.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
Figure 3: Source of Wealth
Brazil
66
6
China
28
1
65
20
14
France
33
17
50
Germany
36
32
32
Hong Kong
48
5
19
28
India
65
17
18
Mexico
56
33
11
Middle East
42
16
42
Russia
100
Singapore
13
3
10
74
U.K.
80
10
10
U.S.
1
68
18
13
• Self Made • Inherited • Inherited and Growing • Other
10
Creating a Philanthropic Legacy
In 2010, many UHNWIs were issued a challenge: increase
their charitable giving and develop a way to return their
wealth to charitable causes.
The “Giving Pledge”—kicked off by Warren Buffet and
Bill and Melinda Gates—is an effort to have the wealthiest individuals and families in America commit to giving
the majority of their wealth to the philanthropic causes and
charitable organizations of their choice either during their
lifetime or after their death. The goal: have those who have
been most fortunate make a moral commitment to give,
and through their generosity make the world a better place.
More than 50 of the wealthiest U.S. individuals and
families have taken the pledge. And the challenge has been
extended overseas, as Buffet and Gates traveled to China to
share their experiences with philanthropy with the wealthy
entrepreneurs from that emerging nation.
Philanthropy and charity have long been part and parcel with ultra high net worth, as individuals look for ways
to create a more lasting legacy and have a greater impact
on society.
The analysis of the Forbes data suggests that this is still
true. In three quarters of the markets studied, more than
40% of the UHNWIs fund their own charitable foundation, or run a charitable foundation founded or started by
other family members. (Fig. 4) And in seven of the markets,
more than 40% of the UHNWIs gave other substantial
charitable contributions; that is, made donations outside of
their foundations, or made sizable donations without having their own or a family foundation.
While many think of philanthropy as an American
notion—people in the U.S. give more to charity than
Figure 4: Charitable Foundation
Brazil
38
44
China
7
35
France
58
33
Germany
45
64
Hong Kong
43
30
India
48
24
Mexico
44
56
Middle East
63
58
Russia
26
52
Singapore
43
13
U.K.
In most markets studied, foundations and charitable
giving is part of the legacy UHNWIs are trying to
create, but the ultra-rich in emerging markets have
some catching up to do.
57
49
U.S.
55
50
0%
50%
100%
• Charitable Foundation • Other substantial charitable giving
© Copyright Forbes 2011
11
people in any other country—clearly giving has become
global in nature. In the U.S., 55% of UHNW individuals studied operate charitable foundations, and of those that
do not, nearly three quarters recorded substantial charitable
donations. Yet even more UHNWIs operate foundations in
the U.K. (57%) and France (58%). And in the Middle East,
where Sharia law often directs charitable contributions,
63% of UHNWIs fund a charitable foundation.
Even in the emerging market of India, 48% of UHNWIs
have a charitable foundation. Consider, for example, Wipro
founder Azim Premji, who has pledged much of the fortune
he made through his information technology company to
his foundation, which currently is focused on improving
public education in India.
As noted earlier, China remains an outlier in the area
of philanthropy, as just 7% of Chinese UHNWIs have
a foundation, and 35% make some sort of other substantial charitable giving. There remains great cultural
hesitancy in that country to making a charitable pledge.
For instance, Confucian values call for people to take care
of their families first, which is often considered a reason
why Chinese UHNWIs leave wealth for their descendents. In fact, when Buffet and Gates visited, they had
to issue an official letter to the state news agency to clarify that attendees at their event would not be asked to
donate anything.
But that could be changing. After the visit by Buffet and
Gates, several Chinese entrepreneurs changed direction.
Chen Guangbio, a recycling entrepreneur with a fortune
estimated at more than $400 million, announced on his
company’s website that he planned to give all his money
away. Others could follow his lead.
Philanthropy Keeps a Legacy Alive
One could argue that the most valuable and enduring assets of a multigenerational family are its shared values, its reputation,
and its place in society. Evidence of its good work can serve as a magnet to draw individual family members together and
provide direction for the future.
Nowhere is this truer than in the family charitable foundation of the descendents of an American industrialist who made his
fortune more than 60 years ago. Based in a midsize city, the foundation—actually an amalgam of several foundations run by
different branches of the family—has two key points of focus: maintain and grow its endowment, and support the kinds of
causes the family’s patriarch would have supported during his lifetime, according to a family board member.
Maintaining and growing the endowment, the board member said, comes via the family’s commitment to supporting their
foundations. The commercial side of the family fortune has shifted from manufacturing to investing, including commercial real
estate and private equity investment. While those investments are not part of the foundation’s endowment, their ongoing
success provides the funds, the board member added. In terms of causes, the foundation’s charter calls for it to support areas
of social equality, cultural enrichment, and local causes, including medical research and education.
“It is important for us to maintain what our family stands for,” the board member said. “Our wealth came via inheritance,
but our true legacy is really about what we continue to do with it.”
© Copyright Forbes 2011
12
Finding Success in Public Service
Philanthropy is one way UHNWIs can give back to
society. Another way is through activity in the public sector.
A growing number of entrepreneurial UHNWIs,
having made their fortunes in business, have turned
to politics to take their success in the private sector
and bring it to public service. Consider the number of
high-profile billionaires that have turned from business
to politics. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg
made his fortune via his namesake information services
and media company. Lebanese prime minister designate
Najib Mikati co-founded the telecommunications company Investcom.
In most cases, these are not individuals who are looking to further enrich themselves via the public sector, or
see political involvement as a way to improve the standing
of their businesses. Rather, many see it as a way to shape
the debate on critical issues, and use their business experience for public service.
Still, tracking the political activity of the world’s
richest people is difficult. The Forbes Insights research
defines “political involvement” as those individuals who
have donated money to a political party in a manner that
is recorded in public record; have been known to attend
political fundraisers; have served on or in a government
cabinet, task force, or partnership on the local, federal or
international level; have attended global economic conferences sponsored by governing bodies; or have run for or
served in elected office.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
Many UHNWIs see political
involvement as a way to
shape public debate and use
their business experience
for public service.
13
While this definition can identify some of the political involvement of UHNWIs, information to back up all
involvement is not always available. (Fig. 5) As a result, the
figures for those who are
“not” politically involved
While political involvement of
include both UHNWIs
UHNWIs is not easy to track,
wealthy individuals in the U.S.,
who noted that they remain
India, and the Middle East are
politically neutral as well
among the most active.
as those for whom no data
is available. Thus, it is possible that some are politically active on some level, but data
cannot be found either due to country disclosure laws or
dearth of public information.
In nations studied, political activity among UHNWIs
is most common in the Middle East (74%), the U.S. (52%),
and India (48%).
In the Middle East, the high rate of political involvement may be due to the concentration of wealth of the
ruling families, and the political appointment of members of these families in the countries studied (the United
Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Lebanon).
For example, prime minister of Kuwait, Sheikh Nasser
Al-Sabah, is the nephew of the emir Sheikh Sabah
Al-Ahmad Al-Jeber Al-Sabah. It is this kind of concentration of wealth and political power that led to some of
the protests and democracy demonstrations in countries
such as Bahrain in 2011.
In the U.S. and India, political involvement and political donations may come from the increasing expense of
running a political campaign. In the U.S., political fundraising has been well documented, and the courting of
wealthy individuals is part of the ongoing process. In India,
electioneering has also become dominated by candidates’
desires to outspend their rivals as they run for office.
This trend also accounts for the lower levels of political
involvement in certain European countries, where elections may be publically financed, and privacy laws limit
political disclosures.
© Copyright Forbes 2011
Figure 5: Political Involvement
Brazil
13
87
China
6
94
France
17
2
83
Germany
98
Hong Kong
35
65
India
48
52
Mexico
33
67
Middle East
74
26
Russia
20
80
Singapore
15
85
U.K.
9
91
U.S.
52
48
• Yes • No/Unknown
14
Global Citizens Who Stay Put
UHNWIs are the stereotypical global citizens. Given their
wealth and the global nature of their investments and interests, many are likely to maintain multiple residences and
conduct business and across the world.
For example, one UHNWI interviewed for this study
is a U.S. citizen. His office
is based in the U.K., and he
The vast majority of UHNWIs
maintains residences in both
have residence in their country of
London and New York,
citizenship, but Hong Kong and the
U.K. still attract the ultra-rich from
where his family resides. His
elsewhere in the world.
primary area of investment
specialty, however, is real
estate in developing markets, particularly in India and now
Hong Kong, and he operates out of offices in those nations
as well.
Still, the vast majority UHNWIs individuals maintain citizenship residence in the same country. (Fig. 6) In two thirds
of the markets studied, more than 90% of UHNWIs hold citizenship and residence in the same country. For Mexico and
the Middle East, all of the UHNWIs studied live and reside in
those regions. In the U.S., the figure is 97%.
The biggest outlier is Hong Kong—still maintaining
its image as a haven for global wealth—where 28% of the
UHNW individuals studied hold citizenship and residence
in different countries. In the U.K., where UHNWIs from
elsewhere in the Commonwealth often maintain residence,
17% of the individuals studied hold citizenship and residence in different countries.
Figure 6: Citizenship of UHNWIs
Brazil
89
11
China
94
6
France
91
9
Germany
81
19
Hong Kong
72
28
India
94
6
Mexico
100
Middle East
100
Russia
93
7
93
7
Singapore
U.K.
83
17
U.S.
97
3
• Holding Citizenship and Residence in Same Country
• Holding Citizenship and Residence in Different Countries
© Copyright Forbes 2011
15
conclusion
Emerging Wealth, Emerging Markets,
Emerging Opportunities
There has been a significant shift in how wealth is distributed around the globe, as so-called emerging markets have
come forward as the fastest growing markets for the ultrarich, perhaps at the expense of more established wealth in
western Europe. Driven by strong entrepreneurism and
meteoric growth in countries such as China, India, and
Russia, these newly minted UHNWIs are creating a new
demographic wealth profile.
Consider, for example, the profile of the average
UHNWI in China. This person is young ( just hitting 50),
self-made, entrepreneurial, and continues to be focused on
building wealth. At the same time, the Chinese UHNWI
may not yet be comfortable with wealth, and is still figuring out how to affect society through philanthropy.
The impact of this geographic shift in wealth could be
long-lasting. Not only do these markets make billionaires,
but they are also are attracting the investments of other
UHNWIs seeking stable growth opportunities. This strong
funding could further spur economic growth in the emerging markets, creating even more innovation and wealth for
the most successful entrepreneurs. And emerging market
money will also be fueling the growth of wealth in western
markets—consider how Russian entrepreneur and venture
capitalist Yuri Milner has invested in successful U.S. Internet
properties such as Facebook, Zynga, and Groupon, whose
owners themselves are billionaires.
Still, challenges exist. The concentration of wealth in
countries such as India and China—where significant poverty also exists—may need to be watched closely. In India,
for instance, concerns have been voiced that major familybased corporations wield disproportionate influence over
markets. Local governments in China are looking for ways
to expand the standard of living for its emerging middle
class. The concern: to avoid chances of social unrest.
Ultimately, the influence of this shift will be felt for
years to come. Older, established wealth could be usurped
by the emerging market billionaires. Philanthropic giving by these emerging market UHNWIs could change the
specter of poverty into opportunity in these markets and
create a lasting legacy.
Methodology
The information in this study is based on an exclusive analysis of ultra-high-net-worth individuals in 12 markets conducted by Forbes Insights. The markets studied
were: Brazil, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, the Middle East (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon), Russia, Singapore, the
U.K., and the U.S.
Using the Forbes Magazine list of the world’s wealthiest individuals from 2010, Forbes Insights evaluated trends and developments of UHNW individuals against
a number of key criteria, including company ownership, citizenship and residence, source of wealth, employment status, family business involvement, charitable
foundations and giving, and political involvement.
The minimum net worth of the individuals studied was US$1 billion or local currency equivalent in all markets. There were three exceptions: India ($500 million
minimum), China ($425 million minimum), and Singapore ($190 million minimum).
In addition, 17 interviews were conducted with UHNWIs in the countries studied. Each person interviewed had at least US$60 million in net investable assets. Many
of the interviews were conducted “off the record,” but the insights they provided were used to help shape the analysis of the data. Others were conducted “not for
attribution,” in order to protect the privacy of the individual interviewed.
Christiaan Rizy
Director
© Copyright Forbes 2011
Stuart Feil
Editorial Director
Brenna Sniderman
research Director
Clara Knutson
Researcher
16
Appendix A
Ultra High Net Worth Individuals by Country
Brazil
(n=18)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
22%
78%
Full-time75%
Retired6%
Full-time investor
6%
Other13%
89%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
11%
Gender
Male94%
Female6%
Average Age
Age68
Yes38%
No/None found
63%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
44%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
11%
14%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
66%
Inherited6%
Inherited and growing
28%
Other0%
Yes13%
No/Unknown87%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,100
$27,000
17
China
(n=400)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
32%
64%
Full-time85%
Retired2%
Full-time investor
2%
Other2%
94%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
6%
Gender
Male96%
Female5%
Average Age
Age50
Yes7%
No/None found
94%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
35%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
12%
27%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
65%
Inherited1%
Inherited and growing
20%
Other14%
Yes6%
No/Unknown94%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$425
$8,000
18
France
(n=12)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
17%
83%
Full-time58%
Retired25%
Full-time investor
0%
Other17%
91%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
9%
Gender
Male92%
Female8%
Average Age
Age74
Yes58%
No/None found
42%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
33%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
50%
25%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
33%
Inherited17%
Inherited and growing
50%
Other0%
Yes17%
No/Unknown83%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,100
$27,500
19
Germany
(n=53)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
74%
26%
Full-time49%
Retired19%
Full-time investor
4%
Other9%
81%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
19%
Gender
Male83%
Female17%
Average Age
Age66
Yes45%
No/None found
36%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
64%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
19%
34%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
36%
Inherited32%
Inherited and growing
32%
Other0%
Yes2%
No/Unknown98%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,200
$23,500
20
Hong Kong
(n=40)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
33%
68%
Full-time83%
Retired13%
Full-time investor
0%
Other5%
72%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
28%
Gender
Male78%
Female23%
Average Age
Age68
Yes43%
No/None found
58%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
30%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
55%
30%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
48%
Inherited5%
Inherited and growing
19%
Other28%
Yes35%
No/Unknown65%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,000
$24,000
21
India
(n=100)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
15%
85%
Full-time78%
Retired10%
Full-time investor
1%
Other11%
94%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
6%
Gender*
Male75%
Female5%
Average Age
Age60
Yes48%
No/None found
52%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
24%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
58%
37%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
65%
Inherited17%
Inherited and growing
18%
Other0%
Yes48%
No/Unknown52%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
$500
$27,000
*Gender could not be identified for remaining 25%
© Copyright Forbes 2011
22
Mexico
(n=19)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
42%
58%
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
100%
0%
Gender
Male100%
Female0%
Average Age
Age64
Full-time78%
Retired0%
Full-time investor
11%
Other11%
Charitable Foundation
Yes44%
No/None found
44%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
56%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
11%
56%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
55%
Inherited33%
Inherited and growing
11%
Other0%
Yes33%
No/Unknown67%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,000
$53,500
23
Middle east
(n=19)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
42%
58%
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
100%
0%
Gender
Male100%
Female0%
Average Age
Age61
Full-time68%
Retired11%
Full-time investor
11%
Other0%
Charitable Foundation
Yes63%
No/None found
37%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
58%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
53%
53%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
42%
Inherited16%
Inherited and growing
42%
Other0%
Yes74%
No/Unknown26%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,100
$19,400
24
Russia
(n=62)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
53%
47%
Full-time93%
Retired1%
Full-time investor
1%
Other5%
93%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
7%
Gender
Male98%
Female2%
Average Age
Age49
Yes26%
No/None found
74%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
52%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
8%
17%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
100%
Inherited0%
Inherited and growing
0%
Other0%
Yes20%
No/Unknown80%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,000
$15,800
25
Singapore
(n=40)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
30%
70%
Full-time63%
Retired15%
Full-time investor
8%
Other15%
93%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
7%
Gender*
Male30%
Female3%
Average Age
Age62
Yes43%
No/None found
58%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
13%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
25%
45%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
13%
Inherited3%
Inherited and growing
10%
Other74%
Yes15%
No/Unknown85%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
$190
$7,800
*Gender could not be identified for remaining 67%
© Copyright Forbes 2011
26
United Kingdom
(n=29)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
83%
17%
Full-time71%
Retired17%
Full-time investor
6%
Other6%
83%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
17%
Gender
Male90%
Female7%
Average Age
Age65
Yes57%
No/None found
43%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
49%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
11%
14%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
80%
Inherited10%
Inherited and growing
10%
Other0%
Yes9%
No/Unknown91%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,000
$12,000
27
United States
(n=400)
Company Ownership
Private holding
Public holding Employment Status
74%
26%
Full-time76%
Retired11%
Full-time investor
9%
Other4%
97%
Charitable Foundation
Citizenship & Residence
Citizenship and residence
in same country
Citizenship and residence
in different countries
3%
Gender
Male90%
Female11%
Average Age
Age66
Yes55%
No/None found
45%
Other substantial charitable
giving (total)
50%
Family in Business
Children in business
Other family in business
21%
28%
Source of Wealth
Political Involvement
Self made
68%
Inherited18%
Inherited and growing
13%
Other1%
Yes52%
No/Unknown48%
Net Worth Range
Min net worth ($mil)
Max net worth ($mil)
© Copyright Forbes 2011
$1,000
$54,000
28
Appendix B
Research Definitions
For analysis purposes, the following definitions were used to categorize ultra-high-net-worth individuals studied for this report:
Employment
Full-time: Includes individuals who are still in control of,
directing or running their company, as well as those who may
have ceded day-to-day control of their company to others but
still remain as an active and functioning chairman of the board.
by other family members such as a parent or sibling; and
those whose companies run charitable foundations (though
in these cases, the individual in question must own or run
that company).
Retired: Includes only those individuals who have officially
retired from day-to-day engagement with a company and no
longer serve on their company’s board, or who serve in an
“honorary” or “emeritus” capacity, and who do not hold any
other roles at any other for-profit organizations. Although they
may still hold stakes in other companies or hold other
investments, they are not actively acquiring new stakes or
getting involved in any new ventures.
No/None found: Includes those without a charitable
foundation as defined by above, as well as those for whom
this information could not be found.
Full-time investor: Includes only those who are full-time
investors of their own wealth, or their family’s wealth.
Other: Includes those who may no longer serve in a day-to-day
capacity at their company and no longer serve on their
company’s board; or who serve in an “honorary” or “emeritus”
capacity, but who are also active members on other company
boards; who run their own charitable foundation(s); are now
serving in public or elected office; are in the process of starting
another company; are running or serving as a guiding force at
another company separate from the one at which they made or
grew the bulk of their wealth; are deceased since the data was
completed; or who are not necessarily retired but made their
wealth through family inheritance and not through their career
or employment. Also includes families who are listed as among
the wealthiest.
Charitable Foundation
Has a charitable foundation: Includes individuals who have
funded and own/run their own charitable foundation; those
who have funded their own charitable foundation and allow it
to be run by family members or a staff of professionals; those
who continue to run charitable foundations founded or started
© Copyright Forbes 2011
Other charitable giving: Includes those who either hold a
role on the board of a charitable foundation not owned or
run by themselves, their family, or their company; those who
have made a significant donation to a charitable organization;
and/or those who make philanthropy and giving a large part
of their lives either outside their own foundation or in lieu of
their own foundation.
Political Involvement
Politically involved: Includes those who have donated money
to a political party in a manner that is recorded in public record;
have been known to attend political fundraisers; have served on
or in a government cabinet, task force, or partnership on the
local, federal or international level; have attended global
economic conferences sponsored by governing bodies; have run
for or served in elected office; have been appointed to office;
may be noted in reports as having “suspected political ties” or
having been suspected of being “politically well-connected”;
or who have a spouse, sibling, parent or child who has run for,
or served in, office, or is currently serving in office.
No/Unknown: Includes those who note that they remain
politically neutral as well as those for whom no data is available.
Thus, it is possible that some are politically active on some level
as defined above, but data cannot be found either due to
country disclosure laws or dearth of public information.
29
60 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011 | 212-367-2662
www.forbes.com/forbesinsights