Define "Rich"

[Carnevil9]

"Rich" means someone who has significantly more money than you do. Nobody thinks of themselves as rich; they think of that other asshole across town as being rich, and envy and hate him.

That's why politicians never get in trouble for saying "let's tax the rich!" Everyone thinks that they are talking about somebody else......Carney

 

[Belegon]

To me being rich is having enough money that you don't even have to concern yourself with money and you can just get on with what's really important.

We're pretty much on the same page.

I would add having a solid enough financial position that you can afford to help out someone you care about at a moment's notice without worrying about whether they'll be able to pay you back on any kind of timetable... it could conceivably take a bit more than just the first part.

 

[Guest]

for most people rich is those who have more than what they have

 

[Liar]

Are rich people those that earn a lot or those that own a lot?

I'd say the latter. Like in Joe's definition, someone who could live comfortably off his or her savings for a defined period of time. A year sounds about right to me. Or for that matter, could do something else with that money, like give it away or buy diamond studded rims and a kickass stereo.

One step up from rich we have, I dunno, "wealthy" perhaps? That's people who don't have to work at all. They can live comfortably off the interrest on their savings. Their money make more money for them than they spend on living well, as long as they don't go to luxury excess.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the God of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and-and in short you are forever floored. As I am!' ""

Mr. Macawber from “David Copperfield,” C. Dickens


Ambrose Bierce a bit obtuse on this one:

"Holding in trust and subject to an accounting the property of the indolent, the incompetent, the unthrifty, the envious and the luckless. That is the view that prevails in the underworld, where the Brotherhood of Man finds its most logical development and candid advocacy. To denizens of the midworld the word means good and wise." - The Devil's Dictionary

 

[impressive]

Does "rich" equate to "wealthy" ???

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Does "rich" equate to "wealthy" ???

Not to me, being rich, IMO, is being comfortable enough not just financially, but emotionally and spiritually to enjoy life and live it the best that you can.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Does "rich" equate to "wealthy" ???

Too many people have a caricature image image of "rich," "wealthy" or "affluent" that is really shallow materialism - "She who dies with the most toys wins." (No, not those kinds of toys.)

What this ignores is security. The important difference between me and the "millionaire next door" is not how much more stuff he has, but how much more financial security he has. The knowledge that one could stop working today and live comfortably for the rest of one's life is the ultimate luxury good, even if one has no intention of stopping work.

And that brings me back to your question. Happiness and living "the Good Life" does require a certain standard of material comfort, and a certain level of economic security. That doesn't mean a mansion and a pile large enough to live without working, but it does mean something more than a share-cropper's shack and not knowing how you're going to buy food next week. Money does matter.

Your question implies, is wealth enough to guarantee happiness and "the Good Life?" The question answers itself - how many rich people are thoroughly miserable and unhappy?

Bottom line: Money isn't everything, but it does matter.

 

[BlackShanglan]

What this ignores is security. The important difference between me and the "millionaire next door" is not how much more stuff he has, but how much more financial security he has. The knowledge that one could stop working today and live comfortably for the rest of one's life is the ultimate luxury good, even if one has no intention of stopping work.

Amen to that. What one considers "comfortable" can vary a great deal, but that sense of release from worry seems to me to be the real gold. Some sense of security about one's financial future is what lets one enjoy what one has to the utmost.

The SO and I made a project, in the last few years, of setting aside enough money to live for half a year without the SO's income (preparatory to me leaving my own place of employment). Even before I was freed from the shackles of my past employer, an enormous amount of strain and worry went out of our lives when that money was there - some of it tension that I wouldn't have consciously said was present until it was lifted. We had some unfortunate problems this spring that led to quite large bills that had to be paid, but it was astonishingly less painful to pay them when the money, hard-won though it was, was already at hand.

 

[trysail]

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the God of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and-and in short you are forever floored. As I am!' "

Mr. Macawber from “David Copperfield,” C. Dickens

I give praise and thanks that someone on a website called Literotica had the common decency to trot out ol' Dickens take on the matter. My faith in humanity is restored. There is a god!

On the other hand, I have to admit that the usually reliable Devil's Dictionary of "Bitter" Bierce disappointed me (in this case).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Thanks HP and Trisail for your kind words.

Liar: "Are rich people those that earn a lot or those that own a lot? I'd say the latter."

One point to note is that an individual's career and life path may allow him or her to have a high income for only a relatively brief part of their life, and it's in those years that he or she must make hay while the sun shines, before the winter of old age and possibly burn-out ensue.

A person studies for years, learns his specific trade for years, is a journeyman for years, and is only a master for a while after all that. During those last few years the rewards are reaped for all the struggle and work of the past. It's really an insult for such a person to read or hear some sniveling punk or demagogue sneer, "Must be nice to earn that kind of income - we should tax it away!"

 

[neonlyte]

Amen to that. What one considers "comfortable" can vary a great deal, but that sense of release from worry seems to me to be the real gold. Some sense of security about one's financial future is what lets one enjoy what one has to the utmost.

The SO and I made a project, in the last few years, of setting aside enough money to live for half a year without the SO's income (preparatory to me leaving my own place of employment). Even before I was freed from the shackles of my past employer, an enormous amount of strain and worry went out of our lives when that money was there - some of it tension that I wouldn't have consciously said was present until it was lifted. We had some unfortunate problems this spring that led to quite large bills that had to be paid, but it was astonishingly less painful to pay them when the money, hard-won though it was, was already at hand.

Eminently sensible horse. Now quit posting and finish the damn book... time passes all too quickly, and as might be gathered by my recent number of posts, I need something to read since writing, apparently , is out of the question.

 

[NoJo]

It's all relative. Why all my relatives are rich is mainly due to my great-great-uncle Sol, who made good. He had a Vodka-stand which used to do brisk trade every week at the local pogrom.

 

[R. Richard]

A necessary, but not sufficient, condition to be rich is to not have your funds in an account at Northern Rock.

 

[Brute_Force]

In all respect, I honestly don't see why it's important to define a term like "rich." I mean, who gives a fuck?

 

[NoJo]

In all respect, I honestly don't see why it's important to define a term like "rich." I mean, who gives a fuck?

I would, for $1,000

 

[neonlyte]

I would, for $1,000

$750.00

 

[BlackShanglan]

In all respect, I honestly don't see why it's important to define a term like "rich." I mean, who gives a fuck?

I believe that this thread spun off of the "do we need the rich?" (or was it wealthy?) thread. In order to answer the question, one must first define the term.

 

[Liar]

Too many people have a caricature image image of "rich," "wealthy" or "affluent" that is really shallow materialism - "She who dies with the most toys wins." (No, not those kinds of toys.)

Yes Rox, those toys too.

 

[WRJames]

The knowledge that one could stop working today and live comfortably for the rest of one's life is the ultimate luxury good, even if one has no intention of stopping work.

Yes indeed, especially when your employer is putting the squeeze on. On the other hand, if you are in debt up to your eyeballs and can't afford to lose a job, life can be rather unpleasant.

But of course, NOT going for all the toys is the way to build that security. The norm seems to be to have your McMansion with the big screen tv and the granite kitchen counters at least an hour away from work (oft course you commute in your tale model SUV or luxury car) -- and no matter how much you are making, it is barely enough to stay afloat.

 

[trysail]

Hmmmm. Well, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of consensus, though there have sure been some interesting posts. The estimates of [unencumbered] assets ranged from $1,000,000 [R. Richard and others] to $50,000,000 [Handprints]. R. Richard was also the only responder to recognize that the income available from a portfolio is subject to tax, making the income actually available to meet one's expenses equal to {[1-tax rate] × pretax investment income}.

A job and a steady income are often underappreciated. While R. Richard and I will disagree on the amount that one can prudently expect to derive (over a long period of time) from an investment portfolio (he suggesting 6%, whilst I am comfortable with a more conservative 4%), the fact nonetheless remains that having employment income of $30,000 is equivalent to having an investment portfolio of $500,000-750,000 while having employment income of $40,000 is equivalent to owning an investment portfolio of $666,666-1,000,000.

Estimates of income necessary to fit the description seemed to center around $60-120,000 per year.

I think R. Richard and WRJames deserve some commendation for attempting to quantify their answers and I think WRJames deserves special commendation for providing the link to the article by (and the data it contains) by William Domhoff of the University of Southern California-Santa Cruz utilizing data from The Federal Reserve's 2001 Survey of Household Wealth. That data are now slightly dated since the 2001 Survey has since been superseded by the 2004 Survey; it, nonetheless, remains essentially descriptive.

Carnevil9 and femininity provided the appropriate Biercian-Menckenian definition and Rox supplied Mr. Dickens' advice and admonition.

All of us recognize that money isn't everything. Boota and the always reliably clear-thinking Black Shanglan were especially noteworthy in this regard. Many recognize that "rich" is a very, very subjective term (JamesSD and SeaCat, in particular). A high income isn't worth a hill of beans if you're up to your eyeballs in debt. It's an undeniable fact that one's expenses (or "overhead," if you will) have a direct relationship on one's disposable income.

As a fellow who has a tendency to believe that if something can't be quantified, it's bullshit, I offer the following admittedly rough and imperfect formula:

[Expenses ÷ (1-tax rate)] ÷ percent return on investable assets = Unencumbered investable assets necessary to supply the income to meet those expenses, thus for example:

where,
expenses= $40,000,
expected long term return on investable assets=4%,
and tax rate=25%, thus

[40,000 ÷ (1-.25)] ÷ .04 = $1,333,333

If, on the other hand, one were willing to bet that the expected long term return on investable assets is 6%, the result would be ~$888,889.





__________________

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a7iNPtKEug1g

World’s Millionaires Increase by 14%, Boston Consulting Reports
By Alexis Leondis


June 10, 2010 (Bloomberg) -- The global millionaires’ club expanded by about 14 percent in 2009 with Singapore leading the way, The Boston Consulting Group said.

The number of millionaire households increased to 11.2 million, according to the study released today by the Boston- based firm. Singapore posted a 35 percent gain, followed by Malaysia, Slovakia and China. In 2008, the number of millionaire households fell about 14 percent to 9.8 million.

“Given the severity and magnitude of the crisis, I’m surprised at how fast global wealth has come back,” Bruce Holley, a senior partner in the firm’s New York office and topic expert for wealth management and private banking for the U.S., said in a telephone interview before the report was released.

Global wealth rose by 11.5 percent after falling 10 percent in 2008, as assets under management increased to $111.5 trillion, close to the annual study’s record $111.6 trillion in 2007. North America, defined as the U.S. and Canada, had the greatest gain in assets at $4.6 trillion to $35.1 trillion. The U.S. also had the most millionaire households at 4.72 million, the survey said, while Europe remained the wealthiest region, with $37.1 trillion.

Current numbers may differ from those in last year’s report because of currency fluctuations and newer available data, said Peter Damisch, a BCG partner and a co-author of the report. The study looked at 62 countries representing more than 98 percent of global gross domestic product.

Wealth Recovery
The recovery in wealth last year was a result of resurgent financial markets and increased savings, the report said. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose 20 percent in 2009 and the U.S. savings rate averaged 4.2 percent compared with 2.6 percent a year earlier.

Global wealth dropped in 2008 for the first time since the survey’s 2001 inception as the credit crisis sent stock indexes tumbling and slashed the value of real-estate holdings, hedge- fund and private-equity investments.

Less than 1 percent of households globally were considered millionaires, which is defined as investable assets of more than $1 million, exclusive of real estate and property such as art. Wealth became more concentrated with millionaire households controlling 38 percent of the world’s assets compared with 36 percent a year earlier, the study said.

Singapore also had the highest proportion of millionaire households at 11.4 percent, followed by Hong Kong and Switzerland. The fourth, fifth and sixth spots were in the Middle East -- Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The U.S. was seventh-highest at 4.1 percent. [ thus, 4.72 million ÷ .041 = 115.12 million households ]

Growth Rate
The amount of offshore wealth, defined as assets housed in a country other than the investor’s legal residence, increased to $7.4 trillion after declining to $6.8 trillion in 2008 as global regulators pressured countries such as Switzerland to cut down on bank secrecy. Switzerland remained the largest offshore center, with about 27 percent, or $2 trillion, of assets, the report said.

Global wealth will increase at an average annual rate of almost 6 percent from yearend 2009 through 2014, which is higher than the 4.8 percent annual growth rate from yearend 2004 through 2009, the study said. Wealth in the Asia-Pacific region, excluding Japan, is expected to rise almost double the global rate. Last year’s survey said total wealth wouldn’t return to pre-recession levels until 2013.

‘Still Feel Burned’
The report’s authors also looked at the performance of 114 wealth management firms worldwide and found revenue declined by an average of 7.3 percent as assets under management increased an average of 14.3 percent. Reasons for decreased revenue include fewer transactions, tougher price negotiations and a shift to lower-risk asset classes and investments that are liquid and simple, the study said.

Investors feel frustrated and distrustful following the market events beginning in 2008, despite the increase in wealth, Holley said.

“People still feel burned,” said Holley. “I think the numbers in the report suggest a much rosier experience than how people actually feel.”

=======================================================



http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/09/a-rich-persons-definition-of-rich/


January 9, 2008, 11:42 AM ET.
A Rich Person’s Definition of Rich


A net worth of $1.4 million will put you in the top 5% of Americans, according to the Federal Reserve. Yet to the wealthy today, having $1 million (including the value of your homes and certain retirement assets) seems like chump change.

How much do you need to be rich? Here’s what affluent people surveyed by Spectrem said.

Just as there are two economies today — the rich and everyone else — there are also diverging definitions of rich. There’s America’s definition (the top 5%) and the wealthy’s definition.

A new survey by Chicago-based Spectrem Group asked affluent households (those with investible assets of $500,000 or more) how much it takes to be rich. Of the respondents, 45% said $5 million or more, 25% said $25 million or more, and 8% said $100 million (It’s a good bet that the 8% lives in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.)

Only 22% said $1 million is enough to be rich.

Previous studies have shown that when people are asked how much it takes to be rich, they always give a number that’s twice their current net worth or income. Those with $100,000 in incomes say $200,000, while those worth $5 million say $10 million.

All of these studies show that when it comes to defining rich, Americans of all income levels always look up, rather than down.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/09/a-rich-persons-definition-of-rich/

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-SH597_housho_G_20120321100446.jpg​

http://www.spectrem.com/news/millionaire-population-grows-200000-287
http://www.spectrem.com/


___________________________



Ranked by percentage of households with investable assets
in excess of $1,000,000 ( excludes real estate and defined
benefit pensions )

( As of 2009 )


State............# of Households.....# with $1MM...........%

1 Hawaii................... 444,202....... 30,793........... 6.93%
2 Maryland..............2,129,773...... 144,686........... 6.79%
3 New Jersey...........3,175,894...... 212,396........... 6.69%
4 Connecticut..........1,347,693....... 89,647............ 6.65%
5 Massachusetts.......2,521,928..... 150,844........... 5.98%
6 Alaska.................... 248,009....... 14,805........... 5.97%
7 Virginia................. 3,043,091..... 180,638........... 5.94%
8 New Hampshire..........514,667....... 29,790........... 5.79%
9 California..............12,653,856..... 716,316............5.66%
10 D.C........................262,976........14,533............5.53%
11 Delaware................343,322........ 18,412............5.36%
12 New York.............7,263,927...... 381,197............5.25%

U.S. Total.......... 116,136,617....5,555,002.......... 4.78%


Source:
http://www.phoenixmi.com/images/uploads/pdf_upload/StateRankingsMillionaires20062010.pdf




________________________


http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTSh.5n.vwmo


For Millionaires ‘Wealthy’ Is $7.5 Million, Fidelity Says
By Elizabeth Ody

March 14, 2011 (Bloomberg) -- How much does it take to feel wealthy these days? For many millionaires, it’s about $7.5 million, according to a survey by Fidelity Investments.

“Wealth is relative, and to some extent the more you have the more you realize how much more you need,” said Sanjiv Mirchandani, president of National Financial, a subsidiary of Boston-based Fidelity, that provides clearing and custody services to broker-dealers, in an interview before the survey’s release today.

The more than 1,000 households surveyed had an average of $3.5 million in investable assets. About 42 percent said they don’t feel wealthy, saying they would need about $7.5 million to feel rich. The 58 percent of respondents who said they do feel wealthy were younger on average and have a greater number of remaining years in the workforce, said Mirchandani.

A 65-year-old millionaire is “looking at potentially the loss of a paycheck as they retire, and 30 years in retirement, with inflation on the horizon,” said Mirchandani. “So they kind of go ‘Well, $3.5 million, $4 million, isn’t what I thought it would be. I’d like to have more.’”

There are about 5.5 million U.S. households with at least $1 million in assets, or about 5 percent of the population. Millionaires control 56 percent of the country’s wealth, according to Fidelity, which is the second-largest U.S. mutual- fund company after Vanguard Group Inc. Household wealth was $56.8 trillion at the end of 2010, according to the Federal Reserve...


more...
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTSh.5n.vwmo

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/29/135803170/whats-a-middle-class-income
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf
http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/MC-Middle-class-report.pdf


__________________________

Asia’s Millionaires Top Europe for First Time, Merrill Wealth Report Says
By Giles Broom and Elizabeth Ody
Jun 22, 2011
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...rose-by-8-3-last-year-merrill-lynch-says.html

Millionaires in the Asia-Pacific region overtook Europe in terms of population and wealth for the first time in 2010, bolstered by economic growth in China and India, according to Capgemini SA and Bank of America Corp.

The wealth of 3.3 million high-net worth individuals in Asia Pacific climbed 12.1 percent last year to $10.8 trillion, exceeding the $10.2 trillion accumulated by 3.1 million people in Europe, according to the 2011 World Wealth Report. Global wealth held by people with at least $1 million of investable assets climbed 9.7 percent to $42.7 trillion.

“Regionally, Asia-Pacific was the real star of the growth story,” John Thiel, head of U.S. wealth management for Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management unit, said at a press briefing in New York yesterday. Stock- market returns and increases in the value of real estate in the region were major contributors, he said.

Markets rebounded following the financial crisis, with global equity market capitalization rising 18 percent in 2010, the report said. The MSCI AC World Index, which tracks global stocks in developed and emerging markets, returned 13 percent in 2010 and the MSCI Asia Pacific Index returned 17 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Millionaire Fragmentation
Africa showed the biggest increase in millionaires by region with growth of 11.1 percent, while India entered the top 12 country rankings for the first time, with 153,000. The number of millionaires in China grew by 12 percent to 534,500. China ranked fourth in the number of millionaires, trailing the U.S., Japan and Germany.

About 53 percent of the world’s millionaires, or individuals with at least $1 million in investable assets excluding primary residences and collectibles, are found in the U.S., Japan and Germany, the report showed.

“While over half of the global high-net-worth individuals still resides in the top three countries, the concentration is fragmenting,” said Herbert Hensle, vice president and head of Capgemini’s Swiss office.

The number of millionaires in Switzerland increased by 9.7 percent last year, supported by the Alpine nation’s strong economy and real-estate market, the report said.

Swiss Franc
“Even though the Swiss franc went higher, the exports of companies here have been very successful,” Peter Schmid, chief executive officer and general manager of Merrill Lynch’s Swiss private bank, said in an interview in Zurich. The Swiss currency advanced 11 percent against the dollar in 2010, according to Bloomberg data.

Global ranks of ultra-high-net-worth individuals, defined as those with $30 million or greater of investable assets, increased at a faster pace than millionaires, rising 10 percent.

Growth in the number of global millionaires slowed from 17 percent in 2009, when wealth rebounded following the credit crisis that sent stock indexes to their worst annual losses since the Great Depression and slashed the value of real-estate holdings, hedge-fund and private-equity investments.

The investment mentality of millionaires has changed as they search for increasing returns, the report said. Wealthy individuals are allocating a higher proportion of money to riskier assets, including commodities, and also made profits from emerging-market stocks and bonds.

Singapore Millionaires
On May 31, the Boston Consulting Group said the number of millionaire households increased 12 percent to about 12.5 million. Singapore’s millionaire population expanded the fastest, rising by almost 33 percent, while the U.S. had the most $1 million-plus households, with 5.2 million, followed by Japan and China, the study found. Singapore also had the highest proportion of millionaire households at 15.5 percent, followed by Switzerland and Qatar.

Singapore will displace Switzerland as the world’s top wealth-management center by 2013, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP survey of global wealth-management firms released earlier this week. The firms said they expect to increase their client base among international entrepreneurs and to decrease their base among clients with less than $1 million in assets over the next two years, the study said.

Women Gain
Women and young millionaires account for an increasing portion of the world’s rich, Merrill’s World Wealth Report found. About 27 percent of global millionaires were women in 2010, compared with 24 percent in 2008. About 17 percent of millionaires were age 45 or younger compared with 13 percent in 2008, the report said.

Paris-based Capgemini and Merrill Lynch, a subsidiary of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. (BAC), compiled data from 71 countries representing 98 percent of the world’s gross national income.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...rose-by-8-3-last-year-merrill-lynch-says.html

_______________



Asian Millionaires Counter Lost Riches in Europe, North America
By Giles Broom
May 31, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...nter-lost-riches-in-europe-north-america.html

China, India and Singapore posted the biggest increases in millionaires last year as the Asia-Pacific region countered a decline in wealth in western Europe and the U.S., according to Boston Consulting Group.

Millionaire households in China rose 16 percent to 1.43 million while those in Singapore climbed 14 percent to 188,000 and India saw a 21 percent increase to 162,000, the Boston-based firm said in a report released today. Millionaire households in the U.S. fell by 129,000 to 5.13 million.

Europe’s debt crisis and declining equity markets slowed the increase in global wealth last year with a 1.9 percent gain to $122.8 trillion compared with a 6.8 percent growth rate in 2010, Boston Consulting said. Singapore had the highest proportion of millionaire households while Hong Kong led the rankings for the percentage of billionaires.

“It’s the first significant interruption of growth since the financial crisis,” said Peter Damisch, a partner with Boston Consulting in Zurich. “Emerging markets will play a bigger role in private wealth going forward.”

The Stoxx Europe 600 slid 11 percent last year with industrial and financial-services companies among the biggest decliners. Germany’s Dax Index tumbled 15 percent while the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was little changed.

Wealth in North America declined 0.9 percent to $38 trillion, while western Europe posted a 0.4 percent drop to $33.5 trillion, the report said.

Asian Driver
Global wealth surged at a compound annual rate of almost 11 percent from 2002 to 2007 before the financial crisis and the indebtedness of developed-market economies slowed growth, according to Boston Consulting data. The firm predicts a growth rate of 4 percent to 5 percent over the next five years, driven by wealth creation in emerging markets.

Asia-Pacific, excluding Japan, saw an 11 percent increase to $23.7 trillion and will maintain that growth rate to surpass private wealth in Europe over the next five years, Boston Consulting predicted. The region may reach $40 trillion by 2016, it said.

Boston Consulting expects private wealth in China and India will increase by 15 percent and 19 percent a year respectively through 2016, with affluent Chinese more than $10 trillion better off by the end of the period.

Wealthy individuals in Latin America saw an increase of almost 11 percent in assets last year, lifted by economic growth in Brazil and Mexico.

Singapore Millions
Singapore has 17 millionaire households in every 100 with the Gulf states of Qatar and Kuwait, which were less affected by the Arab Spring than other Middle East oil-producing nations, ranked second and third, according to Damisch.

Switzerland, which came fourth with 9.5 percent, was top of a ranking for the proportion of households with more than $100 million, according to Boston Consulting’s 12th annual wealth management report, which surveyed 63 markets. The Alpine country had 11 households per 100,000, followed by Singapore with 10 and Austria with eight.

Boston Consulting omitted Saudi Arabia from its ultra- wealthy ranking because it was too difficult to define different households within the royal family network, Damisch said.

Cross-border assets in Switzerland, the biggest offshore center, were unchanged at $2.1 trillion as the repatriation of funds by clients in neighboring European countries was offset by inflows from emerging market customers, the report said. Western European offshore wealth in Swiss banks dropped 2.2 percent while assets in Switzerland and Luxembourg originating in North America “dwindled to an almost negligible amount,” Boston Consulting said.

Offshore Assets
Worldwide investors still increased offshore assets 2.7 percent to $7.8 trillion with Hong Kong and Singapore among the beneficiaries. The two biggest Asian offshore booking centers may surpass Switzerland in terms of size in the next 15 to 20 years, according to the report.

The shift in wealth growth to emerging economies poses a challenge for wealth-management firms based in the U.S. and Europe, according to Damisch. Finding and keeping talent in these developing markets is a “key success factor” and businesses may need to make several years of investment before making a profit, the report said.

“For the ‘old world’ it’s all about revenue and profit protection,” Damisch said. “It’s tempting to run after emerging markets because of the high growth rates, but establishing a profitable business model is not that easy.




https://www.bcgperspectives.com/Images/BCG_The_Battle_to_Regain_Strength_May_2012_tcm80-106998.pdf