London the most important city to the world's wealthy (top 10 list)
Today's top ten 10 list how the 1% views the world. Its more interesting to look at the changes they see in 10 years such as Hong Kong declining in influence with Beijing and Shanghai rising (yet at the same time rate Hong Kong as one of the cities whose influence is fastest growing?) and have Miami dropping off the list in 10 years being replaced by Sao Paolo:
http://globalbriefing.knightfrank.co...s-wealthy.aspx Quote:
Most important now 1. London 2. New York 3. Hong Kong 4. Paris 5. Singapore 6. Miami 7. Geneva 8. Shanghai 9. Beijing 10. Berlin Most Important in 10 years: 1. London 2. New York 3. Beijing 4. Shanghai 5. Singapore 6. Hong Kong 7. Paris 8. Sao Paulo 9. Geneva 10. Berlin Fastest growing in importance: 1. Beijing 2. Shanghai 3. London 4. Singapore 5. Hong Kong 6. New York 7. Sao Paulo 8. Dubai 9. Mumbai 10. Paris |
Miami as the second most important US city "to the wealthy" (or really for anything) seems odd.
Not a knock against Miami, just saying. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Miami is odd... I would expect it to be behind Los Angeles, the Bay Area (though they may have split SF and Silicon Valley). And Washington DC... political influence is important, and if Berlin is on the list then DC certainly needs to be. How are they defining "high net worth"? I expect it's much narrower than the "world's 1%"... it doesn't take much to be in the top 1% globally given the typical person's income in the developing world. |
It is hard to see any real data in this article. They're reporting on a survey. Even if we assume the financial advisors et al. really know what their clients want and can predict the future, the article says nothing about the sampling or the resulting data itself.
What if they had 15 respondents and 2 said they liked Miami while 1 guy liked Geneve and 0 people happened to put down LA and the Bay Area? When they don't say you have to wonder. The top 1% in the world are not very wealthy. I think the top 1% of earners make something like $50k a year. |
The "top 1%" was my little tongue in cheek commentary. The article says they survey was about what cities are important to "high net worth individuals" from around the world. Miami got on the list because it was basically tied for #1 (with NYC) among respondents from South America.
|
It seems likely that the list is prejudiced by the fact that the only people consulted for the survey were Citi Wealth Management specialists and Knight Frank Property people. I suspect that Citi does a lot of business in Miami for example and not so much in LA or the Bay Area were Citi has never been a real player. Knight Frank is a British outfit it would seem based on a quick look at their web site. They do business in the UK, Europe and Russia, the Far East, and the Caribbean. THat might skew their view of things considerably. DId they actually poll any 1 percenters for their opinions??
|
Waiting for that clown to arrive and decry the list because Munich isn't on it.
|
What about Austin?
|
Quote:
|
This is a list I'm glad my city didn't make.
|
Quote:
The mean per capita income in the US is $27,334 according to this -- http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. That figure is the total amount of income reported in the US divided by the number of people. |
Quote:
As for the whole "global 1%" discussion... the top 1% in the U.S., by income, is people earning over about $500K, which really isn't that much, and the global top 1% is obviously going to be considerably lower (considering the U.S. is the wealthiest large country). I'm fairly certain that "global high-net-worth individuals" represents a narrower group than the top 1%, whether that's the top 0.1% or the top 0.01%, etc. |
Quote:
|
SHHHHHHHHHH......nobody and I mean nobody tell Lear about this thread. God help us if he finds out.
|
Not particularly surprising considering London is probably the only city (with the exception of perhaps Monaco) where the domestic super-rich have been displaced by the global elite.
One key attraction is that the city is very open; the ownership of sports teams in London, whether they be Egyptian, American, Russian or Indian is a good indicator of this, while prime property purchases have been driven by Russians, Chinese and Indians. Another indicator is that London has been an established safe haven which can accommodate their extravagant living standards for some time. |
Quote:
The bolded number you claim may even be less than the paltry 50K if you base it on the multiple billions of people that are dirt poor and make less than 1 K/year globaly a of course the "world's " top 1% ers as a whole group might not really have any truely wealth other than a real small numbers of the real wealthy. If you knocked it down x a factor of 100 and showed the top 0.01%ers than that is where the real Global money is. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Perhaps they dont have many clients in California?:haha: Because we know for a fact that as far as the actual residence of the rich, LA and SF have more ultra high net worth individuals than any US or European city save New York and London. This chart combines the Top 10 US and Top 10 European cities based on the number of residents with a net worth of $30M+ http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg62/...jpg&res=medium Wealth-X doesnt publish the numbers for Asian cities but based on their national estimates, they are well below the numbers for US and European Cities(Tokyo is probably the exception) |
^I was going to add that i think capgemini did a list of this at least US domestically in 2011 and the list if I recall from memory was
1. NYC ~720k Hnwi, 2. LA ~250K, 3. Chicago ~215k, 4. DC 160-170K, 5. SF 145-150K (not combined with SJ)....I don't remember SJ I think around 85-90K |
All times are GMT. The time now is 1:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.