Britain's billionaires are more likely than their US counterparts to have made their own money rather than inherited it, a study has found, challenging popular perceptions of greater social mobility in America.
A survey by French bank Societe Generale and Forbes of super-rich people in 12 countries, many of whom are billionaires, found 80 percent of the British sample entirely "self-made," as opposed to inherited wealth or a mix of both.
Among the US rich, 68 percent were entirely self-made, the report said. Just a 10th of the British multimillionaires have wealth that was all inherited, compared with 18 percent of American billionaires, the report said.
Only Russians beat the British for the dominance of new money with all those in the survey having made their own millions in the two decades since the dismantling of the Soviet Union's command economy.
The super rich in China, India and Brazil also appear to be more bound to old money than British elites, at least for now.
Two-thirds of Brazilians and 65 percent of Chinese and Indians have wealth categorised as entirely self-made, as opposed to inherited or a blend of sources, the survey found.
But the report also noted that Brazil, Russia, China and India are seeing the most growth in the super rich population.
"Today, both China and Russia have more than 100 billionaires in their ranks, putting them second and third behind the US," it said.
In Germany and France only about a third of the samples had wealth classed as purely self-made.
The rich of Britain and the United States were older than their Chinese or Indian counterparts, however. The average age of the sample in Britain and the United States was 65 and 66 respectively, compared to 60 in India, 50 in China and just 49 in Russia.
To come up with its findings, the survey looked at the characteristics of 1,200 ultra high net worth individuals in 12 countries or regions: Brazil, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, The Middle East, Russia, Singapore, the UK and the US.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/l ... z1OB9rSKbn
Old money vs new money
Old money vs new money
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Old money vs new money
This information may be more elusive than it would first appear.
How do you categorize "self made"? I know well-off people who consider themselves self-made because their fathers only helped them out a little bit (sent them to elite colleges, set them up in modest businesses), while to a working-class person, this sort of a send-off would be almost unimaginable.
Donald Trump inherited a bit of money, but grew it exponentially. Is he self-made?
When you start talking about B-illions, it's a whole different category. Our Beloved President likes to speak of millionaires and billionaires as though they are in the same group. That's like grouping homeless people and millionaires.
How do you categorize "self made"? I know well-off people who consider themselves self-made because their fathers only helped them out a little bit (sent them to elite colleges, set them up in modest businesses), while to a working-class person, this sort of a send-off would be almost unimaginable.
Donald Trump inherited a bit of money, but grew it exponentially. Is he self-made?
When you start talking about B-illions, it's a whole different category. Our Beloved President likes to speak of millionaires and billionaires as though they are in the same group. That's like grouping homeless people and millionaires.
Re: Old money vs new money
You and Rubato are thinking along similar lines.
(see his wealth inequality thread recently posted in POLITICS)
Do great minds REALLY thin alike?
(see his wealth inequality thread recently posted in POLITICS)
Do great minds REALLY thin alike?
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Old money vs new money
The article fails to show that the data differentiates those groups significantly. There are much better studies of income mobility.
And trivial differences are apt to distort the statistics; Sam Walton was entirely self-made. Now that he has died the 2nd generation are all "inherited wealth" because there are several children; they distort the numbers disproportionately. A "one" disappears from the self-made group and "five" appeared inthe non-list (1 wife and 4 children) one of the children died dividing it further to 6 total.
Bill Gates (by their metrics) would appear to be "self made" but he is the son of a named partner in a law firm whose income is in the millions and who sent him to Harvard.
Not meaningful either way.
yrs,
rubato
And trivial differences are apt to distort the statistics; Sam Walton was entirely self-made. Now that he has died the 2nd generation are all "inherited wealth" because there are several children; they distort the numbers disproportionately. A "one" disappears from the self-made group and "five" appeared inthe non-list (1 wife and 4 children) one of the children died dividing it further to 6 total.
Bill Gates (by their metrics) would appear to be "self made" but he is the son of a named partner in a law firm whose income is in the millions and who sent him to Harvard.
Not meaningful either way.
yrs,
rubato