2014 Geography of Ultra High Net Worth Individuals

[10023]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Sorry that you are "sick and tired". Must be terrible.
The wealthiest 400 individuals in America own more wealth than the bottom half (150 million) of Americans. The bottom 40% of Americans hold 3/10ths of 1% of the wealth in America. How can this state of affairs be anything other than outrageous?

That's great for those 400 people I guess. But the laws that politicians write to attempt to go after that wealth create lots of unforeseen (but should have been foreseen) problems for millions of hard-working people, who may earn more than the average American but are by no means ultra-wealthy.

More generally, I don't believe there are such things as fair or unfair outcomes in life. We should, as a society, work to ensure that everyone has opportunities, not that everyone has equal (or even roughly approximate) success, because people are not equal.

But anyway, this is not what this thread is about.

[chris08876]

San Francisco has the highest in terms of a percentage of total population. Higher ratio.

[10023]

Originally Posted by chris08876

San Francisco has the highest in terms of a percentage of total population. Higher ratio.

Not surprising for a (physically) smaller city. If you only looked at Manhattan and another 15 square miles or so of Brooklyn just across the river, the per capita rate would be much higher as well.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by emathias

Racism sucks.

It isn't really racism, at least not primarily. The vast majority of middle class and upper class African Americans left Detroit too, for the same reasons as everyone else (high crime, horrible services, terrible schools, outrageous property taxes, declining home values and neighborhoods, etc.).

Detroit's suburbs, generally speaking, are much more racially diverse than the city proper anyways. My brother lives in a wealthy suburb where the schools are majority-minority, and I don't think it's an issue, at all.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not surprising for a (physically) smaller city. If you only looked at Manhattan and another 15 square miles or so of Brooklyn just across the river, the per capita rate would be much higher as well.

I don't think this is city, though. I'm guessing they're using the Bay Area CSA for San Francisco.

[photoLith]

I'm amazed Pittsburgh isn't on that list.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by chris08876

San Francisco has the highest in terms of a percentage of total population. Higher ratio.

No. Zurich, Geneva, Munich do according to this source.

Wealth X says it's "metro area", but it's obviously CSA for the U.S. since Stamford and San Jose metros would appear on this list if it were MSA.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Metro Detroit isn't wealthy, nor is Michigan.

This survey ranks extreme high net worth households; it isn't a comparison of metro area or state wealth. You can have lots of extreme high net worth households while being a below-average metro area in terms of median or mean wealth.

Since you live and reside in greater Detroit, I thought you'd have a different take on this.

Metro Detroit, once you move away from the dire situation found in the city proper, has above average incomes. A matter of fact, the income levels found in suburban Detroit usually match or surpass the averages of most high population growth sunbelt metros.

Go to census.gov, choose factfinder, enter zip codes and you'll see the incomes in metro Detroit aren't that poor. The city and some inner communities, however, have exacerbated economic problems few other regions have.

[chris08876]

Many during the flight towards the suburbs took wealth with them. Suburban Detroit has a healthy middle class, and pockets of upper class citizens. Its the inner city that's in trouble. What remains of manufacturing is also in the suburbs.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

No. Zurich, Geneva, Munich do according to this source.

Wealth X says it's "metro area", but it's obviously CSA for the U.S. since Stamford and San Jose metros would appear on this list if it were MSA.

I'm not certain that the San Jose MSA would appear on this list. Santa Clara County is not where the vast majority of the high wealth Silicon Valley folks live, and San Mateo County is included in the SF MSA. There's certainly some high wealth in the Palo Alto to Los Gatos banana, but nothing approaching what you'll find in San Mateo, SF, or Marin. Most of the Silicon Valley billionaire/hundred millionaires all live in that stretch, even if their companies are based in Santa Clara.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I'm not certain that the San Jose MSA would appear on this list. Santa Clara County is not where the vast majority of the high wealth Silicon Valley folks live, and San Mateo County is included in the SF MSA. There's certainly some high wealth in the Palo Alto to Los Gatos banana, but nothing approaching what you'll find in San Mateo, SF, or Marin. Most of the Silicon Valley billionaire/hundred millionaires all live in that stretch, even if their companies are based in Santa Clara.

Yeah I don't know for sure, but Im actually more inclined to say it's by MSA as well. San Jose and Bridgeport could easily have between 800-1,000.

Anyway, I appreciate how they actually listed cities from regions all over the world:

Residents with a net worth of $30 Million+, 2014

North America
New York 8,655
San Francisco 5,460
Los Angeles 5,135
Chicago 2,885
Washington DC 2,730
Houston 2,545
Dallas 2,330
Toronto 1,840
Atlanta 1,230
Seattle 1,095

Europe
London 6,815
Paris 3,345
Zurich 2,055
Munich 1,805
Geneva 1,525
Hamburg 1,480
Dusseldorf 1,540
Rome 1,340
Madrid 1,315
Stuttgart 1,220

Asia
Tokyo 6,185
Osaka 3,405
Hong Kong 3,335
Mumbai 2,440
Beijing 2,415
Delhi 2,130
Shanghai 1,535
Singapore 1,395
Shenzhen 1,180
Seoul 1,095

Latin America
Mexico City 2,780
Sao Paulo 1,885
Rio de Janeiro 1,810
Buenos Aires 895
Bogota 445
Lima 420
Santiago 385
Caracas 375
Belo Horizonte 220
Quito 210

Middle East
Kuwait City 710
Dubai 495
Abu Dhabi 450
Riyadh 355
Dammam 325
Doha 305
Beirut 210
Muscat 160
Jeddah 155
Manamah 155

Africa
Lagos 520
Johannesburg 450
Cairo 445
Capetown 150
Nairobi 135

The Pacific
Sydney 1,470
Melbourne 1,240
Auckland 250
Brisbane 145
Wellington 95

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Larry King

if metro detroit is so wealthy, how the hell did they allow the city to get so bad? Blows my mind

i will avoid a large can of worms. but........utterly worst possible historic hand of cards. one industry town, mass decline of isaid industry, hyper suburbanization, white flight and massive central city decline add a healthy dose of suburban discord, vietnam era social discontent, riot, oil embargo, better made and smaller japanese imports and a few questionable mayors and tah dah, modern detroit.....its like an economic pompeii....but its got spirit. in fact given the entire mass inflation of housing around the country, i bet ts probably the most exciting time to live in detroit in the last 40 years.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Holy shit; I had no idea Michigan so handily beat the wealth of peers like Ohio, Pennsylvania and others. http://www.wealthx.com/wp-content/up...USA-Report.pdf

Michigan is not much of an outlier, it looks like when you consider population and GDP per capita.

I find the outliers are Wyoming and Montana (landowners owning lots of land) and Alaska and Deleware (one has a high cost of living due to geography and climate, the other is simply not known for competing with other states for developing an industrial base.) New York and California are relative outliers. Virginia and Louisiana are also relative outliers in the other direction.

[sofresh808]

Was Moscow listed? Or have all the ultra-rich Russians moved to London already?

[10023]

Originally Posted by sofresh808

Was Moscow listed? Or have all the ultra-rich Russians moved to London already?

Probably.

But I also don't think Moscow would rank highly on a list of $30m+ households anyway. That is corporate executive rich, not oligarch rich. Russia doesn't spread the wealth around that much. I expect it would rank higher on a list of $1bn+ households.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by bnk

Looks like Wisconsin is punching above it weight in addition to Michigan. Tennessee also stands out compared to other southern states.

Wisconsin, like Michigan, also has tons of old-school wealth from it's industrial and resource extraction past. There are huge concentrations of ultra wealthy who live in the northern part of the state most of whom are loaded from things like paper mills, lumber, copper mining, or cranberry farming. The great lakes states all have a ton of natural resources that are overlooked a lot today because the era of the rust belt's industrial dominance has passed. What people don't realize is that the rust belt is only where it is because of Northern Minnesota, Northern Wi, and Michigan all states which are loaded with rich copper, iron, and other heavy metal deposits.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This survey ranks extreme high net worth households; it isn't a comparison of metro area or state wealth. You can have lots of extreme high net worth households while being a below-average metro area in terms of median or mean wealth.

Yeah, exactly. People are extracting the wrong meaning from this... For instance, Michigan and Illinois have roughly the same proportion of "high net worth" individuals (relative to total state population), but Illinois's median household income is substantially higher than Michigan's. Texas has a median household income that is roughly midway between Michigan's and Illinois', but its proportion of "high net work" individuals is slightly higher than both.

The biggest standout on this list might be Florida. It has a proportion of "high net worth" similar to Michigan, Texas and Illinois, and by raw count it has the fourth highest number of HNW individuals in the country, which makes sense considering it just moved from fourth to third largest state this year. But median income in Florida is below that of any other state in the top 10 for number of HNW individuals (California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Penn., Mass., Ct., Maryland).

[dimondpark]

They've released an updated ranking of US cities...

World Rank/ City / UHNWI($30M+)
population, 2014-2015
1 New York 8,655
4 San Francisco 5,460
5 Los Angeles 5,135
9 Chicago 2,885
11 Washington DC 2,730
12 Houston 2,545
15 Dallas 2,330
31 Atlanta 1,230
36 Seattle 1,095
37 San Diego 1,090
38 Miami 1,085
38 Detroit 1,085
40 Boston 1,040
41 Minneapolis 990
46 Denver 850
51 Philadelphia 695
52 Milwaukee 685
58 Orlando 640
61 Indianapolis 615
62 Kansas City 610
65 Tampa 580
68 Sacramento 550
75 Nashville 490
76 Cleveland 480
76 Fresno 480
78 Phoenix 475
78 St Louis 475
82 Palm Beach 455
88 Charlotte 440

http://m.luxurydaily.com/ultra-high-...not%20provided

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

They've released an updated ranking of US cities...

There have to be some flaws in their methodogy. I mean, Detroit has as many extreme wealthy as Miami, more than Boston, and nearly twice that of Philly?

That dosen't pass the smell test, even acknowledging that there is broad and deep wealth in certain Detroit suburbs.

I'm also highly skeptical that SF has considerably more wealth than LA. LA is just too huge to not be #2, I would think. Or how about Philly and Milwaukee having about the same wealth? Not likely.

I am guessing they're conflating city proper, MSA and CSA. They don't seem to be applying an apples-to-apples metric.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm also highly skeptical that SF has considerably more wealth than LA. LA is just too huge to not be #2, I would think.

One would think so, but this is not new.

Forbes Billionaires 2015
San Francisco City 26
Los Angeles City 25

San Francisco CSA 71
Los Angeles CSA 48