The 2015 Wealth Report

http://content.knightfrank.com/research/83/documents/en/wealth-report-2015-2716.pdf

by lxm • 11 years ago

80 31 11 years ago

content.knightfrank.com

cft• 11 years ago

This is purely an anecdotal evidence, but I like to walk in Pacifica, CA which is on the flight path from SFO runway 1R/19L. On the weekends, the number of private jets taking off is equal to the number of commercial jets.

nostromo• 11 years ago

Original source is more interesting: http://content.knightfrank.com/research/83/documents/en/weal...

dang• 11 years ago

Ok, we changed the URL to that from http://fortune.com/2015/03/09/private-jet-routes/, and the title from "Private Jet: Moscow to Nice Is Most Popular Route for Private Planes".

sandsand• 11 years ago

In addition to the original info about the Moscow-Nice flight there (http://content.knightfrank.com/research/83/documents/en/weal...) are some more curious stats about Russians: the percentage of Russians of all UHNWIs willing to emigrate (33%), and the percentage of them who send their children to study abroad (61%). Not that the tendency was not known before though.

paulsutter2• 11 years ago

These guys need to take a lot closer look at Silicon Valley. They report that San Francisco has only 526 people with a net worth over $30 million. That's crazy low.

Just for example, Dustin Moscovitz says that employee number 100 made $200M at Facebook[1]. Imagine the number that made $30M, and that's just one company (see slide 14).

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/dustin-moskovitzs-startup-adv...

ariwilson• 11 years ago

Based on what? Your Rolodex?

patmcguire• 11 years ago

$30 million is a high bar. If someone's making it in tech, with investors and other stockholders you'd have to have a $100 million+ exit as a founder. There are more in SV than anywhere else, but still few in an absolute sense.

The other option is that they were somewhat early in something that took off like Google/Facebook, that's still probably not more than a few dozen over the $30 million mark each. So the number makes sense to me at least.

fasteddie• 11 years ago

I agree its a very high bar, but someone with a relatively lower exit -- say $10m, could hit the $30m mark within 15 years with a 7% annualized return, not to mention getting lucky with a winning seed investment or two.

ganeumann3• 11 years ago

It actually seems low to me too. $30 million is a lot of money, but given the number of companies with $1bn+ valuations recently, you'd think there would be at least 200 from those alone.

It may be they are not counting paper wealth in private companies. It may also be that many of these $1bn+ valuations came in the last year or so (their data is from 2013.)

hkmurakami3• 11 years ago

If the company is worth $1BB, then you must own 3% of its equity in order to have $30MM worth of equity of that company [1].

Non-founders rarely, if ever, are given that much equity (commonly cited numbers tend to top out around 2%). The most likely candidates are engineer #1 and an early VP, but engineer #1 has likely been diluted by over 30% since seed stage and even the exec will have been diluted by 10~20%.

At $5BB, a nonfounder needs about 0.6% of the company. By this point though, dilution is usually even more severe, and engineer #1 will likely have had his/her initial share cut by close to 50%. This means that only the earliest of early employees, along with the VP level hires, will have $30MM at a typical $5BB startup (though $5BB startups are hardly typical).

It's the companies that are another order of magnitude higher in valuation that mint wealth of that kind to dozens of employees.

[1] ignoring liquidity preference for the sake of simplicity.

erdevs3• 11 years ago

There is an enormous difference between paper money and real, liquid money. There is an enormous difference between the headline price an investor invests at, with all their Preferred rights, and what an employee can actually cash out at.

There are very, very few cash exits of $1B+ in any given year. And far less than the majority of those have rights that allow employees, or even founders, to cash out at, for example, the sky high initial IPO market cap pop price.

erdevs3• 11 years ago

Moscovitz did not say that employee #100 made $200M at FB. Read the article. First, this was an overly simplistic analysis. It assumes a strike price of $0.00... Which never happens, and certainly wouldn't have happened by the time FB hit 100 employees. It assumes full vesting. It assumes no lockup on liquidity. It assumes no dilution from exiting... which, in the real world, never happens.

You can actually see how much money FB's top shareholders were worth at their IPO. Very, very few employees made over $10M. TEN. Before tax.

A lot of people front in SF / the Bay Area. Very, very few are worth over $30M in liquid net worth.

paulsutter2• 11 years ago

What do you think the strike price was at 100 employees? I mean seriously. I know a guy who was around number 70 at Google and his strike price was about 30 cents.

Correction: The S-1 listed only a handful of the top people.

prostoalex• 11 years ago

employee number 100 made $200M at Facebook

before taxes and assuming he never sold any of the stock until now

badusername• 11 years ago

10 basis points for a #100 employee does not seem like an accurate representation. FB was quite mature by 2009, and offers were not as high. (Source: Offer in 2008)

jamesrom• 11 years ago

Beautiful data.

swatow• 11 years ago

This was a very strange report. Skipping to the middle I thought it was about wealth in general, which seemed like a nice counterpoint to the study of poverty. I'd be very interested in reading about trends in people earning above $60,000 a year, and how the rest of the world can get there. But this was really about "Ultra high net worth individuals" which doesn't strike me as a very interesting topic.

crxgames• 11 years ago

I would be pretty interested in something like that too.

The 2015 Wealth Report

Related Stories