What's new

Asian Power: MONEY

mDumb

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
SINGAPORE : Asia-Pacific millionaires are collectively worth more than their European counterparts for the first time, with the rich in China and India leading the way, a study said Wednesday.

The report on high-net worth individuals (HNWIs) -- defined as anyone with investible assets of at least one million US dollars -- was issued by Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management and consultancy firm Capgemini.

The world's population of HNWIs returned to 10 million in 2009 after the global recession, with the largest concentrations still found in the United States, Japan and Germany.

"The Asia-Pacific HNWI population rose 25.8 percent overall to three million, catching up with Europe for the first time, after falling 14.2 percent in 2008," the World Wealth Report said.

They saw their total wealth grow nearly a third to 9.7 trillion dollars, more than erasing 2008 losses and surpassing the 9.5 trillion dollars held by their European counterparts, it added.

In 2009, eight of the 10 economies with the highest growth in HNWI population were from the Asia-Pacific region, led by Hong Kong where their numbers doubled as the stock exchange climbed 73.5 percent, the report said.

The other Asia-Pacific economies on the global top 10 list are India, Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam, in that order.

Israel, the third highest gainer globally, and Norway, which was in ninth place, were the only countries outside the region on the top 10 growth list.

Ong Yeng Fang, a managing director at Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, told reporters the number of millionaires in the Asia-Pacific region is likely to rise further as it leads the world in economic growth.

In a separate study by Forbes Magazine, China has passed India in having the most number of billionaires, but India remains home to the region's wealthiest individuals.

Ten of Asia's top 25 billionaires are from India, led by oil and gas tycoon Mukesh Ambani with an estimated wealth of 29 billion dollars and steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal with 28.7 billion dollars.

Hong Kong, led by business mogul Li Ka-shing, has five billionaires in the Forbes top 25 list -- the same number as Japan.

China has only one -- beverage king Zong Qinghou, who is worth seven billion dollars.

The World Wealth Report said the wealthy have nearly recouped the losses of 2008 and total assets are now approaching levels last seen in 2007, before a US housing crisis triggered the global recession.

"The rebound has been, and will continue to be, driven by emerging markets -- especially India and China, as well as Brazil," said Bertrand Lavayssiere, managing director for global financial services at Capgemini.

Following massive losses during the 2008-2009 crisis, the world's rich have become more cautious in their investments and are now more engaged in their financial affairs, the report said.

"However, their investment decisions are driven much more from emotional than intellectual factors," said Foong Lai Kun, Asia-Pacific director for financial services at Capgemini.

Many are also diversifying away from their home regions, with the Asia-Pacific becoming a key destination.

While the world's rich have regained their trust in advisers and wealth management firms, a "large majority" of them remain wary of financial regulatory bodies, the report added.

The world's rich also favoured luxury collectibles like private jets, cars and yachts as "passion investments."

This was followed by jewellery, gems and watches, art pieces and other items like coins, wine and antiques.

- AFP/vm
 
well wnaa se asia dectating terms to whole world specially west
 
it is bit strange to hear so many billionaires are here in india,which is home to 300 million poor (BPL) peoples.it feels good to hear that our country produces so many billionaires but all are gone pale comparing to the numbers of poor peoples.

The world know that india is growing,it's GDP is growing,number is millionaire,billionaires are growing.but the fact is rich people here are betting richer & the poors are there where they used to be....
 
This is by the virtue of capitalism that few people hold major money power. Not all bad though I would say. As long as state acts as an equal opportunitu provider.

If everybody is allowed equal opportunities to grow and be successful, only a few people will be very successful, some will be moderately successful and a majority will be failures (80:20 rule). But unlike socialism, capitalism provides for incentives to success. those who are better will earn better. This will also act as a motivating factors for failures to work harder and be successful. In socialism however, even if only a few are working hard, the rewards will be distributed equally to all, including those who didnt worked at all, thereby removing any possibility of competetion for success. Probably thats the reason why there is only one billionaire from mainland China.

I am not against socialism nor am a supporter of capitalism, and I certainly dont see India having 10 out of 25 billionaires as an achievement, but I do feel that there must be a reward for doing good job. Consider, how would you feel if you worked hard throughout the year and your colleague got promoted instead of you, just because he was lower in designation than you? Would you still be able to work hard with the same zeal still?

P.S. the underlying factor I mentioned here is : "if the state acts as an equal opportunity provider"

Your comments are welcome.
 
Well as you pointed out earlier, it is the result of two different types of economies.

The biggest billionaires in India are from oil & gas, steel industries etc, these industries in China are all state-owned, it's more to do with a country's economic model than to do with wealth distribution itself, either country could have done a better job of wealth distribution to help its poor.

There are pros and cons of these two models: in India's model which is less government planning more market freedom, all industries including national strategic ones are allowed to be privatised, hence the successful business men in those areas become very very rich as the country is dependent on them, they are more enterprising and knows how to efficiently deploying their capital etc, the downside is that they do not always do what is the best for the country (especially if it takes a long time to pay off), just look at Mittal himself -- he doesn't even live in India, he's in the UK and conducts his business globally; in China's model the state controls these industries, they are slow to operate in comparison and are not always efficient, but the state is able to incorporate these key industries into its national development planning, and what they do is in the better interest of the country. Which model is better? It's hard to say, the truth is always somewhere in between, you need a bit of both from either side to get the balance right.
 
Well as you pointed out earlier, it is the result of two different types of economies.

The biggest billionaires in India are from oil & gas, steel industries etc, these industries in China are all state-owned, it's more to do with a country's economic model than to do with wealth distribution itself, either country could have done a better job of wealth distribution to help its poor.

There are pros and cons of these two models: in India's model which is less government planning more market freedom, all industries including national strategic ones are allowed to be privatised, hence the successful business men in those areas become very very rich as the country is dependent on them, they are more enterprising and knows how to efficiently deploying their capital etc, the downside is that they do not always do what is the best for the country (especially if it takes a long time to pay off), just look at Mittal himself -- he doesn't even live in India, he's in the UK and conducts his business globally; in China's model the state controls these industries, they are slow to operate in comparison and are not always efficient, but the state is able to incorporate these key industries into its national development planning, and what they do is in the better interest of the country. Which model is better? It's hard to say, the truth is always somewhere in between, you need a bit of both from either side to get the balance right.


Fully agree on the bold part. Though just to mention, Indian Govt does keep hold on industries of strategic importance within India, for example, State run Oil companies are making losses due to highly subsidised (and govt controlled ) rates at which they can sell petrol, deisel etc in India. Private players Like Ambanis cant compete with them by selling at such low rates as they will never incur losses for national interest. Hence, Ambani has quit petro retail business by closing 100's of fuel O/l overnight.

But that does not stop them from making profits though, as they are now selling only value added petro derivative products from refinery and have almost monopoly situation in terms of prices of derivatives like plastics etc.

But the point is, Indian model is a mix model of both where Govt owned companies work for the general welfare of the masses, even if that means incurring losses, while private companies thrive on market forces at large. But I am not very sure of such situation being good, because still its the citizens who are ultimately paying for the losses by state run companies through taxes indirectly.
 
<it is bit strange to hear so many billionaires are here in india,which is home to 300 million poor (BPL) peoples.it feels good to hear that our country produces so many billionaires but all are gone pale comparing to the numbers of poor peoples.>

NEW DELHI: India is home to roughly one-third of all poor people in the world. It also has a higher proportion of its population living on less than $2 per day than even sub-Saharan Africa.

That is the sobering news coming out of the World Bank's latest estimates on global poverty. The fine print of the estimates also shows that the rate of decline of poverty in India was faster between 1981 and 1990 than between 1990 and 2005. This is likely to give fresh ammunition to those who maintain that economic reforms, which started in 1991, have failed to reduce poverty at a faster rate.

India, according to the new estimates, had 456 million people or about 42% of the population living below the new international poverty line of $1.25 per day. The number of Indian poor also constitute 33% of the global poor, which is pegged at 1.4 billion people.

India also had 828 million people, or 75.6% of the population living below $2 a day. Sub-Saharan Africa, considered the world's poorest region, is better — it has 72.2% of its population (551m) people below the $2 a day level.

The estimates are based on recently recalculated purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates, which makes comparisons across countries possible. The dollar exchange rates being referred to here, therefore, are not the ones used in normal exchange rates.

While the full report has not yet been released, a briefing note sent by the Bank had some of the data and showed that the poverty rate — those below $1.25 per day — for India had come down from 59.8% in 1981 to 51.3% by 1990 or 8.5 percentage points over nine years. Between 1990 and 2005, it declined to 41.6%, a drop of 9.7 percentage points over 15 years, clearly a much slower rate of decline.

An FAQ on the new estimates, also provided by the Bank, however states, "India has maintained even progress against poverty since the 1980s, with the poverty rate declining at a little under one percentage point per year."

<The world know that india is growing,it's GDP is growing,number is millionaire,billionaires are growing.but the fact is rich people here are betting richer & the poors are there where they used to be....>

If some people are getting richer then some people must be getting poorer. It's the principle of Yin and Yang.

This is a universal fact, it even applies in the US. In the US, some people's assets are reduced and their liabilities are increased while others their assets are increased and their liabilities are reduced.

Fu&king fund managers, financial advisers, etc.!!!!
 
<I would very much like to see Pakistan to be a significant contributor to it...>

Business Tycoon Mian Mohammad Mansha has made his slot in Forbes billionaire list, first Pakistani to achieve the glory.

Mansha’s Nishat Group is Pakistan’s largest exporter of cotton clothes (for brands like Gap) and nation’s largest private employer; also invests in power projects, cement and insurance. Smart bet in banking: Won a controversial bid for Muslim Commercial Bank during the country’s privatization push in 1991. Sold more than half of his MCB shares for $900 million May 2008.

His net worth: $1.0 bil (ranked #937).
 
Manshas wealth is actually much higher, he has many companies under different groups that are credited to his associates.

According to him it's &#163;5 Billion, but people who know and him and have worked for him say it's more than &#163;20 Billion.

There are of course many others like Hashwani, Saigol, Malik, Pharoan, Schon etc who are also billionaires but do not have much interest in appearing in such lists.

Here is an old and incomplete list of groups in Pakistan, many of their heads are billionaires but some of them are involved in shady dealings.

It's in Your Name!: 40 Biggest Groups in Pakistan
 
Back
Top Bottom