Sunday, 29 April 2007
The List
Ah... the Rich List. Every year, I experience the same curious sensation when the Sunday Times puts this out. That inner glow that comes from knowing a large part of the country is thinking - for a few hours at least - about the stuff of my daily grind. This year I have the added joy of seeing not one but two of my clients join the list for the first time. Actually, the estimates of their wealth are way off the mark, but that doesn't really matter. Both have called me today, astonishingly to thank me - as if I had anything to do with either their personal wealth creation or the compilation of the list. Of course they're not really thanking me. They're celebrating, and they want me to celebrate with them. The "thank you" is only to excuse the disturbance of my Sunday. Really, I should have called them first to offer my congratulations and so head off all the younger, hungrier private bankers who'll be placing calls to their offices tomorrow morning. The energy just isn't in me these days.
The Sunday Times's wealth estimations are compelling, I'll admit, but ultimately rather useless. Two different measures would be much more informative:
First is the amount of investable wealth, the only figure that my sort ever cares about. It's all very well that the Swire family's stake in the eponymous Group is worth one and a half billion, but it's not as if they're free to do much with it. If Sir Adrian were to grace me with his business, I could certainly suggest a few ways of raising spending money against his paper, but I doubt very much I could invoice him annually for 1% of £1.5bn.
The other measure I'd be curious to see is the effective wealth of these individuals. The Queen may only be worth £320m, but she enjoys a lifestyle (tupperware cereal containers aside) commensurate with a fortune ten times that sum. The ST figure is really rather meaningless in her case. Similarly, a number of the relatively impecunious celebrities at the bottom of the list probably attract freebie vacations, jewellery, cars and travel to match the spending power of the much richer but duller men of finance, property and (I love this one) baking. In the final analysis, isn't one's effective wealth the only measure that really matters in this life? I dare say Keira Knightley, on her paltry £14 million, is having a pretty good time of it.
The Sunday Times's wealth estimations are compelling, I'll admit, but ultimately rather useless. Two different measures would be much more informative:
First is the amount of investable wealth, the only figure that my sort ever cares about. It's all very well that the Swire family's stake in the eponymous Group is worth one and a half billion, but it's not as if they're free to do much with it. If Sir Adrian were to grace me with his business, I could certainly suggest a few ways of raising spending money against his paper, but I doubt very much I could invoice him annually for 1% of £1.5bn.
The other measure I'd be curious to see is the effective wealth of these individuals. The Queen may only be worth £320m, but she enjoys a lifestyle (tupperware cereal containers aside) commensurate with a fortune ten times that sum. The ST figure is really rather meaningless in her case. Similarly, a number of the relatively impecunious celebrities at the bottom of the list probably attract freebie vacations, jewellery, cars and travel to match the spending power of the much richer but duller men of finance, property and (I love this one) baking. In the final analysis, isn't one's effective wealth the only measure that really matters in this life? I dare say Keira Knightley, on her paltry £14 million, is having a pretty good time of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment