Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the property on this street is owned by Arabs. The Saudi royals own numerous houses which they've allowed to just decay. Even the ones they still use are said to be in poor condition. Apparently they're starting to sell them off now.
This is what happens when the mega rich put their money into property. It's just a safe haven for a pile of cash. Most of the value of these houses is in the land.
Most of the property on this street is owned by Arabs. The Saudi royals own numerous houses which they've allowed to just decay. Even the ones they still use are said to be in poor condition. Apparently they're starting to sell them off now.
This is what happens when the mega rich put their money into property. It's just a safe haven for a pile of cash. Most of the value of these houses is in the land.
The Saudi Royal Family bought up half of Bishops Avenue (which borders North Hampstead and East Finchley rather than being in London's West End) during the first Gulf War, as insurance. The property the Saudi Royals bought was indeed left to rot at the time but the Saudi's are now selling up and property is being snapped up on the Bishops Avenue once again. Whilst the latest research suggests that Billionaires living here usually make the UK their first home and that London's Billionaires are mainly married, with 2.1 children and therefore favour large family homes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Independent - 31st March 2014
London has been named the billionaire capital of western Europe, boasting a higher number of “ultra-high net worth individuals” than Paris and tax haven Geneva combined.
No self-respecting billionaire would buy a house in the capital for anything under £10 million – unless it is for a servant – and each typically has three other luxury homes around the world.
Concerns have been raised in recent years that the super-rich are buying up London properties just to let them sit as unoccupied investments – but new research suggests Billionaires usually make the UK their first home.
According to Beauchamp Estates and the market intelligence group Dataloft, billionaires favour large family homes, are mostly married and have an average 2.1 children.
As for billionaires in London, they mainly reside in the so-called 'platinum triangle' which comprise the upmarket districts of Mayfair, Knightsbridge and Belgravia with there beautiful regency town houses. Leafy St John's Woods and Regent's Park are also favourites, as well as areas such as Hampstead and Highgate to the North, whilst to the South, the area around Richmond is also well sought after. There are also many very wealthy individuals who live in the numerous private estates in the Home Counties, just outside of London.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC - 11 May 2014
The number of billionaires living in the UK has risen to more than 100 for the first time, according to the 2014 Sunday Times Rich List.
There are now 104 billionaires based in the UK with a combined wealth of more than £301bn, the list says.
That means the UK has more billionaires per head of population than any other country.
London has more billionaires than any other city in the world with 72 - far ahead of nearest rival Moscow with 48.
The Saudi Royal Family bought up half of Bishops Avenue (which borders North Hampstead and East Finchley rather than being in London's West End) during the first Gulf War, as insurance. The property the Saudi Royals bought was indeed left to rot at the time but the Saudi's are now selling up and property is being snapped up on the Bishops Avenue once again. Whilst the latest research suggests that Billionaires living here usually make the UK their first home and that London's Billionaires are mainly married, with 2.1 children and therefore favour large family homes.
As for billionaires in London, they mainly reside in the so-called 'platinum triangle' which comprise the upmarket districts of Mayfair, Knightsbridge and Belgravia with there beautiful regency town houses. Leafy St John's Woods and Regent's Park are also favourites, as well as areas such as Hampstead and Highgate to the North, whilst to the South, the area around Richmond is also well sought after. There are also many very wealthy individuals who live in the numerous private estates in the Home Counties, just outside of London.
Why did the Times inflate UK and London's billionaire count like that? And wildly demote their "competition"? What a comically inaccurate list.
In reality, London has far fewer billionaires than New York, Moscow and Hong Kong.
In reality, Switzerland (amongst many other counties) has far more billionaires per capita than the UK. Who can believe the UK has more billionaires per capita than Monaco? Get this rubbish out of here and go look at Forbes and UBS for the correct numbers.
More pro-UK propaganda by London's press, wanting to feel more important than reality. Getting quite embarrassing.
Why did the Times inflate UK and London's billionaire count like that? And wildly demote their "competition"? What a comically inaccurate list.
In reality, London has far fewer billionaires than New York, Moscow and Hong Kong.
In reality, Switzerland (amongst many other counties) has far more billionaires per capita than the UK. Who can believe the UK has more billionaires per capita than Monaco? Get this rubbish out of here and go look at Forbes and UBS for the correct numbers.
More pro-UK propaganda by London's press, wanting to feel more important than reality. Getting quite embarrassing.
The Sunday Times Rich List is one of the most comprehensive studies in the world, it list actual individuals, their assets, companies, property, estimated wealth and indeed any debt or liabilities, whilst citizenship and residency are also taken in to consideration by the Sunday Times Rich List.
Each individual is dealt with individually relating to the top 1,000 richest in the country and indeed top 5,000 in terms of the full Rich List which is published as a reference book edition and edited by Dr Philip Beresford and his team.
It should however be noted that there is a significant difference between a billionaire in pound sterling and other currencies such as the US Dollar and you currently have to be worth $1.69 Billion USD to equal £1 Billion pound sterling, the starting list for inclusion in the pound sterling billionaire club.
It should however be noted that there is a significant difference between a billionaire in pound sterling and other currencies such as the US Dollar and you currently have to be worth $1.69 Billion USD to equal £1 Billion pound sterling, the starting list for inclusion in the pound sterling billionaire
Why did you post the same link seven times? I get it, the Times puts out a "rich list" and other British media cover it. But it's still inaccurate. The Times is now the reputable source for wealth indexes? Don't play daft - you know very well UBS (the worlds biggest wealth management firm), Forbes (who's main daily objective is wealth and ranking it), Bloomberg LP (one of the biggest wealth in the world) and Hurann (China's daily wealth index) are somehow less and credible and comprehensive than the Times. How laughable. If something looks so different than the other statistics (everyone vs the Sunday Times), them it's called an outlier in economics.
You don't notice how they all look so similar? And then it gets to the Times, in which somehow *Los Angeles*, a city with no industry, somehow has nearly the same #of billionaires as New York? San Francisco somehow quadruples it's billionaires? New York has some apparent catastrophe in which 50% of their billionaires have been wiped off of the planet? And Hong Kong suddenly just vanishes? And of course, in typical pro-UK style, London and the UK somehow reach #1! How funny.
Why did you post the same link seven times? I get it, the Times puts out a "rich list" and other British media cover it. But it's still inaccurate. The Times is now the reputable source for wealth indexes? Don't play daft - you know very well UBS (the worlds biggest wealth management firm), Forbes (who's main daily objective is wealth and ranking it), Bloomberg LP (one of the biggest wealth in the world) and Hurann (China's daily wealth index) are somehow less and credible and comprehensive than the Times. How laughable. If something looks so different than the other statistics (everyone vs the Sunday Times), them it's called an outlier in economics.
You don't notice how they all look so similar? And then it gets to the Times, in which somehow *Los Angeles*, a city with no industry, somehow has nearly the same #of billionaires as New York? San Francisco somehow quadruples it's billionaires? New York has some apparent catastrophe in which 50% of their billionaires have been wiped off of the planet? And Hong Kong suddenly just vanishes? And of course, in typical pro-UK style, London and the UK somehow reach #1! How funny.
And yes, currency is accounted for.
The Times is very accurate and publishes it's work in a book, with every individual listed with there known liabilities, assets, companies and other such information and has done so since 1989. As I have already explained the Times list does not include all US Billionaires as you have to have assets of nearly $1.7 Billion to get on this list, it doesn't start at $1 Billion USD but £1 Billion pound sterling, which makes a significant difference and it should be noted that the Times figure of 72 Billionaires residing in London and 104 in the UK as a whole is not that different to the figures shown on other lists, in fact in many cases it is lower as the US Dollar Billionaire threshold is far lower than that of the pound sterling threshold, with significant information provided by The Times with regard to each entry on the list.
As for UBS they are just another Investment Bank, there are hundreds of very prestigious investment banks and wealth funds in the City of London, then again in terms of UBS what differentiates them is that have been mired in more scandal since the sub prime mortgage scandal than most, have been subject to rogue trading which cost them a good deal of money and as a result have gone through bad times in recent years, whilst Forbes is merely an American business magazine and no more prestigious than the Times which is home to the Financial Times one of the most influential and historic daily financial news sources in the entire world.
As for your links try posting ones that actually work?????
Then again if you did post the correct link you would find that the UBS Table you posted relates to where businesses are headquartered rather than where individuals reside. If you look at many of the people who reside in London they own companies who do most of their business in places such as Russia, the Middle East, India, the Far East etc. Whilst the Chinese Magazine Hurun's (and not Hurann's) wealth list is also quite questionable and it's fairly amusing that you place so much faith in publications which are no where near as highly rated or respected as The Times (est 1785) and FT.
As for Bloomberg, the link doesn't work either, then again Michael Bloomberg is probably very busy working on his vast new London HQ whilst residing in his London home at Cadogan Square.
NYC and Hong Kong are richer and have more billionaires than London. Period.
You have posted the same link over 15 times now. All of those links are covering the Sunday Times list.
Do you not understand how media works?
No I haven't I have posted different links, all you have posted is some half baked lists with no links at all.
You seem to think 'The Times' is some how less reliable or credible as a source than some less notable publications, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
As for London, it has 72 Billionaires, each one is subject to scrutiny and listed in The Times rich list along with assets, liabilities, companies and other relevant information.
The new Times HQ is to be the Place in the London Bridge Quarter and will mean that for the first time The Times and The Sunday Times will share premises with sister companies such as HarperCollins Publishing and Dow Jones & Company, an American publishing and financial information firm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
