Blog Archive | independent wealth management

Same honesty note as the Africa edition: of all the regions in this series, Asia is the hardest to turn into a clean “Top 30”. For once, though, the reason is not a shortage of wealth — indeed, Asia has more of it than anywhere. Rather, it is that almost none of that wealth fits the filter. So this is again a deliberate shortlist of 15 names, booked out of Singapore or Dubai, with the region’s obstacles stated plainly. Moreover, because this is the final edition in the series, it is also the clearest illustration of why the filter matters at all. Above all, three of those obstacles matter most, and together they explain the shape of the list. First, operating-company dominance is near-total. China, Southeast Asia, Japan and Korea are overwhelmingly conglomerate, tech and manufacturing fortunes — Zhong, Ma, Son, Yanai, the SEA tycoons, the Korean chaebol families. Indeed, every one of them is a company. As a result, entertainment and sport are almost the only firm-free wealth on the continent, and, consequently, this list runs heavily Indian, because India is the one Asian market that mass-produces celebrity fortunes. Second, capital controls decide who is even reachable. Mainland China

Geneva has run Latin American money for the better part of a century. Indeed, the Romandy private-banking desks grew up on it, and the region still ranks among the most natural cross-border markets booked out of Switzerland. So after our European list, this is the logical second stop — the same idea, yet a very different cast. Moreover, the reason to run the exercise again is simple: the filter that works in Europe exposes something quite different once you apply it here. Notably, the premise stays unchanged. First, we want people who are wealthy without running a dominant operating company. Second, we want people who are realistically onboardable — so not the company-founder dynasties, not the politically exposed, and, crucially for this region, not US persons. In other words, we are hunting for clean, bankable private clients rather than headline billionaires. Ultimately, that single filter shapes the whole list. Moreover, three things look different in Latin America, and all three are the point of this edition. Taken together, they explain why the regional desk behaves so differently from the European one. Three ways Latin America looks different First, the cohort is almost entirely transparent earners — footballers above all, plus

A quick, honest disclaimer before the list: of all the editions in this series, Africa is the one where a clean “Top 30” simply does not exist. Therefore, this is a deliberately short shortlist — 15 names — built the same way as the others (wealthy without a dominant operating company, realistically onboardable, and neither PEP nor sanctioned). Crucially, the continent’s particular shape is laid bare here rather than papered over. In short, the African picture needs honesty rather than gloss. In short, that shape has three features. First, there is one liquid anchor and then a cliff. Africa has plenty of billionaires — Dangote, Rupert, Rabiu, Motsepe — yet almost every one of them is an operating company in cement, luxury or mining, which fails our filter. The great exception is Nicky Oppenheimer, who sold the family’s De Beers stake in 2012 and now holds the proceeds as cash and private investments. After him, however, the field drops straight from eleven figures to the tens of millions. As a result, the shortlist opens with a single liquid name. Second, the bench beneath the anchor is almost entirely offshore-earning athletes and globally touring musicians — Premier League and Saudi-league footballers,