There are now 2,189 billionaires globally with a combined wealth of $10.2 trillion, as the pandemic-induced stock market rally catapulted the net worth of the world’s uber wealthy to a new high.
As of July 2020, Asia-Pacific accounted for the highest number of ultra-high net worth individuals, with 831 (38%) of the super rich residing in the region, where billionaire wealth now totals $3.3 trillion, according to Swiss bank UBS’ new Billionaires Insights Report 2020. That compares to 762 (35%) across the Americas and 596 (27%) in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA).
The findings, based on interviews and data from 2,000 billionaires across 43 markets, saw Asia-Pacific retain its global position as “the engine of wealth growth,” UBS Global Wealth Management’s Anurag Mahesh said at the report’s launch Wednesday.
Mainland China emerged as the region’s top market for wealth creation, with 415 billionaires, followed by India (114), Hong King (65) Taiwan (40) and Australia (39). The U.S. is home to 636 billionaires, the study found.
Much of the billionaire wealth growth seen this year was closely correlated to the market recovery staged since April’s dramatic sell-off, since the assets of the ultra wealthy are typically tied up in the public companies they run or invest in.
However, from 2019 to the peak of the downturn in April 2020, Asian billionaire wealth emerged relatively unscathed, dropping 2.1% compared to 10.1% in EMEA and 7.4% in the Americas.
Manesh, Asia-Pacific co-head of UBS’s Global Family Office, said they could be partly related to the region’s dominance in two key industries — technology and health care — which have surged in the wake of the pandemic.
Asia-Pacific is home to the world’s highest share of tech and health-care billionaires, accounting for 181 (8%) of the total billionaire population, compared to 153 (7%) in the Americas and 88 (4%) in EMEA. Meanwhile, a growing emphasis on disruption and innovation in both sectors have helped them forge ahead against their more traditional peers, the report found.
“It is interesting but not surprising that wealth in the tech and healthcare sectors surged ahead at a faster rate than other sectors. In the last decade, the wealth of billionaires in the tech sector grew 5.7 times while the wealth of billionaires in the financial services sector grew 2.3 times,” said Anuj Kagalwala, partner and asset and wealth management leader at PwC Singapore, a co-author of the study.
Donations to the pandemic
The report comes as economists argue that a so-called K-shaped recovery could be the most likely outcome from the coronavirus, referring to different sectors of the economy recovering at different rates. In this case, the finances of the wealthiest quickly rebound while those of the poorest stagnate or even worsen.
The report found 209 billionaires contributed a total of $7.2 billion to the pandemic from March to June 2020.
Of them, 175 (76%) were financial donors, meaning they donated money to relief efforts, while 24 (19%) were makers who repurposed their manufacturing lines to produce equipment, for example. Ten of them (5%) were impact entrepreneurs, who contributed to long-term strategies such as finding a vaccine.
UBS’s Mahesh said the research suggests it is the “greatest upsurge” in giving among billionaires within that frame of time.
Like this story? Subscribe to CNBC Make It on YouTube!
Here’s how Trump or Biden can help save democratic capitalism
IMF employees have joked among themselves for years about when the fund’s bylaws would kick in, requiring them to move from Washington to Beijing. Written when no rival to U.S. economic leadership was in sight, the bylaws require that the headquarters be in the world’s largest economy.
They aren’t laughing anymore.
The underlying story of this week’s IMF and World Bank meetings, held virtually from Washington, is that democratic capitalism is suffering dangerous new blows and autocratic capitalism is enjoying new gains as a result of this disruptive year of Covid-19 that will strip 4.4% of the world economy this year or $11 trillion of output next year.
China, where the pathogen originated, will be the only major economy to post growth this year. The IMF predicted that China, the world’s second largest economy, would expand 1.9% in 2020, while the U.S. would shrink by 4.3% and Europe by 7.2%. China’s growth will accelerate to 8.4% next year, said the IMF, compared to 3.1% in the United States and 4.7% in Europe.
Fixing the problem won’t be easy.
The IMF’s new global debt figures, shown in this Atlantic Council tracker, show U.S. debt will hit 130% of GDP thanks to the crisis. That’s the highest level since World War II when the country was financing colossal military operations. The U.S. Treasury Department released figures Friday that show a record $3.1 trillion budget deficit in the fiscal year ending September 30.
The Trump administration’s failure to leverage its stimulus spending this year on investment in infrastructure, education and research-and-development is a missed opportunity. Trade disputes with European and Asian allies have undermined solidarity among global democracies when it has been most needed.
Risks to the dollar’s continued currency supremacy may seem far over the horizon, but concerns have grown more relevant as China seizes first-mover advantage through its rollout of digital currency tests in selected cities.
To be sure, the current IMF voting share still favors the United States by roughly three-to-one, and the bylaws dictate that the “principal office of the fund shall be located in the territory of the member having the largest quota.” Still, even former IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde in 2017 mused that the fund’s HQ could relocate within a decade.
Current events may accelerate her timeline.
The more significant question than the location of the IMF is what country or set of countries will write the financial and monetary rules for our coming epoch. Will democracies, rallied by the United States, revive and reform their form of capitalism, which has been ascendant for more than 75 years?
Or will the future be shaped by China and state-controlled capitalism, which its leaders argue has proved more decisive and resilient in this crisis? Or alternatively, are we entering a period of an extended, global systemic scrum of the sort experienced after World War I that lead to worldwide economic depression, currency devaluations, beggar-thy-neighbor protectionism, a breakdown of the international financial system and ultimately to war.
In a landmark speech this week, current IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva called what the world is experiencing now a “new Bretton Woods moment,” harkening back to 1944 when the IMF and World Bank were created with a dual purpose: “to deal with the immediate devastation caused by the war, and to lay the foundation for a more peaceful and prosperous postwar world.”
It’s worth reflecting on the enormity of what Ms. Georgieva is suggesting, as the original Bretton Woods was the first agreement of its kind, a fully negotiated global monetary order, resting at that time upon gold and the U.S. dollar. Bretton Woods put into place the rules and the wherewithal for the expansion and sustainability of democratic capitalism, which in the end would triumph over centrally controlled, Soviet-style economies.
The deal came near the end of World War II at a time when U.S. leadership was in a visionary frame of mind and had the economic and political leverage to impose its will on others, much in contrast to conditions today. Cordell Hull, the United States Secretary of State from 1933 to 1944, represented the view among many of that time that economic discrimination and trade warfare had been underlying causes of both world wars.
Bretton Woods was designed to avoid a repeat of that outcome. After two years of preparation, the U.S. gathered 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1-22, 1944, before they signed the agreement on its final day.
In the cacophony of the final days of the U.S. presidential election, it would be easy to neglect the historic challenge to democratic capitalism. Few Americans will have heard or read Ms. Georgieva’s speech this week, distracted instead by the dueling town halls of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Yet whoever is elected on Nov. 3 will be saddled with the task of reversing the slide in public faith for democratic capitalism before it becomes irreversible, and addressing inequalities while at the same time not sacrificing capitalism’s irreplaceable engine of growth and innovation.
What the United States and the world needs following the Nov. 3 elections is another round of transformational American leadership of the brand that followed World War II.
For President Trump, taking on this generational challenge in a second term would demand a dramatic change of heart about building international coalitions of the Bretton Woods variety. For Vice President Biden, it would require translating his encouraging language on galvanizing global democratic partners, including plans for a first-year summit of democracies, into concrete action that would reverse current trends.
Both candidates talk about emerging stronger from Covid-19, but our problems didn’t start with the virus and they won’t end with a vaccine. Facing a second economic crisis in the space of a decade, the United States has a rare second chance to get things right alongside its democratic partners.
If we fail to do so, democratic capitalism may not get another opportunity. The stakes are that large.
Frederick Kempe is a best-selling author, prize-winning journalist and president & CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of the United States’ most influential think tanks on global affairs. He worked at The Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years as a foreign correspondent, assistant managing editor and as the longest-serving editor of the paper’s European edition. His latest book – “Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth” – was a New York Times best-seller and has been published in more than a dozen languages. Follow him on Twitter @FredKempe and subscribe here to Inflection Points, his look each Saturday at the past week’s top stories and trends.
For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.
Amazon Care telemedicine service job listings hint at expansion
Amazon employees are told they can get health care on call
Amazon Care, the company’s online medical clinic for its own employees, is trying to hire half a dozen people in business development roles to “build and grow relationships with commercial and public sector enterprises.” Most of the roles were posted in the past month.
By building a business development team, the company is signaling an intention to go broader than its own employees. Amazon has a history of developing products that it tests out on its own workforce before expanding to a broader population.
Moreover, a person familiar with the business unit’s plans told CNBC that Amazon Care has started reaching out to health plans and employers in the Washington area to discuss opportunities to expand beyond its own employees. The plans are in an exploratory phase and may not result in expansion.
Amazon Care, which launched as a pilot in the fall of 2019, offers a virtual medical clinic for employees and their dependents in Washington state. The goal is to make it easier to access high-quality primary care online, and at-home visits are also available in some areas.
Amazon has increasingly moved into the medical sector in recent years. In 2018, it acquired PillPack, which offers at-home medication delivery, and has built a pharmacy team under that division. It also has a health and wellness unit focused on voice applications within its Alexa team. The company moved into the wearables market in August with a device known as Halo to track its users’ health and fitness.
Telemedicine represents a sizable market opportunity. It is expected to be worth more than $17 billion by 2026 as more people opt to engage with their doctors online. The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated that shift, with the federal government relaxing regulations to make it easier for doctors to get paid for an online visit.
In September, Amazon Care announced that it had expanded its service from its headquarters in the Seattle area to all of its offices throughout Washington State.
An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment.
Twitter backtracks, allows sharing of New York Post Biden story
Twitter chief executive officer Jack Dorsey testifies during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing concerning foreign influence in use of social media platforms, on Capitol Hill, September 5, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Drew Angerer | Getty Images
Twitter on Friday reversed its controversial editorial decision to block users from sharing a New York Post story that claims to show “smoking gun” emails related to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son.
The company and rival Facebook on Wednesday made the unprecedented decisions to block or limit the distribution of the news article. The unverified story alleges that Hunter Biden attempted to introduce an executive at the Ukrainian company he worked for to his father, who was the vice president of the United States at the time.
Twitter later said it had blocked the article because it contained images of hacked material with personal and private information. It then clarified that discussion or commentary on the hacked materials should not be banned.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey described the company’s initial decision to block the article without explaining its reasoning as “unacceptable.”
President Donald Trump and some users loudly criticized Twitter’s initial decision.
“So terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of ‘Smoking Gun’ emails related to Sleepy Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the @NYPost,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday.”It is only the beginning for them. There is nothing worse than a corrupt politician. REPEAL SECTION 230!!!”
The company has now reversed its decision entirely, and is letting users share the article. The company changed its mind because the once-private information in the article has now been made widely available across the internet,a spokesman for the company said.
The company also changed its policies on Thursday, saying it would no longer remove hacked content unless it is shared directly by hackers or those in concert with them. Additionally, Twitter will now label tweets to provide context instead of blocking links, said Vijaya Gadde, legal, public policy and trust and safety lead at Twitter.
Coronavirus: Yodellers reject blame for ‘one of Europe’s worst COVID outbreaks’ | World News
Ramped-up ICE arrests amid Covid outbreaks show ‘irresponsible disregard,’ Hispanic Caucus says
France terror attack: Beheading of teacher heightens debate about Islamist terrorism and freedom of speech | World News
Here’s how Trump or Biden can help save democratic capitalism
Nicola Sturgeon warned 'unhealthy' independence dream will get Scotland 'nowhere'
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Armenia accused of killing 13 people with missile strike on Azerbaijan | World News
Election Day looms. Who’s winning the legal war over mail-in voting?
'Walk away now!' Boris backed over tough stance and ordered to end 'nonsense' Brexit talks
Brexiteer warns MPs PM's Brexit Bill 'vital' to stand up to 'insane and bully' EU
EU panic: Frexit predicted as pressure builds in Brussels with UK set for Brexit success
Latest News1 week ago
Zimbabwe: Student thought he was going to die after ‘abduction by state security services’ | World News
Politics6 days ago
Full Cruz: 'Incredible volatility in politics right now'
Politics7 days ago
SNP meltdown: Furious Sturgeon loses it in 'car-crash' TV interview after Salmond grilling
World1 week ago
UK government extends its job support program
World1 week ago
Square buys $50 million in bitcoin, says cryptocurrency ‘aligns with company’s purpose’
World1 week ago
Labor strike could wipe out almost 25% of Norway’s oil production
World1 week ago
Prince William launches £50 million Earthshot Prize
Politics4 days ago
Barrett faces questions from senators on second day of hearing