Talk:High-net-worth individual

Retail section propaganda
Can someone edit the retail section it sounds like propaganda. Many if not most wealthy people do not choose extravigant or flashy lifestyles. Sblument (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The section on Gannon feels like an advertisement for Gannon.

Number of them
If the definition is $1m, then that's about 500k in UKP, which given UK house prices seems not so much. There must be more HNWI's than the article says. I consider £30m+ super rich. I consider £1m+ well-off. I consider £200m enough. After that they're ceases to be a point in having more. Having total assets of only £50m in London makes you somewhat poor. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. You are not poor if you have £50,000,000. You are, absolutely, rich. The relativity principle does not apply at this level.


 * The definition excludes your primary residence; so the 500k UKP is extra to your own house. 203.122.223.121 (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Internal Link Deletion
Deleted "World Wealth Report" from "See also" because it just redirected to the next one down, "Millionaire". And there is an existing Note 1 in "References" to such a report. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.   00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References and See also sections
Would someone like to educate me on the   and    tags? So far according to what I've read, adding such citations as the one found below the numbered references is a mistake, and the cited source deserves its own "External links" section. So I've done this and (at least temporarily) commented out the citation in the References section.

In addition, I moved another external source from the "See also" section to the new External links section. .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Percentiles?
Regardless of how the US SEC defines HNWI and UHNWI, it would seem advantageous to define them in terms of percentiles. For example, an HNWI might be in the top 1% of the population by net worth (excluding primary residence), and an UHNWI in the top 0.1%. These thresholds are obviously open to debate, but percentiles would provide a consistent way of comparing wealth holdings across different societies, both geographically and over time.

--88.108.226.118 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well this information and a lot more is on the Millionaire page. So I think we should delete this page in favour of that one (after combining in anythign here missing there, if anything). Dan88888 (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Context of HNWs to Modern Society
The Deloitte "wealth report" cannot be considered reliable, in part because its numbers are 4-5 times bigger than those of either the Merril Lynch & Capgemini report, or other similar reports. It was forcefully added by "BigSean" who was blocked permanently for sock-puppetry, constantly attempting to re-insert that data and over-inflate claims of wealth (ie. 10% of US population having a net worth of more than a million with a median income of $35k.)--Therexbanner (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A response to : http://abcnews.go.com/Business/study-28-percent-millionaires-rich/story?id=19787629&page=2

Terminology
The word was first used (as millionnaire, double "n") in French in 1719 by Steven Fentiman, and is first recorded in English (millionaire, as a French term) in a letter of Lord Byron of 1816, then in print in

Vivian Grey, a novel of 1826 by Benjamin Disraeli.[5] An earlier English word "millionary" was used in 1786 by Thomas Jefferson while serving as Minister to France; he wrote: "The poorest labourer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest Millionary".[6] The first American printed use of the word is thought to be in an obituary of New York tobacco manufacturer Pierre Lorillard II in 1843.[7]

We must understand that in 1800 a whole 80 years after this 'loaded term' was invented and popularised, that total cost to build the First Professor's (Chancellor equivalent maybe?) house for South Carolina College was $8,000 ( 1806) could cost millions. One Pound of Coffee Cost $0.25 -$1 in 1800 = $17.60 today. Public land for a minimum price of $1.25 an acre now costs millions potentially. So that would mean the actual million would need to be 1000 times more to qualify to match 'loadedness' of the term millionaire in 1800. That means today's BILLIONAIRES are the 'millionaires' of the day.

Land does not cost $1 an acre, a house the size of the example above would be 1000s of times more.

Inflation has caused the term 'millionaire' to be devalued in 'loadedness' and the use of fiat rather than Precious Metal coinage has worsened accountability especially at the top levels where printed money can be distributed to a small group of insiders unregulated simply because people on the outside do not have the right to acces at any time the 'mint' which is effectively a PAPER printing machine. The harm of fiat and unaccountabiliy of banks much less the mint or national treasury has thus resulted in extreme inflation, compounded by overpopulation. In the 1800s after the Redcoat English were kicked out by the Bluecoats, the population of USA was 5,309,000 therabouts. Today the ppulation is of USA 300 million and rising, 60 times more and guess what? That means that every American can 'own'

ONLY 6 acres of land as opposed to 360 acres of land. Even then look at the prices, which are inflated 1000s of times more as opposed to the number of people in ratio. Extreme capitalism uncontrolled has resulted in this. Consider that with equitable land distribution and limits of maximum sequesteable wealth one can effect wealth distribution instead of all that wealth being hled in equity or property when LIVING PERSONS are suffering and that a single plutocrat could ease the suffering of 1000s. . Only the below paradigm of controlled capitalism with socialist limits on maximum wealth sequestration in the below link can resolve the equity issue :

http://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/utopia-capitalism-with-socialist-caps-on-personal-wealth-us20-million-this-is-here-because-i-personally-feel-fb-is-finished/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on High-net-worth individual. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ml.com/media/67216.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ml.com/media/14076.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ml.com/media/100472.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Annual World Wealth Report is out of date
This goes only to 2012. the latest is 2015 <>

157.191.26.94 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-net-worth individual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103030847/http://ml.com/media/114235.pdf to http://www.ml.com/media/114235.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Addressing Documentation update
I intend to comprehensively update Capgemini cited content to the 2020 report, and replace citations from earlier reports. Still pretty new here, feel free to intervene if I am out of line. Majudson (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)