More Women reaching the Billionnaires List

There is a strong showing of women making it to the Billionaires' List, and not all through the old fashioned way of death of a spouse or divorce.
Forbes has the list and tech is the foundation of the wealth of oly two of the women. I thought there would be more. Here it is:

Women make up 10% of global super-rich and 172 women, 25% more than in 2013, are in renowned club of billionaires.

 From the Facebook executive who told women to "lean in" to get ahead at work, to a Nigerian oil tycoon and a British online gambling entrepreneur, a record number of women have entered the global club of billionaires.

A total of 172 women, up 25% on 2013, have made Forbes' 28th annual billionaires' list. Women now make up 10% of the global super-rich.

Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, with a personal fortune worth more than $1bn (£600m), becomes one of the highest-profile new entrants to the Forbes list, joining Meg Whitman of Hewlett-Packard as the only other female tech billionaire.

According to Forbes, a record number of 42 women broke into the list for the first time, although only 32 female billionaires (1.9% of the total) built their own fortune, rather than inheriting it from a parent or husband.

The world's richest woman is Christy Walton, who shares a $36.7bn chunk of the Walmart fortune, edging out one of L'Oréal's principal shareholders, Liliane Bettencourt.

One of the top UK entrants is Denise Coates, the British online gambling queen who, along with her brother, owns Bet365. Coates was at school when she started working as a cashier in her father's betting shops and has amassed $1.6bn in personal wealth.

Fiercely private, she has escaped almost all press attention in the UK despite Bet365 taking almost £20bn in bets and making £150m in profits in the year to March 2013.

In a rare interview two years ago, Coates told the Guardian how she has, on occasion, had to correct some people who had assumed that her father, a well-known businessman, ran the company. Her business, which employs 2,500 workers, mostly in Stoke-on-Trent, made a £150m profit last year, even after swallowing £31m of losses from Bet365's controlling interest in Stoke City football club

Coates, who owns half the business, received pay and bonuses of £5.4m, as well as her share of £15m in dividends. Even after these payouts the company had a further £430m in cash reserves on the balance sheet. In the past five years, Bet365 has paid out dividends totalling £130m.

A total of nine women feature in the top 85.


Jacoline Loewen
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacolineloewen

Wealth managers versus brokers

Typically, wealth managers, also known as financial planners, earn their living either from commissions or by charging hourly or flat rates for their services. A commission is a fee paid whenever someone buys or sells a stock or other investment. You may want to avoid financial planners who rely on commissions for their income. These advisers may not be the most unbiased source of advice if they profit from steering you into particular products.

A growing number of financial planners make money only when you pay them a fee for their counsel. These financial planners don’t get a cut from life insurers or fund companies. You might pay them a flat fee, such as $1,500, for a financial plan. Or you could pay an annual fee, often 1% to 2% of all the assets—investment, retirement,  university savings and other accounts—they’re minding for you. Others charge by the hour, like lawyers.

You might also encounter financial planners who cater exclusively to the rich and refuse clients with less than $2 million to invest. Don’t take it personally—hugely successful planners in this range of wealth are called wealth managers and would just prefer to deal with big accounts rather than beginner clients. 

You want a planner who’ll make the time to focus on your concerns and is interested in growing with you.

If you have more than $2 Million to invest, look for the wealth managers usually found in the global banks.

Family-owned companies run by eldest sons tend to be managed relatively poorly.

"I do not want to hand him the business yet, as he is only 28 years old. Yet, I do need to retire and get my money out of the business. I'm only 47 years old," said this owner of a large business at a YPO dinner in Yorkville last night.
She shrugged, "Too bad that he cannot have the company but I am not ready to hand it over."
This is how the Queen must feel with Prince Charles wanting to take over the throne; he is simply not ready or competent enough. As I chatted with this entrepreneur and mother about her succession plans, she expressed her frustration. Despite having her eldest son running her business, I sensed she, like the Queen, did not respect his ability to take the ball and run with it.
"Succession planning is my biggest issue. All my money is tied up in that one business. Can you imagine that?" she worried.
Yes, I could.
I see it all the time. Owners do not know their options available. Meanwhile, they jeopardize their entire family wealth. McKinsey and Co have researched the results of handing family businesses to elder sons and the results should make this mum stop, "gulp" and take another look at using private equity.

Family-owned companies run by outsiders appear to be better managed than other companies, a study finds, while family-owned companies run by eldest sons tend to be managed relatively poorly. Moreover, the prevalence of family-owned companies run by eldest sons in France and the United Kingdom appears to account for a sizable portion of the gap in the effectiveness of management—and perhaps in performance—that we observe in their companies relative to those of Germany and the United States.

These findings come from a study of more than 700 midsize manufacturers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The study, conducted by McKinsey and researchers at the London School of Economics,¹ looked at the quality of key management practices relative to performance metrics (such as total factor productivity, market share, sales growth, and market valuation) and found that they are strongly correlated.² On a scale of one to five, with five being the highest, US and German manufacturers scored best on these metrics (3.37 and 3.32, respectively), while French and UK companies scored worst (3.17 and 3.09).³