Britain: Sunday Times “Rich List” notes fall in combined wealth of super-rich

World Socialist Web Site wsws.org

Britain: Sunday Times “Rich List” notes fall

in combined wealth of super-rich

Simon Wheelan

22 May 2003

The annual Sunday Times Rich List is based on the

newspaper’s estimates of the minimum wealth of

Britain’s 1,000 richest people. What makes this year’s

list noteworthy is that for the first time in nearly a

decade the combined wealth of the super-rich is

estimated to have fallen.

The newspaper acknowledges that the actual size of

their fortunes may actually be larger, much larger, than

the stated figure. The list measures only identifiable

wealth, whether land, property, racehorses, artwork or

significant shares in publicly quoted companies—but the

contents of bank accounts and small shareholdings in

private equity portfolios are not included.

Nevertheless, global economic insecurity and

recession together with the recent precipitous decline of

the stock market have taken their toll on these vast

fortunes. There won’t be a mad rush to cancel

subscriptions to Town and Country magazine, but

collectively they have lost £3.8 billion—a 2 percent fall.

This reduces the collective wealth of the top 1,000 to

£155.86 billion.

The impact of stock market losses also found

expression in the lowering of the threshold for entry in

the list. The £5 million cut in the threshold was the first

in eight years.

British losses have proved minor compared with

international developments, where the past year has

witnessed the eradication of £85 billion, down 16

percent, from the wealth of the world’s 50 richest

individuals and a £16 billion loss for Europe’s

richest—a fall of 7 percent.

The richest Britons have fared better. The number of

British billionaires remained the same as in 2002; and

while the stock market lost half of its value over the

past three years, the super-rich are still collectively

worth £10 billion more than they were at the same time

last year. The same cannot be said for the hundreds of

thousands of working people in Britain who own shares

and whose pensions are tied to the fortunes of

international markets.

Those who fared badly tended to have fortunes

connected to banking, insurance, stockbroking and

finance, which lost 5 entries, down to 98.

Worst affected was the wealth of those who saw their

stock rise meteorically during the 1990s dot-com

bubble. Only a small number have established

themselves with a degree of permanency, with the

majority falling away.

Retailing lost some of its sheen, as did food retailing,

previously seen as a particularly safe bet in troubled

times. The Sainsbury family, which owns the

supermarket chain of the same name, suffered a halving

of its wealth from last year. The family is now worth

£1.5 billion—half of last year’s total. Sainsbury’s share

value has fallen 16 percent this year. The penetration of

American retailer Wal-Mart into the British food

market, through its purchase of the Asda chain, is

leading to the sector’s wholesale reorganisation.

Sainsbury’s, for one, is currently engaged in the

restructuring of its workforce, renegotiating employees

contracts and terms of employment while forcing

subcontractors to do the same. The supermarket chain

is squeezing more hours, more unsocial hours and

fewer holidays out of those on its payroll, while

suppliers and subcontractors such as Excel Logistics,

its main distributor, are currently forcing more weekend

working from its drivers.

While those with major holdings in stocks and shares

lost ground, those with substantial land and property

holdings retained their ranking. A record number in the

list made their riches from land and property, up five

from the previous year.

That hardy perennial, the Duke of Westminster,

finished on top of the heap for the third year running.

He saw his international position jump from 46th

richest to 35th due to his ownership of large tracts of

Britain. But he would do well not to celebrate his

personal wealth reaching almost £5 billion too soon, as

his assets are unlikely to prove immune to the current

over-abundance of central London office space and the

falling value of the capital’s housing market.

Other climbers in the list are those who got out of the

stock market while the going was good and sold their

business interests—such as the Moores family, which

sold its Littlewood retail and mail order firm to the

Barclay twins for £750 million in cash in October 2002.

The other winners, according to the Sunday Times,

are those who “acted with the most boldness.” The

paper singles out the Reuben brothers, whose fortune is

derived from their “extraordinary” performance in the

Russian aluminium industry in the early 1990s.

Extraordinary indeed. During the process of capitalist

restoration and the selling off of state assets at bargain

basement prices, David and Simon Reuben amassed an

incredible £2.1 billion by investing in Russia’s

aluminium industry and property. They jumped 248

places to rank fifth on the list after their wealth was

“reassessed.”

The British music industry has produced 52 entries.

Leading the field is Sir Paul McCartney, who broke

into the top 30.

The service sector also had its fair share of winners,

with health and fitness industries figuring strongly—up 6

to 66 in the top 1,000.

To contact the WSWS and the

Socialist Equality Party visit:

wsws.org/contact