The most revealing thing about Forbes’ latest billionaire ranking is not that there are more billionaires than ever before, though there are. It is that two-thirds of the world’s wealthiest are now described as self-made. At the turn of the century, less than half of Forbes’ billionaires were self-made. The global hierarchy is changing and while the ‘old money’ elite still hold vast power, they are no longer the dominant force they once were.
The economic impact of this phenomenon is well-documented. In 2025, billionaires grew their fortunes by making bold decisions, according to a UBS report that also notes the majority are likely to increase their exposure to private equity, hedge funds and emerging markets.
‘Old money is obsessed with continuity,’ says a relationship manager at the Swiss bank. ‘Heirs are raised to see themselves as custodians of the family fortune, tasked with maintaining the estate, supporting education and artistic endeavours through endowments, and preserving wealth for future generations.’ In contrast, the self-made are ‘less interested in preservation for its own sake; momentum is the priority’.
[See also: Reputation-polishing-artwork: the rise of the vanity documentary]
Related
The cultural impact of this shift is even more profound. ‘My grandson calls it “peak hustle culture”,’ says one patriarch whose family traces their fortune back to the early 1900s.
Investors are fascinated by the entrepreneurial myth and its implications of resilience and nimble, out-of-the-box thinking. Smart money today is more likely to back a founder than it is a dynasty. ‘“Trying too hard” is no longer the put-down it once was,’ agrees his wife.
She is less than impressed that her grandson’s essay for his application to an Ivy League university focused on overcoming odds that most would argue were stacked in his favour. ‘Why does a legacy student, whose father went to the same university, feel the need to recast his enormous privilege as a struggle?’ she despairs.
[See also: How to get your child into an Ivy League university]
Content from our partners
Privilege might be a scourge, but discussing money is no longer the taboo it used to be. The scion of a new industrial fortune in India tells me he has no patience for polite dithering.
‘It is perfectly normal to ask what someone paid per square foot for a Mumbai flat or whether a watch was bought at retail or through a dealer,’ he insists. In his world, this is not a breach of etiquette but a sign of confidence. ‘If wealth is an achievement, why hide it?’
The instinct among his global peers is remarkably similar.
[See also: The tax trap waiting for rich expats leaving Dubai]
The head of a concierge company serving a luxury development in London says the shift is obvious in the requests he receives. ‘One of my earliest clients – a duchess who entertains frequently at her Mayfair townhouse – taught me that a good party must seem effortless, even if it has been planned like a military campaign,’ he explains.
‘But newer clients don’t think they are getting value for money if their parties – they always refer to them as ‘events’ – don’t look curated.’ One resident asked for dinner to be laid out in advance so it could be photographed for his wife’s social media feed, before being cleared and then served again to guests.
[See also: From Gstaad Guy to Supersnake: how social media finally went ultra-high-net-worth]
‘On the upside,’ he adds, ‘newly minted millionaires tend to tip most generously, whether for show or because they still remember what it was like not to have so much.’
The new elite also feels less entitled to the concessions the old aristocracy expected. ‘My blue-blooded clients are the worst at paying,’ says the concierge. ‘When presented with a bill, one actually said to me, “Surely the association is worth something to you?”’ The implication was that a discount should be forthcoming. The newer rich, meanwhile, ‘may be demanding, but they understand that premium service has a price’.
One nanny recalls her wealthy old-money employers baulking at paying her a Christmas bonus because they were going to Mustique. Her new employers in Notting Hill, by contrast, offered to pay for her train tickets to Yorkshire when she went to visit her mother, without her even having to ask. She notes that the same family once spent £3,000 on Halloween decorations, so their largesse clearly extends beyond the household payroll. Still, many in the old world would regard that sort of spending as impossibly gauche.
[See also: What to know when travelling with domestic staff, from visas to working rules]
None of this is to suggest that one class is morally – or otherwise – superior. Indeed, despite the implication in Forbes that the new order is gaining ground at the expense of the old guard, the two may have more in common than they suspect. One justifies privilege through inheritance, the other through achievement.
Forbes’ latest ranking may look like a victory for merit over inheritance. It may prove instead to be the inflection point when a distinction between the two constituencies began to matter less than either imagined possible. Because good manners, ultimately, are not a matter of style, but of regard for other people.
This article first appeared in Spear’s Magazine Issue 99. Click here to subscribe
