Latest news with #wealthcreators
Fast Company
22-07-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Why male corporate leaders and billionaires need financial therapy
Corporate leaders and billionaires are often viewed as visionaries and wealth creators. But beneath the surface, many are trapped in an invisible financial crisis—one rooted not in market volatility or poor investments but in their psychological relationship with money. As a finance professor and editor of the forthcoming book Financial Therapy for Men, I study this often overlooked aspect of financial psychology. Money is far more than numbers on a balance sheet—it carries emotional, psychological and social meaning. People's relationships with money are shaped by childhood experiences, cultural beliefs, and personal triumphs and failures. This emotional baggage can influence not only their sense of safety and self-worth but also how they manage power and status. The field of financial therapy emerged in the mid-2000s to address these dynamics. Drawing from behavioral economics, financial psychology, family systems theory, and clinical therapy, it aims to help people understand how their thoughts, feelings, and experiences shape financial behavior. Foundational academic work began at Kansas State University, home to one of the first graduate-level programs in the field. Since then, financial therapy has gained traction in the U.S. and globally: It's supported by a peer-reviewed journal and is increasingly integrated into professional practice by financial advisers and licensed therapists. Studies have shown that financial therapy can improve relationships and reduce emotional distress. Yet much of the field focuses on people who are emotionally open and reflective—neglecting executives, who are often socialized to view themselves as purely rational decision-makers. I think this is a mistake. Research shows that people often project their unconscious anxieties onto markets, experiencing them as mirrors of competence, failure, or control. This means that public valuations and capital flows may carry deeply symbolic weight for corporate leaders. My research suggests that people at the highest levels of wealth and power have deeply complex emotional relationships with money—but the field of financial therapy has largely overlooked them. This isn't an accident. It reflects a broader assumption that wealth insulates people from psychological distress. In reality, emotional entanglements can intensify with greater wealth and power—and research suggests that men, in particular, face distinct challenges. True inclusion in financial therapy means recognizing and responding to these needs. When distress becomes a leadership crisis In a 2023 study— When and why do men negotiate assertively? —Jens Mazei, whose research focuses on negotiations and conflict management, and his colleagues found that men become more aggressive in negotiations when they think their masculinity is being threatened. This was especially true in contexts viewed as 'masculine,' such as salary negotiations. In 'non-masculine' contexts, such as negotiations over flexible work and child care benefits, participants weren't significantly more aggressive when their masculinity was challenged. On male-coded topics, many men in the study reinforced gender norms by rejecting compromise, using hardball tactics or even inflating financial demands to reassert their masculinity. These behaviors reflect an unconscious need to restore a sense of masculine identity, the researchers suggest. If this reaction occurs in salary negotiations, how might it manifest when the stakes are exponentially higher? Emerging research in organizational psychology shows that financial stress is linked to abusive supervision, particularly among men who feel a loss of control. Further, traits such as CEO masculinity have been linked with increased risk-taking, while female CEOs tend to reduce risk. Together, these findings point to a dangerous intersection of psychological stress, masculinity and executive decision-making. M&A as a masculinity battleground Financial distress doesn't always look like bankruptcy or bad credit. Among powerful men, it can manifest as overconfidence, rigidity, or aggression—and it can sometimes lead to very uneconomical outcomes. Consider the research on M&A. Most mergers and acquisitions are value killers —in other words, they destroy more economic value than they create—and the field of M&A is deeply male. These two facts suggest that some mergers are driven more by threatened masculinity than by strategic logic. If men become more aggressive in negotiations when their masculinity is threatened, then CEOs and corporate leaders, who are overwhelmingly male, may react similarly when their companies, and by extension their leadership, are challenged. Target companies rarely take a passive approach to acquisition attempts. Instead, they deploy defensive measures such as poison pills, golden parachutes, staggered boards, and scorched-earth tactics. In addition to serving financial goals, these may also act as symbolic defenses of masculine authority. Mergers and acquisitions, by their nature, create a contest of power between dominant figures. The very language of M&A—for example, ' raiders,' 'hostile takeovers,' 'defenses,' and ' white knights '—is combative. This reinforces an environment where corporate leaders may view acquisition attempts as challenges to their authority rather than as just financial transactions. A growing body of behavioral-strategy research confirms that boardroom decisions are often shaped by emotional undercurrents rather than purely rational analysis. While this research stops short of naming it, the dynamics it describes align closely with what Mazei and colleagues call 'masculinity threat.' This has direct implications for corporate M&A. The overwhelming majority of top CEOs are men, and the language of M&A often evokes siege, power struggles and conquest. In such a symbolic arena, acquisition attempts can trigger deep, emotionally charged responses, as the identity stakes are high. What appear to be strategic financial decisions may actually be reflexive defenses of masculine authority. On a related note, researchers in behavioral finance have long studied the ' endowment effect,' or the tendency for people to value assets more simply because they own them. While the endowment effect has been studied primarily among retail investors making ordinary financial decisions, it could be particularly important for corporate executives and billionaires, who have more to lose. When combined with threatened masculinity, the endowment effect can produce combustible reactions to declining valuations, missed earnings or takeover bids—even for individuals who remain vastly wealthy after marginal losses. While the research at this intersection is still emerging, the underlying behavioral patterns are well-established. What does financial therapy for the ultrarich look like? Financial therapy for high-net-worth individuals rarely looks like sitting on a couch discussing childhood trauma. Instead, it takes an interdisciplinary approach involving financial advisers, therapists, and sometimes executive coaches. Sessions tend to focus on legacy planning, control issues, guilt over wealth, or strained family relationships. Many high-net-worth men display behaviors that don't look like stereotypical 'financial distress.' These can include compulsive deal-making, emotionally driven investment decisions, workaholism, and difficulty trusting advisers. In some cases, unresolved financial trauma shows up as chronic dissatisfaction and the sense that no achievement, acquisition, or net worth is ever 'enough.' While financial therapy is intended to help individuals, I think it could actually be a tool for global economic stability. After all, when masculinity is threatened in corporate decision-making, the consequences can extend far beyond the boardroom. These actions can destabilize industries, fuel economic downturns, and disrupt entire labor markets. Unchecked financial anxiety among corporate elites and billionaires isn't just their own problem—it can cascade and become everyone's problem. From this perspective, financial therapy isn't just a personal good. It's a structural necessity that can prevent unchecked financial distress from driving destructive corporate decisions and broader economic disruptions. If financial therapy helps people navigate financial distress and make healthier money decisions, then no group needs it more than male corporate leaders and billionaires.
BBC News
19-07-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Members only: Inside the new playgrounds of India's rich and famous
For decades, the Indian elite have sought escape in Raj-era private clubs and gymkhanas, scattered around the swankiest neighbourhoods in the country's big cities, hillside resorts and cantonment to these quintessentially "English" enclaves, with their bellboys, butlers, dark mahogany interiors and rigid dress codes, has been reserved for the privileged; the old moneyed who roam the corridors of power - think business tycoons, senior bureaucrats, erstwhile royals, politicians or officers of the armed is where India's rich and powerful have hobnobbed for years, building social capital over cigars or squash and brokering business deals during golf sessions. Today, these spaces can feel strangely anachronistic - relics of a bygone era in a country eager to shed its colonial Asia's third largest economy breeds a new generation of wealth creators, a more modern and less formal avatar of the private members-only club - that reflects the sweeping economic and demographic changes under way in India - is emerging. This is where the newly well-heeled are hanging out and doing business. Demand for such spaces is strong enough for the international chain Soho House to plan two new launches in the capital Delhi and in south Mumbai in the coming months. Their first offering - an ocean-facing club on Mumbai's iconic Juhu Beach - opened six years ago and is wildly chain is one of a host of new club entrants vying to cater to a market that is booming in House started in London in the mid-90s as an antidote to the upscale gentlemen's clubs that lined Pall Mall. It came in as a refreshingly new concept: a more relaxed club for creators, thinkers and creative entrepreneurs, who might have felt like they didn't belong in the enclaves of the old years later, India's flourishing tech-driven economy of start-ups and creators has birthed a nouveau riche that's afforded Soho House exactly another such market opportunity."There's growth in India's young wealth, and young entrepreneurs really need a foundation to platform themselves," Kelly Wardingham, Soho House's Asia regional director, told the BBC. The "new wealthy require different things" from what the traditional gymkhanas the old clubs, Soho House does not either "shut off" or let in people based on their family legacy, status, wealth or gender, she says. Members use the space as a haven to escape the bustle of Mumbai, with its rooftop pool, gym and private screening rooms as well as a plethora of gourmet food options. But they also use it to drive value from a diverse community of potential mentors and investors, or to learn new skills and attend events and Maya, a young filmmaker, says her membership of the house in Mumbai - a city "where one is always jostling for space and a quiet corner in a cramped cafe" - has given her rare access to the movers and shakers of Mumbai's film industry - which might otherwise have been impossible for someone like her "without generational privilege".In fact, for years, traditional gymkhanas were closed off for the creative community. The famous Bollywood actor, the late Feroz Khan, once asked a gymkhana club in Mumbai for membership, only to be politely refused, as they didn't admit taken aback by their snootiness, is said to have quipped, "If you'd watched my movies, you would know I am not much of an actor."By contrast, Soho House proudly flaunts Bollywood star Ali Fazal, a member, on its in-house magazine cover. But beyond just a more modern, democratic ethos, high demand for these clubs is also a factor of the limited supply of the traditional gymkhanas, which are still very sought queues at most of them can extend "up to many years," and supply hasn't caught up to serve the country's "new crop of self-made businessmen, creative geniuses and high-flying corporate honchos", according to Ankit Kansal of Axon Developers, which recently released a report on the rise of new members-only mismatch has led to more than two dozen new club entrants - including independent ones like Quorum and BVLD, as well as those backed by global hospitality brands like St Regis and Four Seasons - opening in India. At least half a dozen more are on their way in the next few years, according to Axon market, the report says, is growing at nearly 10% every year, with Covid having become a big turning point, as the wealthy chose to avoid public these spaces mark significant shifts, with their progressive membership policies and patronage of the arts, literary and independent music scene they are very much still "sanctums of modern luxury", says Axon, with admission given out by invite only or through referrals, and costing several times more than the monthly income of most Soho House for instance, annual membership is 320,000 Indian rupees ($3,700; $2,775) - beyond what most people can afford. What's changed is that membership is based on personal accomplishment and future potential rather than family pedigree. A new self-made elite has replaced the old inheritors - but access remains largely out of reach for the average middle-class Indian. In a way the rising take-up for these memberships reflects India's broader post-liberalisation growth story – when the country opened up to the world and discarded its socialist galloped, but the rich became the biggest beneficiaries, growing even richer as inequality reached gaping proportions. It's why the country's luxury market has boomed, even as the high street struggles with tepid demand, with most Indians without money to spend on anything beyond the growing numbers of newly-minted rich present a big business 797,000 high-net worth individuals are set to double in number within a couple of years - a fraction of a population of 1.4 billion, but enough to drive future growth for those building new playgrounds for the wealthy to unwind, network and live the high BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, X and Facebook.
Forbes
10-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
From G1 To G5: Building Enduring Family Offices Through Governance
Generations change, but maturity is a choice. Explore how to build an enduring Family Office for ... More generations to come. Family offices are not static, as wealth passes from one generation to the next, family offices must navigate not only shifting dynamics but growing complexity. With each generational transition comes a new perspective, a new set of expectations, and often a new way of working. But while these transitions play an important role in shaping a family office, they are not the only factors. From generation to generation, we found that the most enduring family offices are those that professionalize with purpose and adapt to complexity. We believe that the pillars of a successful family office are its people and governance. The ability to evolve is not guaranteed by time or succession, it is determined by the conscious decision to May Shift, But Governance Endures We have discussed in an article on our website before, that the leadership approach within a family office often varies by generation, due to factors such as experience, upbringing, and exposure to wealth management. First generations, the wealth creators, tend to lead instinctively, centralizing control and relying on trusted advisors. Second and third generation successors often bring more global exposure and a desire for structure into the organisation. By the fourth or fifth generation, many family offices resemble institutions, with professional boards, multi-jurisdictional operations, and a focus on ESG, philanthropy, and purpose-led investing. While the above is very true, we have also seen the opposite. We have worked with Gen 1 wealth creators who chose to professionalize early, bringing in experienced executives, formal governance frameworks, and robust investment oversight from the outset. Others, despite decades of succession, remain unchanged or even underdeveloped, operating with informal structures that put both capital and legacy at risk. The takeaway? While generational transitions and governance maturity often overlap, they are not the same Five Phases pf the Agreus Family Office Maturity Model The Maturing of a Family Office While generational change often marks turning points in a family office's development, we believe the more significant transformation is in how the entity itself matures. With each generational handover comes an opportunity to reassess talent, governance, and structure. To support this, we developed a Family Office Maturity Model, identifying five distinct phases of family office maturity: Embedded, Early Stages, Developed, Professionalised, and Mature. While these phases may align with generational transitions, they ultimately reflect the progression towards formal governance, operational efficiency, and strategic 1: Embedded At this early stage, the family office exists informally, often embedded within the family business. It is characterized by Founder-led, instinctive, and relationship-driven processes. The decision-making is fast and centralised. Trusted advisors and loyal employees, usually from the operating business, form the core team with minimal governance. While effective in the short term, this model can blur boundaries between personal and business matters, leading to inefficiencies and future succession 2: Early Stages As the wealth grows, the need for a standalone family office becomes clear. The entity is separated from the operating business, while governance remains informal, echoing the founder's leadership style. The family starts to experiment with external advisors and new structures, often driven by the need for succession planning, tax structuring, and clarity around 3: Developed With increasing complexity and a wider set of family interests, governance frameworks, such as family councils and investment committees (IC), emerge. In-house capability expands, and strategic planning becomes a priority. The focus shifts to risk management, stakeholder alignment, and building cohesion among family 4: Professionalised The family office operates with corporate-level professionalism. Governance is formalized, succession planning is strategic, and decision-making is well-structured. Investment performance improves as qualified and experienced professionals lead operations. Values such as impact investing, philanthropy, and sustainability take centre stage, reflecting the interests of a globally engaged 5: Mature At this stage, the family office becomes an enduring institution. It operates independently of day-to-day family involvement, it is governed at the board level and run by experienced executives. Cost structures are stabilized, performance is optimized and measured across financial and non-financial returns, and the entity is built to last. Purpose is clearly articulated, and strategy, talent, compensation and retention are aligned with long-term, multi-generational each generational milestone often coincides with a leap in maturity. The wealth creator may prioritize capital preservation, while their successors push for structured governance or purpose-led investing. But the underlying theme across all generations is the need for a family office that can evolve with scale, complexity, and strategic success is not just about passing the baton, but building a family office that is prepared to carry it. Generations change. Values evolve. Markets shift. But the need for strong governance and skilled people is constant.
The Independent
23-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Will Reform's Britannia Card tax plan win back the super-rich?
In its latest stab at policymaking, Reform UK has come up with the 'Britannia Card'. It sounds like a kitsch gimmick from a building society, but it is actually the party's attempt to recast tax policy to attract 'wealth creators' to the UK. The policy supposedly offers a bonus to workers with the lowest incomes in the country, funded entirely from the one-off fees charged to non-doms – billed fancifully as a kind of Robin Hood tax. What's the deal with the Britannia Card? It is not completely clear, and much depends on how many very rich people come to Britain in response to the offer. In principle, it works a bit like this: someone very rich pays HM Revenue and Customs a one-off 'landing fee' of some £250,000. For that modest (to them) sum, they are free of all UK tax on their income and wealth from overseas. That means no income tax, dividend taxes, and no capital gains taxes on such foreign income, indefinitely. As well as that, they get a 'Britannia residency permit' that gives free entry and exit from the UK, renewable every 10 years – but not automatic UK citizenship (this is Reform UK, after all). This new breed of 'non-dom' - they'd no longer have to prove even a tenuous previous family or business link to the UK – would only have to pay tax on their UK income, such as it is, and their spending – stamp duty on their estates and mansions, VAT and other tax on luxury cars, employers' national insurance for the butler, that sort of thing. Where does the Britannia money go? To the poor! All of it! That's the magic – the lowest 10 per cent of all full-time workers would get a payment directly from the HMRC, depending on how many Britannia cards are sold per annum. Reform UK suggests that if 10,000 plutocrats decided to relocate to Britain every year, this policy would raise £2.5bn annually, equivalent to £1,000 per lower-paid worker. Sounds great. Are there any catches? Yes. One is that Reform's calculations ignore that some of the sought-after wealthy would actually lose out under its non-dom system compared to the current Labour regime; for example highly-paid professionals with savings back home are currently free of UK income tax for the first four years they're in the UK and only have to lay a fee of £30,000 or £60,000 a year. Under the Reform policy, they'd be whacked with a £250,000 fee immediately, plus full tax on any UK income. What would Reform's cost? A great deal. The Britannia Card scheme suffers from a common economic phenomenon called the 'free rider' effect. Thus it represents a huge tax cut for the mega-rich who are already here and plan and wish to stay here even under the changes the previous Labour and Tory administrations brought in, and whatever Rachel Reeves ends up doing. For them, £250,000 will be a windfall. Of course, some others may be attracted, on the same grounds, but HMRC would still lose out. Tax experts put it at £34bn over five years. It would make Kensington (in London, not Liverpool) even more expensive but not that much would trickle down. That means more spending cuts or borrowings to pay for a tax cut predominantly destined for some of the wealthiest people on earth. Any other benefits? Reform says it would mean 'wealth creators' would come and start businesses and revitalise the UK economy. Their policy paper contains impressive looking numbers about how much these types' 'investments in the UK' amount to – some in the tens of billions. However, how much of this is simply expensive real estate, collections of art and classic cars, shares in foreign companies listed in London, and US Treasury bonds is less clear. Super-rich non-doms might splash cash on lawyers, estate agents and tax advisers but their wealth-creating benefits for the nation can be exaggerated. They're not about to finance a new blast furnace for Port Talbot. Aren't we losing wealth and talent? Yes, but not necessarily enough to lose the benefit of a tougher FIG tax regime. Reeves and HMRC seem acutely aware of the trends in multi-millionaires and billionaires moving to Dubai or America, and have already started to ease some of the changes she made in her first budget, such as on trusts used to avoid inheritance tax. Will it work? The quirky old non-dom regime – unique to the UK and Ireland and not to be confused with 'non-resident' tax status – miraculously managed to survive for a century before it was seriously reformed, and now the tax system for the top echelons of society is much more changeable, and undeniably less attractive, to the footloose global rich. Reform says it can make its Britannia Card a contractual arrangement, protected from such political interference, but the fact is all governments love to mess about with the tax system, and no parliament can bind its successors. The costly Britannia Card rules could be abolished by an act of parliament passed in a day, and would probably have to be.
Telegraph
05-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves promised economic growth but has delivered stagnation
SIR – At the end of the 2023/24 financial year, government debt had reached £2.7 trillion. This debt is growing, and the cost of servicing it is in excess of £100 billion per year. Prior to the general election, Rachel Reeves's mantra was that growth of the economy was the only way to fix this problem. Since the election, she has concentrated on cutting a few billion here and there (mostly from the people who need it), awarding excessive public-sector pay increases to placate the unions, and increasing taxes on businesses. None of these will help the economy to grow. It is tinkering at best, and negligence at worst. The word growth seems to have been dropped from Labour briefings. Why? Christine Brown Richmond, Surrey SIR – Rachel Reeves and her team at the Treasury have unwittingly managed to set up a national tax-avoidance scheme. Individuals and businesses faced with a record-high tax burden are either packing their bags and leaving Britain, or stopping recruitment, letting go of employees and cancelling investment. Astonishingly, it appears to have been overlooked by the Treasury that penalising wealth-creators will stop growth in its tracks. David Chamberlain Houghton on the Hill, Leicestershire SIR – Many people who support net zero become less enthusiastic about it when they are required to take a financial hit ('Reeves forced to drop net zero cuts ', report, June 5). I wonder, therefore, if the Labour Government is telling the truth about the real cost. A 2021 report by the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that, in order to achieve Britain's net zero emissions target by 2050, an investment of £1.4 trillion (in 2019 prices) would be needed. This is approximately equivalent to 23 years worth of annual UK defence spending. The necessity of investing in the Armed Forces to protect this country from Russian aggression is undisputed, but are we all agreed about bankrupting the nation for the sake of Ed Miliband's climate ambitions? Gerald Heath Box, Wiltshire SIR – In her long and detailed speech about the £15.6 billion to be invested in improving public transport, it would have been nice if Rachel Reeves had mentioned that a few pounds might be spent on upgrading bus shelters. In the past decade, they have taken over from public telephone boxes as examples of shabbiness and squalor, discouraging potential passengers. Those in my home town are a disgrace, and no one seems to have the will to improve them. I assume this is because few politicians, at any level, ever travel by bus. Jane Moth Stone, Staffordshire
