London's 'summer season' disguises true scale of super-wealthy seeking new surroundings

The National

26-06-2025

At this time of year, London is heaving with wealthy foreigners. You could be forgiven for supposing that the UK capital is a major global draw, offering that unique combination of history, pageantry and charm as well as world-leading restaurants, shops, galleries and theatre.
To an extent that is true. But take another look in a few weeks' time and the picture will most likely prove different.
The high-net worths are currently in London all right, but only temporarily. They're attracted by the Summer Season, the quintessentially English period that begins with the Chelsea Flower Show and includes horse racing at Royal Ascot and tennis at Wimbledon. Once those top-drawer international magnets are over, many of them will disappear.
In the past, that soft power, which 'the Season' vividly symbolises and extends right across the arts and culture, and takes in education, the legal system, architecture, fashion, sport, the City and business, would be enough to persuade a substantial number to settle in Britain. This year, the figures tell another story: members of the super-rich are leaving and not being replaced.
Apocryphal evidence abounds, with tales of empty high-end tables, struggling fee-paying schools and darkened prime residential streets.
Hard facts are more difficult to ascertain. One analysis by Bloomberg puts the number of company directors who have left at 4,400 in the past year. Examination of Companies House filings shows departures were 75 per cent higher in April than in the same month last year. The worst-affected sectors were finance, insurance and property, all popular with wealthy foreigners or as they are known in the UK, the 'non-doms' – those who qualify for favourable tax treatment.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, wishes to end that privilege and make their worldwide assets including those held in trusts, liable to UK inheritance tax. Since her intention was announced there has been a rush for the exit. An Oxford Economics survey found that 60 per cent of tax advisers expect more than 40 per cent of their non-dom clients to leave within two years of Reeves ending their beneficial status. With them will go their families, close staff and their money.
According to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2025, Britain is estimated to lose a record 16,500 millionaires this year — more than double the projected net outflow from China, which has held the top spot every year for the past decade. This marks the highest total from any country since wealth adviser Henley & Partners and global wealth intelligence firm New World Wealth began tracking the data 10 years ago.
That finding is heavily disputed by campaigners Tax Justice Network. They point out that Henley, which obtains its income from advising the wealthy, has a vested interest in advancing this claim. The firm made the same claim last year of an "exodus" – which was duly repeated everywhere and is again this year – and there was no such thing: the 16,500 represent only 0.63 per cent of the UK's millionaire population, which hardly counts as an exodus.
They add that taking Henley's own estimates at face value, this UK move is smaller than India's supposed 0.77 per cent (6,500) migration of its millionaire population in 2023, and South Africa's supposed 0.66 per cent (600) in 2024.
It is unarguable that most millionaires want to stay put, in the country where they were raised, where they made their fortune and they call home. But even if the proportion relocating is tiny, the actual number is sufficiently great enough – Henley projects a record 142,000 this year, set to rise to 165,000 in 2026 - to persuade countries to do their level best to woo them.
Topping the list of destinations are UAE, US, Italy, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia. It's no coincidence that they are all locations that welcome the overseas wealthy and offer them various benefits. In that sense the super-rich have never had it so good. Thanks to technology and quicker transport links they can work from pretty much anywhere. In today's competitive world, they are able to choose from a buffet of golden visas and low tax rates. Why do they matter so much, why do nations seek to persuade them? Money is the answer.
While they may not be adding significantly to the public purse by direct means, the contribution they make indirectly is substantial. Henley's study is not wrong in this respect. They provide a boost across an array of areas:
Forex revenue: Migrating millionaires are a vital source of forex revenue as they tend to bring wealth with them when they move to a new country. A migrant bringing $10 million is equivalent to a country generating $10 million in export revenue, as both transactions generate $10 million of forex revenue for the country.
New business: Many relocating high-net-worth individuals (about 15 per cent) are entrepreneurs and company founders, who often start businesses in their new country, creating local jobs. This percentage rises to more than 60 per cent for centi-millionaires and billionaires.
Stock markets: Millionaires supply and support the local stock market through their equity investments. Also, some high-net-worth business owners may publicly list their companies on the local stock exchange.
Job creation: High-net worths indirectly support thousands of jobs in those sectors where they spend their cash, in hotels, restaurants, retail, fashion, property and services.
Multiplier effect: Inward wealth migration can have a multiplier effect on wealth growth due to the spillover effect on asset prices. So 100 rich people moving to a country can result in its high-net-worth population increasing by well over 200 as it pushes local asset prices up and therefore drives up the wealth of locals living in that country.
Boosts middle-class: The businesses started by millionaires and billionaires have a significant positive spillover effect on the middle-class as they create large numbers of well-paying jobs in their base country. Microsoft, say, has created thousands of jobs in the US and has also pushed America's dominance in global tech for more than 30 years.
The not-so-rooted rich are desired and increasingly fought over. That is why Reeves is said to be having second thoughts about scrapping the UK's non-dom tax benefits. The Treasury is not denying the speculation that a U-turn is under consideration: "The government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the new regime is internationally competitive and continues to focus on attracting the best talent and investment in the UK."
I would absolutely stay and it's not about protecting my money from the tax man
Magda Wierzycka,
billionaire
It is odd that Reeves and her colleagues did not anticipate what would occur. They seemingly did not realise that non-doms would quit, or choose not to live in the UK. They did not appreciate that in today's world, rich people can move freely and easily, and work from anywhere. Clearly, they had not read reports such as the one from Henley.
Either they thought that wealthy foreigners would ignore the effect on their finances, or they simply did not care and allowed political ideology to prevail.
The question now is, will a reversal be enough? Already, South Africa's richest self-made woman Magda Wierzycka, the billionaire behind UK venture capital fund Braavos, has said she will shelve plans to leave should the Chancellor ditch the inheritance tax sweep. "I would absolutely stay and it's not about protecting my money from the tax man. I pay all my taxes, but South Africa has foreign exchange controls and I don't know whether [my estate] would be able to pay the [inheritance tax] bill under the current rules."
The problem for Reeves and her boss, Keir Starmer, is that even if they change their minds, the tone has been set. The suspicion is that this Labour government (as opposed to that of Tony Blair which famously declared it did) cannot abide well-off people. The targeting of non-doms joined VAT on private schools, refusal to abolish the 'tourist tax', removal of the winter fuel allowance, also hitting farmers with inheritance tax and other measures, all aimed at the more advantaged end of society.
It may prove hard to dislodge that view and comparisons will inevitably be made with nations that do not carry that ideological baggage. The hope must be that UK soft power will prevail, departures will cease and many of those who left will return. Wimbledon, set to begin on June 30, has never been so important.