Why personal wealth in Australia is rising faster than other nations

The average wealth of Australian adults grew by nearly 10 percent last year, more than double the pace of 56 other countries, and we are now the second-wealthiest per capita in the world, according to the 2024 UBS Global Wealth Report. The median wealth of Australians is now USD$261,805 per person (AUD$387,612). The wealthiest people live in Luxembourg where the average resident is worth USD$372,258 (AUD$551,142).

UBS says the bulk of our rising wealth over the past year has come from gains in property values and superannuation. More than half of our wealth is in ‘non-financial’ or relatively illiquid assets such as bricks and mortar. This is unusual relative to our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region, where 60 percent of personal wealth is held in shares, bonds, mutual funds and savings accounts.

Australia also has the world’s third-largest population of millionaires. According to UBS, 1,936,114 Australians are millionaires in US dollar terms, which equates to 10 percent of the population. By 2028, UBS forecasts that Australia will have almost 400,000 more millionaires at 2,334,015 people. Of the 56 countries covered in the report, the United States has the most millionaires at 21,951,319 people. This cohort is forecast to expand by almost 3.5 million people to 25,425,792 by 2028.

Property has delivered exceptional capital gains to Australian homeowners since the onset of the pandemic. Sydney home values are 28 percent higher today than they were in early 2020, according to CoreLogic data. Home values in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth are more than 60 percent higher. In Hobart, property values are 28 percent higher, and in Canberra they are 32 percent higher. Melbourne home values are 11 percent higher.

UBS explains that rising wealth tends to go hand-in-hand with economic development. Since the Global Financial Crisis, wealth has risen fastest in the Asia-Pacific region at nearly 177 percent over 15 years. This has occurred alongside 192 percent growth in debt, however, UBS notes that “it is not uncommon for emerging economies to experience fast growth in credit as the financial system develops and matures”.

While global wealth is steadily rising, it is doing so at a slower pace. There are many reasons for this, including smaller rates of growth as countries become wealthier and their economies mature. Also, countries with aging populations tend to see falling rates of economic activity, which affects both personal and national wealth. Between 2000 and 2010, Australia’s annual compound growth rate in wealth was 15 percent. Between 2010 and 2023, it shrank to four percent. China’s annual growth rate has fallen from 19 percent between 2000 and 2010 to eight percent between 2010 and 2013.

The report also looked at wealth inequality and assigned a score of between zero and 100 to each of the 56 nations. A low score indicated more equality and a high score indicated greater inequality. Australia has an inequality score of 51 now. This is forecast to grow to 54 by 2028. Countries with a similar score include Japan (50), Italy (50), Belgium (51) and Finland (53). Saudi Arabia had the highest wealth inequality score at 89, followed by the United Arab Emirates (88), United States (76) and Sweden (74).

Berkshire began liquidating its big stake in the banking company in mid-July—and has already unloaded about 15% of its interest. The selling has been fairly aggressive and has totaled about $6 billion. (Berkshire still holds 883 million shares, an 11.3% interest worth $35 billion based on its most recent filing on Aug. 30.)

The selling has prompted speculation about when CEO Warren Buffett, who oversees Berkshire’s $300 billion equity portfolio, will stop. The sales have depressed Bank of America stock, which has underperformed peers since Berkshire began its sell program. The stock closed down 0.9% Thursday at $40.14.

It’s possible that Berkshire will stop selling when the stake drops to 700 million shares. Taxes and history would be the reasons why.

Berkshire accumulated its Bank of America stake in two stages—and at vastly different prices. Berkshire’s initial stake came in 2017 , when it swapped $5 billion of Bank of America preferred stock for 700 million shares of common stock via warrants it received as part of the original preferred investment in 2011.

Berkshire got a sweet deal in that 2011 transaction. At the time, Bank of America was looking for a Buffett imprimatur—and the bank’s stock price was weak and under $10 a share.

Berkshire paid about $7 a share for that initial stake of 700 million common shares. The rest of the Berkshire stake, more than 300 million shares, was mostly purchased in 2018 at around $30 a share.

With Bank of America stock currently trading around $40, Berkshire faces a high tax burden from selling shares from the original stake of 700 million shares, given the low cost basis, and a much lighter tax hit from unloading the rest. Berkshire is subject to corporate taxes—an estimated 25% including local taxes—on gains on any sales of stock. The tax bite is stark.

Berkshire might own $2 to $3 a share in taxes on sales of high-cost stock and $8 a share on low-cost stock purchased for $7 a share.

New York tax expert Robert Willens says corporations, like individuals, can specify the particular lots when they sell stock with multiple cost levels.

“If stock is held in the custody of a broker, an adequate identification is made if the taxpayer specifies to the broker having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold and, within a reasonable time thereafter, confirmation of such specification is set forth in a written document from the broker,” Willens told Barron’s in an email.

He assumes that Berkshire will identify the high-cost Bank of America stock for the recent sales to minimize its tax liability.

If sellers don’t specify, they generally are subject to “first in, first out,” or FIFO, accounting, meaning that the stock bought first would be subject to any tax on gains.

Buffett tends to be tax-averse—and that may prompt him to keep the original stake of 700 million shares. He could also mull any loyalty he may feel toward Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan , whom Buffett has praised in the past.

Another reason for Berkshire to hold Bank of America is that it’s the company’s only big equity holding among traditional banks after selling shares of U.S. Bancorp , Bank of New York Mellon , JPMorgan Chase , and Wells Fargo in recent years.

Buffett, however, often eliminates stock holdings after he begins selling them down, as he did with the other bank stocks. Berkshire does retain a smaller stake of about $3 billion in Citigroup.

There could be a new filing on sales of Bank of America stock by Berkshire on Thursday evening. It has been three business days since the last one.

Berkshire must file within two business days of any sales of Bank of America stock since it owns more than 10%. The conglomerate will need to get its stake under about 777 million shares, about 100 million below the current level, before it can avoid the two-day filing rule.

It should be said that taxes haven’t deterred Buffett from selling over half of Berkshire’s stake in Apple this year—an estimated $85 billion or more of stock. Barron’s has estimated that Berkshire may owe $15 billion on the bulk of the sales that occurred in the second quarter.

Berkshire now holds 400 million shares of Apple and Barron’s has argued that Buffett may be finished reducing the Apple stake at that round number, which is the same number of shares that Berkshire has held in Coca-Cola for more than two decades.

Buffett may like round numbers—and 700 million could be just the right figure for Bank of America.

Why personal wealth in Australia is rising faster than other nations

We are now the second-wealthiest per capita in the world

When will Berkshire Hathaway stop selling Bank of America stock?