1. Author: Deborah Hardoon, Senior Researcher, Oxfam Link to paper http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/wealth-having-it-all-and-wanting-more-338125 OXFAM RESEARCH: Methodology and data sources January 2015

2. There were two main external data sources used for this analysis: 1 Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014 https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/news-and-expertise/research/credit-suisse-research- institute/publications.html Data was extracted from the 2014 report and a STATA file which included revised calculations for global wealth and wealth shares dating back to 2000. 2 Forbes billionaires 2002–2014 http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Data was extracted from the Forbes billionaires list as of March each year, from 2002 to 2014.

3. By 2016, the top 1% of people in the world will have more wealth than the bottom 99%. 80 people now have the same wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population, down from 388 in 2010. 20% of the Forbes billionaires are listed as having interests or activities relating to the financial and insurance sectors. Billionaires with interests and activities in the pharmaceutical sector saw the largest percentage increase in their wealth 2013–2014 During 2013, companies from the financial and insurance sectors spent $550m on lobbying policy makers in Washington and Brussels alone. The most prolific lobbying activities in the US are on budget and tax issues

4. BY 2016 THE TOP 1% WILL HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED The concept: We know that the top 1% have a huge amount of wealth, but is this amount increasing, and what does this suggest for the future? Data sources: Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook (2000–2014)

5. BY 2016 THE TOP 1% WILL HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN THE REST OF US COMBINED The results:

6. BY 2016 THE TOP 1% WILL HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED What does this tell us? The last few years have set us on a worrying trend. Since the end of the financial crisis, many people have struggled to regain jobs and to manage under austerity packages. In contrast, the richest appear to be increasing their wealth during this period, capitalizing on the increase in asset values that only they have access to. There is an urgent need to halt and reverse this trend. There are already extremely high levels of wealth inequality; let’s not let it get any worse.

7. BY 2016 THE TOP 1% WILL HAVE MORE WEALTH THAN THE REST OF US COMBINED The critique: ‘Why extrapolate only from 2010? Wealth inequality was higher in 2000.’ The wealth share of the 1% has been extremely high for the last decade: worryingly high levels in their own right. 2008/2009 marks a clear inflection point, following a real economic shock to the global economy. After this point, we can identify a clear upward tick; our projection warns what will happen in the next few years, if the trend continues.

8. 80 PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE SAME WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM 50% The concept: In 2014 in Davos, Oxfam’s paper ‘Working for the Few’ and the famous 85 stat went viral. Now let’s look at extreme wealth inequality over time...Working for the Few Data sources: Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook (2000–2014) Forbes list of billionaires (2000–2014) Calculation: 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) Bottom 50% Total global wealth Wealth of bottom 50% 2014-0.30.1 0.30.50.7%$263 tr$1.8 tr

9. 80 PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE SAME WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM 50% Calculations:

10. 80 PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE SAME WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM 50% The results:

11. 80 PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE SAME WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM 50% What does this tell us? A completely absurd distribution of the world’s wealth; inefficient and unjust A minority of people have more wealth than they could possibly know what to do with, and it keeps growing Half of the population have negative, zero or small financial and non- financial assets. This leaves them vulnerable to shocks; unable to own property or assets that can support their livelihoods

12. 80 PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE SAME WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM 50% The critique: ‘7% of the poorest 10% of people on the planet live in the US’ Regional composition of global wealth distribution 2014 Source: Credit Suisse, Global Wealth Databook 2014, https://publications.credit- suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02 https://publications.credit- suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=5521F296-D460-2B88-081889DB12817E02 SS

13. 80 PEOPLE NOW HAVE THE SAME WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM 50% The critique: ‘The bottom 10% have negative wealth; people with negative wealth are not necessarily the poorest.’ This is an analysis of net wealth: complex and hard to measure, but for which we have the most reliable data from a credible source. Negative wealth is an important part of the wealth picture. We compare the very top of the distribution with the bottom 50%; 3.5 billion people, 90% of whom live in developing countries. The negative wealth of the bottom 10% is a quarter of 1% of global wealth. The top 10% have 87% of global wealth; the gross disparity of wealth distribution is clear. 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) Bottom 50% Total global Wealth Wealth of bottom 50% 2014-0.30.1 0.30.50.7%$263 tr$1.8 tr

14. 20% OF BILLIONAIRES HAVE INTRESTS AND/OR ACTIVITIES IN THE FINACE/INSURANCE SECTOR The concept: Wealth comes from somewhere, we want to unpack where the wealthiest have made their money. Data: Forbes billionaires 2013 and 2014 Calculations: Billionaires Wealth 2013 ($mil) Wealth 2014 ($mil) Sector code (Oxfam coding) Origin of wealth (Forbes)Country Bill Gates 6700076000TechMicrosoftUnited States Carlos Slim Helu & family 7300072000TelecomstelecomMexico Amancio Ortega 5700064000RetailZaraSpain Warren Buffett 5350058200FinanceBerkshire HathawayUnited States Larry Ellison 4300048000TechOracleUnited States Charles Koch 3400040000DiversifieddiversifiedUnited States David Koch 3400040000DiversifieddiversifiedUnited States Sheldon Adelson 2650038000EntertainmentcasinosUnited States Christy Walton & family 2820036700RetailWal-MartUnited States Jim Walton 2670034700RetailWal-MartUnited States

15. 20% OF BILLIONAIRES HAVE INTRESTS AND/OR ACTIVITIES IN THE FINACE/INSURANCE SECTOR Results: Sector Count of billionaires in 2013 and 2014 Sum of wealth 2013 ($m) Sum of wealth 2014 ($m) Increase in wealth ($m) Increase in wealth % Grand total176154326106447190101458019% Finance326998200114750014930015% Real estate160391650413050214005% Retail15565710078705012995020% Tech13144600062744018144041% Extractives118453100437150-15950-4% Product11022550032740010190045% Pharma951700502499507990047% Diversified95377650395050174005% Entertainment671709002483007740045%

16. 20% OF BILLIONAIRES HAVE INTRESTS AND/OR ACTIVITIES IN THE FINANCE/INSURANCE SECTOR Results: Billionaire Wealth in 2013 $bn Wealth in 2014 $bn Increase in wealth Source of wealthNationalityGender Warren Buffett 53.558.29% Berkshire HathawayUnited StatesM Michael Bloomberg 27.033.022%Bloomberg LPUnited StatesM Carl Icahn 20.024.523% Leveraged buyoutsUnited StatesM Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud 20.020.42%InvestmentsSaudi ArabiaM George Soros 19.223.020%Hedge fundsUnited StatesM Joseph Safra 15.916.01%BankingBrazilM Luis Carlos Sarmiento 13.914.22%BankingColombiaM Mikhail Prokhorov 13.010.9-16%InvestmentsRussiaM Alexey Mordashov 12.810.5-18% Steel, investmentsRussiaM Abigail Johnson 12.717.336% Money managementUnited StatesF

17. BILLIONAIRES WITH INTRESTS/ACTIVITIES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL/HEALTHCARE SECTOR SAW THE LARGEST % INCREASE IN WEALTH 2013–2014 Results: Billionaire Wealth in 2013 $bn Wealth in 2014 $bn Increase in wealth Source of wealthNationalityGender Ernesto Bertarelli & family 11.012.09% Biotech, investments SwitzerlandM Dilip Shanghvi9.412.836%PharmaceuticalsIndiaM Hansjoerg Wyss8.710.521%Medical devicesSwitzerlandM Patrick Soon- Shiong 8.010.025%Pharmaceuticals United States M Ludwig Merckle7.18.621%PharmaceuticalsGermanyM Stefano Pessina6.410.463%DrugstoresItalyM Thomas Frist Jr & family 4.86.127%Healthcare United States M Gayle Cook4.05.845%Medical devices United States F Curt Engelhorn4.0 0%PharmaceuticalsGermanyM Cyrus Poonawalla 3.94.926%Biotech/vaccinesIndiaM

18. 20% OF BILLIONAIRES HAVE INTRESTS AND/OR ACTIVITIES IN THE FINANCE/INSURANCE SECTOR What does this tell us? The financial sector is highly lucrative to individuals with activities and interests in this sector, a sector that is widely thought to have contributed to the global economic crisis, which has cost many ordinary people their homes and jobs. This raises the question of whether the accumulation of wealth by a few is paid for elsewhere in the economy. Indeed research from the IMF finds that the US subsidizes their ‘too big to fail’ banks to the tune of $83bn annually. Billionaires from the pharmaceutical sector have increased their wealth by $80bn in a single year. Meanwhile drugs continue to be prohibitively expensive for many in need. This is a clear indication that corporate profit and extreme wealth accumulation are prioritized over access to healthcare and medicines.

19. $550m WAS SPENT BY FINANCE/INSURANCE SECTOR LOBBYISTS IN BRUSSELS AND WASHINGTON IN 2013 The concept: ‘Working for the Few’ found evidence to suggest that wealth is also associated with political influence. Lobbying is one of the mechanisms that individuals, companies and other organizations use to influence policy makers directly.Working for the Few Data sources: Washington: Centre for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory Calculations: $400m in Washington $150m in Brussels

20. $550m WAS SPENT BY FINANCE/INSURANCE SECTOR LOBBYISTS IN BRUSSELS AND WASHINGTON IN 2013 Results: Annual lobbying on finance/insurance/real estate Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=F&year=2014 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=F&year=2014

21. $550m WAS SPENT BY FINANCE/INSURANCE SECTOR LOBBYISTS IN BRUSSELS AND WASHINGTON IN 2013 What does this tell us? This is just the tip of the iceberg. Lobbying can take place at all levels of government in all countries. And this is just one channel that people and companies in positions of power and wealth can use to exercise their influence. For profit-oriented companies, one can only assume that there will be a financial return from this investment that will accrue through policies favourable to their interests. It seems to be working, if you associate this with the accumulation of wealth at the top. Ordinary people do not have the same access to policy influencing.

22. THE MOST PROLIFIC LOBBYING ACTIVITIES IN THE US ARE ON BUDGET AND TAX ISSUES Results: Number of lobbying cases filed against each issue in the US in 2013 Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2013&indexType=uhttps://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2013&indexType=u IssueNumber of clients Federal budget and appropriations3219 Tax1951 Health issues1898 Transportation1371 Defence1297 Energy and nuclear power1238

23. THE MOST PROLIFIC LOBBYING ACTIVITIES IN THE US ARE ON BUDGET AND TAX ISSUES What does this tell us? Companies are lobbying on the issues that affect the public; issues directly associated with how the government spends its money and how it raises its taxes Spending money lobbying on tax suggests that these companies with a profit incentive would hope to be able to reduce their tax burden, which means less money available for public services or more taxes raised from elsewhere in the economy. Voices and influence on these fundamentally public issues must be more balanced. © Oxfam International January 2015www.oxfam.org