Cities With the Most Billionaires

Name the urban areas of the world that are home to the greatest number of billionaires.
Data from the Forbes Billionaire list, November 2019
Quiz by relessness
Rate:
Last updated: November 19, 2019
First submittedNovember 14, 2013
Times taken58,140
Rating4.64
5:00
Enter answer here
0
 / 27 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
#
City
123
New York
90
San Francisco
77
Hong Kong
77
Guangzhou / Shenzhen
74
Moscow
60
Los Angeles
58
Beijing
56
London
48
Shanghai
#
City
38
Mumbai
36
Miami
36
Seoul
31
São Paulo
30
Singapore
29
Bangkok
25
Taipei
25
Dallas
23
Tokyo
#
City
22
Delhi
22
Istanbul
21
Hangzhou
21
Paris
19
Boston
17
Tel Aviv
16
Manila
16
Stockholm
15
Dubai
+2
Level 82
Nov 15, 2013
Good quiz. Missed Singapore and Sao Paulo.
+3
Level 82
Feb 25, 2015
Got 100% this time.
+23
Level 81
Mar 4, 2014
I'm surprised Washington DC isn't on the list, since so many billionaires shop there.
+45
Level 82
Mar 4, 2014
but they don't live there, only their purchases (congressmen) do.
+3
Level 65
Mar 17, 2016
+1
+6
Level 78
Mar 21, 2018
good one kal, but you may be a little conservative it could go all the way to that large white building n Pennsylvania Ave.
+12
Level 82
Apr 6, 2018
Now, yes. Putin is one of the richest men in the world. But in 2014 when I made this comment the White House was puppet free.
+4
Level 84
Nov 19, 2019
Oh, no...not puppet free. Just maybe a different hand(s) in the puppet
+5
Level 82
Jan 1, 2020
Which hands?
+4
Level 54
Mar 4, 2014
Hmmm....I used to think Moscow had the most billionaires....
+2
Level 73
Mar 4, 2014
Why? Why do I type Beijing, Hongkong, Guangzhou and Shenzen, and not Shanghai? Why?
+4
Level 54
Oct 11, 2016
I guessed just about every city-state EXCEPT Singapore... :(
+1
Level 51
Dec 3, 2020
So guessed "just about" every city state? There's three.
+2
Level 65
Jan 5, 2021
Why wouldn't you guess Vatican City they have such a big population they're bound to have a lot of billionaires.
+3
Level 61
Mar 4, 2014
Really good quiz. I'm surprised that Moscow has that many millionaires. Also very surprised that there are no Swiss or German cities on the list.
+7
Level ∞
Nov 19, 2019
Switzerland and Germany have lots of billionaires but they are spread all over.
+1
Level 76
Mar 4, 2014
I missed London...probably the only person. Tried Bentonville because there has to be some Waltons still near the area.
+1
Level 65
Mar 17, 2016
There are, but not that many Waltons to overcome the minimum on this list.

Bentonville is a nice little jewel set in an area surrounded by what some (or many) may call "rednecks."

+3
Level 90
Mar 4, 2014
Germany = Taxes and in Switzerland there is their money but not themself :D
+1
Level 33
Mar 5, 2014
damn it didn't get Shenzhen. I hate missing ones with the lowest guess rates.
+5
Level 82
Mar 5, 2014
With so many "job creators" living in each of these places I wonder why they don't have 0% unemployment. Bizarre.
+1
Level 61
Mar 7, 2014
Gee, I wonder is it's because capital isn't tied to one specific geographic vicinity?
+5
Level 82
Mar 9, 2014
Right, because it couldn't possibly be that the talking point was complete and utter horsepoop designed to make us think that getting fleeced by the wealthy is something desirable.
+1
Level 24
Mar 8, 2014
surpised no german cities and there is dubai
+2
Level 82
Mar 9, 2014
The emirate of Dubai doesn't have much oil left. They've been trying to build up other sectors of their economy, including as a hub for commercial travel, shipping, finance, and perhaps most notably- as a vacation or residence destination that specifically caters to the super wealthy.
+1
Level 66
Feb 13, 2021
It isn't that oil is running out in Dubai - there never was much oil in Dubai. Most of the oil in UAE was in Abu Dhabi the whole time. It's just that Dubai arose as the good hub to trade middle eastern oil which caused Dubai's wealth. And that switch towards tourism, etc is not only done by Dubai, but done in the UAE as a whole.
+3
Level 73
Mar 19, 2014
Mumbai? Really? I guess I have a very negative view of Indian cities.
+1
Level 78
Sep 1, 2014
I typed Delhi and Kolkata then thought, "That's silly, there won't be any in India." That's what I get for thinking when I'm not equipped for it.
+4
Level 82
Jan 3, 2015
Many of the most impoverished countries in the world also have very extreme wealth disparity and concentration. A small number of people at the top echelons of society are obscenely rich- while the millions and millions of people at the lower rungs are abjectly poor. This is certainly true in India, and very apparent in a place like Mumbai which is the country's economic center and home to many of India's wealthiest people. Also consider the enormous size and population of the country and imagine how much of an opportunity that presents for entrepreneurs who successfully tap into the market from the inside.
+3
Level 46
Jun 15, 2017
Mumbai is also home to Bollywood and the richest man in India- whose 25 story skyscraper mansion towers over slums.
+2
Level 82
Jul 26, 2019
Can't buy taste, apparently. That's one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen.
+1
Level 60
Aug 4, 2020
I don't think you do
+1
Level 64
Apr 1, 2014
I don't know why people are surprised that there are no German cities. I think Germany might have about 10 billionaires altogether.
+2
Level 44
Sep 1, 2014
According to Forbes, Germany has the third most billionaires behind the US (50) and China (37) with 26. Perhaps they all live in the countryside.
+8
Level 47
Sep 1, 2014
Unlike France or the UK, Germany hasn't got an obvious major city (e.g. London or Paris). Instead it has five cities all with similar importance. As a result, the billionaires are spread relatively evenly out - rather than clustered into one city.
+6
Level 83
Apr 20, 2019
Germany always has been a very polycentric nation. It's why the 100s of independent duchies and city-states never unified until 1871. Also, the technical city limits in Germany aren't very inclusive so usually more people will live in separate suburbs instead of the legal city itself.
+1
Level 60
Apr 16, 2015
Got 100% on the 2nd try but accidentally hit backspace and lost the results before they were recorded. Tried three times more before 100% again. :/
+1
Level 34
Mar 16, 2016
Good quiz. I have submitted my first quiz now
+8
Level 66
Mar 17, 2016
I'd like to pound Bloomberg's smug 1% face into a bloody mess. Human garbage and a criminal, like the rest of the billionaires. If you've got a billion dollars, damn sure you didn't come by all of it honestly or ethically...with the possible exception of Warren Buffet...but I'll remain suspicious.
+13
Level ∞
Mar 18, 2016
Did a billionaire steal your girlfriend or something?
+5
Level 30
Mar 22, 2016
Class envy won't give you peace of mind. Striving to be the best you can be will.
+5
Level 84
Dec 8, 2016
Wow Larry. Someone crapped in your cornflakes this morning. You might want to check that self-righteousness at the door. Roxy has it right.
+8
Level 59
Nov 19, 2019
Most billionaires are dirty people. Look at Epstein. Look at Zuckerburg. Look at Rockefeller. I could go on and on and on
+9
Level 85
Jan 1, 2020
Look at Trump.
+2
Level 73
Apr 3, 2020
Yep. Look at a few cherry-picked billionaires to prove they are all dirty.
+4
Level 50
Jan 1, 2020
There is absolutely no way anyone should have billions and not share. The way these people buy their enormous mansions and yachts and private jets and the carbon footprint of their excessive lifestyle on the world is disgusting to me. And when there are people starving too.
+1
Level 47
Mar 21, 2016
Can't believe I missed London – and I live here!
+1
Level 76
May 20, 2016
Quizmaster: you have an apostrophe decorating Delhi (it appears as Delhi'). The type-in allows Delhi without the apostrophe, so life will go on if you don't fix it.
+1
Level 47
Oct 12, 2016
Fixed!
+1
Level 59
May 10, 2017
Surprised Dubai isn't here!
+1
Level 66
Mar 16, 2018
I'm dubious there's so few listed for Tokyo or Osaka
+1
Level 84
May 5, 2018
according to forbes (via wikipedia) there are 34 billionaires (18 individuals and 14 family holdings owning a billion which may individually be less than a billion). if 16 are in tokyo less than 15 must be in osaka to make the list. for the low overall numbers, blame a slow economy since the 80s.
+1
Level 35
Jul 29, 2018
Countries like China, India and Brazil where more than 80% of the population live like pigs in the mud featuring a list like this is like a piercing and loud yell to the ears of the human kind. I can hear them hienas laughing at all these people struggling in the mud.
+4
Level 60
Nov 22, 2019
Don't know about China and Brazil, but I'm living in India from my birth and I stay in a 2-storeyed bungalow owned and built by my dad <( ̄︶ ̄)> who earns nearly ₹100,000 per month and my mom owns a jewellery business 📿 and most people we know lives like us only maybe in condos or apartments but not in mud.

Maybe the definition of pig 🐷 in your country is different...

+5
Level 55
Jan 1, 2020
200 years ago neither China, India, nor Brazil had billionaires, and the vast majority still lived in the mud. The proliferation of billionaires shows that these countries have grown economically stronger, and in all of these countries people live better than they did 50 years ago. Prosperity is the anomaly, not poverty!
+1
Level 65
Apr 5, 2020
You do surprise me, I have always imagined that India was home to unbelievable, fabulous concentrations of wealth in the early days of the Raj. I was also under the impression that untold wealth found its way into the hands of the ruling classes in China in days of yore.
+1
Level 59
Jun 12, 2019
What about Zurich?
+1
Level ∞
Nov 19, 2019
Update 2019. As far as I know, this quiz is now the only accurate list of its nature on the internet. The difference between this list and others is that I combined the billionaires by urban area, not city. This makes a big difference because the source data sometimes uses the urban area but sometimes lists a specific suburb, leading to distortions.
+2
Level 84
Nov 19, 2019
So what suddenly attracted all those billionaires to Hangzhou? It's pretty, but...
+2
Level 39
Sep 17, 2020
No one has suddenly attracted them there per se. They've most likely been at Alibaba (which is headquartered in Hangzhou) since the early days and have become billionaires post-IPO and the surge in the Alibaba share price.
+1
Level 48
Nov 20, 2019
I never expect that Manila would be on this list and I am from the philippines. I tought we are so poor that there's no way we have billionares. hah
+1
Level 67
Jan 1, 2020
I certainly don't know enough about the Philippines or Manila to know whether this is the case there, but often times when an area is so poor it's because of the billionaires there leeching the wealth out of the community.
+1
Level 39
Sep 17, 2020
The existence of billionaires is only partly predicated on the wealth of a country. Wealth disparity within a country is arguably as important a factor.
+1
Level 73
Jan 1, 2020
I MISSED HANGZHOU even though I was there just two days ago!!!!!!!!!
+1
Level 73
Jan 1, 2020
Interesting how Forbes combines Guangzhou with Shenzhen in their data.
+1
Level 68
Feb 5, 2020
I thought of that too. It is also surprising that Guangzhou/Shenzhen has 77 billionaires and that Hong Kong has another 77. Combined, that is by far the largest amount of billionaires.
+1
Level 39
Sep 17, 2020
It is basically a single urban agglomeration now all the way up from Shenzhen through Dongguan into Guangzhou.
+3
Level 66
Jan 1, 2020
Surprised there's no Chicago (being the third biggest city in the US and home to many corporations) or Seattle (being a pretty major tech hub and home to people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos)
+4
Level 50
Jan 1, 2020
No one should have that much money when others are starving. Share the wealth!
+1
Level 51
Dec 3, 2020
Communism?
+9
Level 67
Jan 1, 2020
Billionaires should not exist.
+3
Level 73
Apr 3, 2020
Says Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist.
+1
Level 82
Jul 30, 2020
He's not wrong.
+1
Level 63
Dec 8, 2020
There are many reasons someone can become a billionaire, and some ways are definitely more desirable to society than others. The strongest argument for billionaires in my view is that society benefits from large businesses (though there are some downsides compared to smaller ones, I have used Facebook, Google and Amazon partially because of the reliability implied by the brand and also unique services in the case of Google) and in order for them to be run efficiently, somebody needs to be at the top making decisions. Just by the amount of power that individual has they must be a billionaire in practice even if we find some way to change this legally. I'm generally in favour of strong restrictions on these companies by governments (though in practice this is hard due to their multinational nature) but I'm not convinced that enough intervention to stop Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg being (in the meaningful sense) billionaires is required or necessarily beneficial.
+1
Level 63
Dec 8, 2020
On the other hand, Philip Green shouldn't be a billionaire. Though a free market will probably achieve this soon enough in the form of him wasting the money he drained from his businesses.
+3
Level 45
Oct 1, 2020
Envy and laziness should not exist
+1
Level 51
Feb 16, 2020
How did I miss NYC?!
+2
Level 47
Mar 6, 2020
Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over. I fell like a $1 million check would be life-changing for most people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST.
+1
Level 50
Mar 9, 2020
Good point. And he is only one of the billionaires. Think how much could be done with just a fraction of their collective wealth.
+1
Level 47
Mar 10, 2020
Perhaps, collectively, they could have given every American $100 million each.
+1
Level 85
Mar 9, 2020
I don't know why he even bothered joining the race. Not only did he enter so late but he's also not as liberal as some people might think.

That and the fact that he's worth nearly twenty times more than our current president might lean into why he's not very popular.

+4
Level 82
Mar 11, 2020
Giving every American $1 million would take $327 trillion.... that's currently about 4 times the total GDP of the planet Earth. Mike Bloomberg doesn't have that much money. You might want to check your math.
+1
Level 47
Mar 12, 2020
Ok, I might have been wrong about the campaign money, but he could have easily given everyone a million dollars still.
+3
Level 73
Apr 3, 2020
@HK50 Huh? No, that would take $326 trillion; that's currently about 4 times the total GDP of the planet Earth.
+2
Level 82
Sep 2, 2020
No he couldn't. Nobody has that much money, including Mike Bloomberg. It would be approximately 10x the total estimated amount of liquid currency in the entire world.
+3
Level 39
Sep 17, 2020
This is how fake news starts. Your arithmetic is about 6 zeros out. $500 million divided by 327 million people is $1.53 per person, barely enough for a small fries at McDonalds.
+4
Level 82
Nov 1, 2020
I wouldn't mind having a small fry from McDonald's. But I'd rather have a competent president.
+1
Level 45
Apr 3, 2020
That's not the point. Michael Bloomberg owns more money than the bottom half of America put together and has chosen to spend his money on a useless political campaign fantasy. Anyone that has that much wealth should not be hoarding it while others struggle to survive on a meager $7.25 an hour. 40 percent of America (that's roughly 131 million people mind you) cannot afford a 400 dollar surprise expense. Meanwhile Mike Bloomberg could afford to buy the New York Met's (valued at 2.6 billion) without breaking his bank. If that sounds fair to anyone shame on you.
+2
Level 82
Jul 30, 2020
Whether it's fair or not it doesn't change the fact that, even as obscenely wealthy as he is, Bloomberg still is not wealthy enough to alone solve the issue of poverty in the world or even just America. If you took all of Mike's money and divided it evenly among every resident of the United States, we would each get $172. Less than half of what it would cost to cover your 400 dollar surprise.

That's not to say that he shouldn't be taxed higher, or that the system shouldn't be reformed to produce more wealth and income equality (points that Bloomberg himself would agree with)... but still... he's not capable of fixing poverty alone. He couldn't even make a dent. Really the federal government is the only entity that would have any hope of doing that.

+4
Level ∞
Jul 31, 2020
Most people are innumerate. They have no idea how large numbers work. For example, a member of the New York Times editorial board claimed that, with the money that Bloomberg spent on the election, he could give every American $1 million dollars. (In reality he could have given everyone less than 2 dollars). When this New York Times staffer appeared on TV to state this incredibly wrong fact, TV host Brian Williams didn't even question it. It's sad that even among the so-called "elite" parts of society most people lack the ability to do even basic math. Most of our policy decisions are driven by emotion.
+2
Level 82
Sep 2, 2020
I was once trying to make myself feel better about not always giving out money to all the people in the Philippines who would beg me for it, even though I did give out large amounts of money to help a few specific people pay for needed surgeries, et cetera. I calculated that if I took the total amount of money that I had saved working in the KSA, and divided it among all of the people in the country that were living in extreme poverty, I could give each one half a penny.
+1
Level 63
Dec 8, 2020
In my opinion, more important than the lack of ability in basic arithmetic is a lack of scepticism to question the conclusions. I can immediately see that $500 million divided by 327 million people is between 1 and 2 dollars per person without having to think, but I wouldn't have much problem with people who couldn't also immediately perform that approximate calculation publishing news. What I do have a problem with is when people don't stop to think that there obviously isn't even enough money in the American economy for everyone to have much more than $1 million, or else the average person would be a millionaire already (including children), which they should be able to see is not the case (unless, ironically, they live in an elite bubble and hardly associate with anyone outside of it).