sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Ross Stitt looks at Australia's new-rich tech companies and whether they will stay in the country or move themselves and their businesses to greener, and bigger, pastures

Business / opinion
Ross Stitt looks at Australia's new-rich tech companies and whether they will stay in the country or move themselves and their businesses to greener, and bigger, pastures
atlassian

In a short story from 1925, the American author F Scott Fitzgerald wrote that “the very rich are different from you and me”. A twenty-first century Fitzgerald might also observe that the very rich are different from how they used to be.

An increasing number of them make their money in the digital world. And they are making that money far more quickly, and at a much younger age, than previous accumulators of great fortunes.

In the most recent Forbes 400 list, five of the six richest Americans are major contributors to, and beneficiaries of, the digital revolution – Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google. Their wealth is built on four of the key hallmarks of the third industrial revolution – software, search engines, social media, and online retail.

Zuckerberg, Page, and Brin have been among the uberwealthy in the US for years and yet they are still only 37, 48, and 48 respectively. Bezos, the man vying with Elon Musk to be the richest person in the world, and perhaps the first trillionaire, is 57. Gates, the old man of the group at 65, has been a billionaire since 1986.

Are the superrich in Australia as nouveau and high tech as their American counterparts? No. But they’re working on it.

Historically, Australia’s rich lists have been dominated by media, manufacturing, property, and resources. According to this year’s lists from The Australian and The Australian Financial Review, that is still the case. However, change is coming much quicker than most would have predicted just a few years ago.

Nothing demonstrates that better than the individuals competing for the title of richest Australian. When the latest lists were published earlier this year, the country’s two iron ore magnates, Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest, held the top two spots at around A$30 billion each. They were comfortably ahead of the up-and-coming tech challengers, Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, co-founders of Atlassian Corp.

Just a few months later, there has been a dramatic turnaround. Thanks to a buoyant Atlassian share price, the Bloomberg Billionaires Index now estimates the net worth of Cannon-Brookes and Farquhar at around A$36 billion each (on 2 November). That puts them at number 60 and 61 in the world, well ahead of Rinehart and Forrest now languishing at 114 and 121 respectively.

Cannon-Brookes and Farquhar are still only 42 years old. They started Atlassian less than twenty years ago, but the company now has a market capitalisation of over A$150 billion.

In a fascinating comment on the changing nature of wealth in Australia, Farquhar paid A$71 million in 2017 to acquire what was then Australia’s most expensive house, ‘Elaine’. The vendor was John Fairfax and the house had been in the Fairfax family for 130 years. The family’s fortune was based on ownership of the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper and real property. They were the epitome of ‘old’ Sydney money.

To further demonstrate this changing of the guard, in 2018 Cannon-Brookes paid “close to A$100 million” to acquire the house next door to his mate Farquhar, setting a new Australian house price record. This time, the house was ‘Fairwater’, and it was acquired from the estate of Lady Mary Fairfax, another member of the Fairfax dynasty.

The rise of Australia’s new moneyed tech class is even more apparent in the ‘Young Rich List’ – those under forty years of age – published by The Australian Financial Review last week. The list is dominated by people whose wealth is made in the digital world – from software and cryptocurrencies to online retailing and ‘buy now pay later’ services.

Sitting atop that list with A$16.5 billion are married couple Melanie Perkins and Cliff Obrecht, aged 34 and 35. That figure is up from ‘only’ A$3.43 billion just twelve months ago. The source of their wealth is Canva, an unlisted company that develops graphic design software and is less than a decade old.

Following Perkins and Obrecht on the Young Rich List is Nicholas Molnar, co-founder of buy now pay later company Afterpay. At 31 years of age, his net worth is estimated at A$2.78 billion. Afterpay was only set up in 2014 and its market capitalisation on the ASX is A$35 billion. It is currently being taken over by US financial services giant Square Inc.      

And so it goes on down the list of Australia’s young rich. A host of newly minted fortunes forged primarily in the rapidly expanding tech sector. No doubt new names will appear on next year’s list as new ‘unicorns’ emerge.

The most striking feature of this list is the speed at which fortunes can now be made in Australia. Until recently, billionaire status was restricted to people (and almost exclusively men) who had either spent decades building business empires or inherited such empires. Shopping center mogul Frank Lowy of Westfield fame and property developer Harry Triguboff of Meriton Properties are examples of the former; media heirs James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch are examples of the latter.

Compare these trajectories with Nicholas Molnar who was a multibillionaire just six years after forming Afterpay. The top tech tycoons enjoy a rate of wealth accumulation unimaginable for traditional industrialists and property investors.

A key issue for Australia is whether the new rich will stay in the country or move themselves and their businesses to greener, and bigger, pastures.

Historically, most of the country’s major fortunes have been based on businesses inextricably connected to Australia – whether in the form of manufacturing plants, commercial and industrial property, mining rights, or local customers. These businesses have not been mobile.

Many tech businesses are different. A software company may start with Australian customers, but if the product is right, it is scalable and has international application. Crucially, it has no physical tie to Australia.

Given the dominance of the United States in the tech field, and the aggregation of tech talent in hubs like Silicon Valley, Austin, and Atlanta, the danger is that Australian success stories migrate to the land of the free.

Companies like Atlassian, Canva, and Afterpay show that Australia has the necessary domestic infrastructure of venture capital, professional services, and a suitably qualified workforce to nurture Australian-based tech start-ups. They also demonstrate that, once established, such companies can compete on the international stage from Australia and generate vast fortunes for their owners.      

So far, the signs are promising that Australia will keep many of its new rich. Atlassian, for example, is listed on the NASDAQ exchange, but its head office remains in Sydney and its cofounders are making a home for themselves and their families in the city’s eastern suburbs. The company’s new 40-level headquarters are being developed in the emerging ‘Tech Central’ just south of the Sydney CBD. According to Farquhar, “Tech Central will become home to thousands of new jobs and help create hundreds of Aussie-grown tech companies”.

Hopefully, in the post-Covid world, ‘working from home’ for Australia’s new rich will mean working from Australia.


Ross Stitt is a freelance writer and tax lawyer with a PhD in political science. He is a New Zealander based in Sydney. His articles are part of our 'Understanding Australia' series.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

19 Comments

Billionaires Are Not Morally Qualified To Shape Human Civilization

The United Nations has estimated that world hunger could be ended for an additional expenditure of $30 billion a year, with other estimates considerably lower. The other day Elon Musk became the first person ever to attain a net worth of over $300 billion. A year ago his net worth was $115 billion. According to Inequality.org, America’s billionaires have a combined net worth of $5.1 trillion, which is a 70 percent increase from their combined net worth of under $3 trillion at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

So we’re talking about a class which could easily put a complete halt to human beings dying of starvation on this planet by simply putting some of their vast fortunes toward making sure everyone gets enough to eat. But they don’t. This same class influences the policies, laws, and large-scale behavior of our species more than any other.

Up
5

"hand-wringing set to maximum"

Could not disagree more with this quote.  Let me present the problem in an alternate way.

Who should lead the world?  A) elected self-serving and self-interested folk who have no skills beyond self-belief and are consistently unable or unwilling to implement the half-thought-through ideas they were elected on or b) unelected self-serving and self-interested folk who have an extremely useful set of skills that allowed them to execute and actually implement world-changing efficiencies and build large capital bases.

Should we solve world-hunger?  Africa is on target to double in population over the next 30 years to nearly 2.5 BILLION people alone (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1224179/population-growth-in-africa/) there is absolutely no need to increase the rate of population increase.

This class of people is eminently more capable of making the right decisions on what to do with their wealth.

 

 

Up
5

Africa is on target to double in population over the next 30 years to nearly 2.5 BILLION people alone (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1224179/population-growth-in-africa/) there is absolutely no need to increase the rate of population increase.

So you're saying there's too many Africans so we shouldn't help the starving. That's messed up

Up
1

Yes that is what I am saying, you are quick. You can tell there are too many of them to be supported by their infrastructure due to......them being starving

 

Next you will be telling me you care about the environment or some other extreme of cognitive dissonance.

Up
5

In practice the best way to reduce fertility rates is to increase people's wealth and choices. Keeping them poor such that they are forced to have kids for the extra labour is counterproductive.

Up
2

I think education might have a bigger impact (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-between-womens-…) but education requires infrastructure.

Getting billionaires to pay for infrastructure is probably an easier sell as it would have better multiples of effect.

"For example, an education reform in Kenya that increased the length of primary education by a year resulted in increased female educational attainment, and delayed marriage and fertility. One randomized control trial found that reducing the cost of school uniforms in Kenyanot only reduced dropout rates, but also reduced teenage marriage and childbearing.   Another study found that increasing female education by one year in Nigeria reduced early fertility by 0.26 births."

Up
4

You forgot to add the right for women to make their own choices with their lives and fertility.

Women in control of their own lives and fertility have fewer children, have them later in life (even 5-10 years difference makes a huge difference within a couple of generations), and some choose to do something entirely different with their lives and choose a career over breeding. This true freedom of choice

Up
3

JustAnOpinion

'This class of people is eminently more capable of making the right decisions on what to do with their wealth.'

Indeed. They know how to structure their empires to pay as little tax as possible. You may find that admirable, but, and it's 'just an opinion', I don't. Just try to imagine a world in which there was a limit on personal wealth of say, just $1 billion, with everything above that going to a pool for the alleviation of malnutrition and disease. 

As the release of the Panama papers demonstrated so clearly, being wealthy seems so often to bring with it a disease of greed. Imagine another world-one with no tax havens. Can you do that?

 

 

,

 

Up
3

Tax havens are actually a double edged sword. 

On the one hand I agree they are widely abused, even if they are really only part of the problem of tax avoidance.  (weak tax law relating to inter-country IP licensing for example)

On the other they are essential for some elements of global consulting.  I used a shell company in a tax haven when I was consulting in Asia, at the time there was no ability for foreign nationals to own pure service companies in those countries and no double-taxation agreements with one of my potential countries of residence and lastly I was in fact a tax-refugee having not been domiciled in any country for longer than a year.  Without using a shell company I would not have been able to lend that developing nation my experience and that cost for them would have far-outweighed the loss of my tax. 

Up
2

JustAnOpinion,

You appear to be saying that your experience justifies the existence of tax havens. If so, I would respectfully suggest that the loss of your no doubt valuable consulting experience would be outweighed by the global gains from the disappearance of tax havens.

Up
0

‘Eight men now own the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the world. A top corporate CEO earns as much in a year as 10,000 garment factory workers in Bangladesh. And the world’s 10 biggest corporations together have revenue greater than the 180 poorest countries combined, according to a study published by Oxfam…

‘That means the eight men who have as much wealth as the world’s poorest half — 3.6 billion people
 What to do? Tax the rich…redistribute wealth…and level the playing field?
For those who subscribe to this way of thinking, of course it makes sense. But then, if they actually stop and look at reality, they’ll figure out that raising taxes on the super-rich wouldn’t make a jot of positive difference to the plight of the impoverished.
In fact, taxing the super-rich would more than likely increase poverty.
How so?
Simple. Look at the numbers. The combined wealth of the world’s eight richest people stands at US$426.2 billion. That’s a lot of money.
The poorest half of the world’s population amounts to 3.6 billion people.
Now let’s do the maths. If you divided the combined wealth of the world’s eight richest people by 3.6 billion, you’re left with…US$118.39.
In other words, if the US government immediately taxed the world’s eight wealthiest people at 100% of their wealth, the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people would receive the grand sum of US$118.39 each.

Up
2

Best thing if it stopped at source, rather than try to redistribute some puny amount from taxes, prevent it all going into the same basket at the outset.

Up
3

As said by the UN guy.  The UN is known as "the golden cage" - the salaries are so high nobody can leave.

Up
2

Given that 'billionaire' is denominated in nominal currency, comparing today's crop with those from decades ago is surely contaminated by Inflation???

Up
3

Which prompted a good use of the interweb. And as an aside....

That title ( of reichest person, ever) is believed to belong to Mansa Musa, the 14th Century West African ruler who was so rich his generous handouts wrecked an entire country's economy....So lavishly did he hand out gold in Cairo that his three-month stay caused the price of gold to plummet in the region for 10 years, wrecking the economy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47379458

Up
2

Zuckerberg, Page, and Brin have been among the uberwealthy in the US for years and yet they are still only 37, 48, and 48 respectively. Bezos, the man vying with Elon Musk to be the richest person in the world, and perhaps the first trillionaire, is 57. Gates, the old man of the group at 65, has been a billionaire since 1986.

Whistleblowers Torpedo Facebook and Pfizer: Who's Next?

It's becoming a routine story: a whistleblower emerges with copious documentation, revealing the ethical / managerial rot at the very top of Corporate America icons. Recently it was Facebook that was revealed as devoting far more resources to masking corporate guile than to actually improving longstanding ethical and quality issues.

With the increases in concentration of wealth there has been a culture of idolizing wealth, one example is how prosecutors no longer find it appropriate to put bankers and CEOs in jail. I think one side-effect of the culture changing has been an increased willingness to break the law to increase profits.

Up
1

People who think that somehow they deserve vast wealth beyond anything they could spend in several lifetimes are subject to a form of mental illness, and if it doesn't start with it, it sure as hell becomes it, you just have to look at these people for confirmation of that. I think many think their wealth can shield them from their own mortality

Up
0

So massive wealth accumulation in Oz (probably everywhere) is shifting ever more toward software, away from "media, manufacturing, property, and resources".

Can't help thinking these wealth mountains have been built on cheap energy and relatively easy to get metals.  The writing is on the wall then, on a scale of a decade or two.  Hopefully some of them do some good with the $ before the foundations rot out.  Nothing like billionaires for getting stuff done, for good or ill, but they are running out of time.

Up
0

Australia must surely be an amazing country.  If you have watched Australian "Sky News" channel as I have done now and again over the past decade, you should know by now that Australian researchers have discovered cures for every possible disease afflicting mankind. They will have developed the ultimate Covid vaccination, but won't tell us until they have the ok from America.

And of course their uber-wealthy are super-skilled at digging into the ground to extract many different types of rocks to sell, skills that far outweigh those needed to develop an IT start-up.

Up
0