Rules
Part of Six decisions behind richest rankings
Richest rankings methodology: a six-item checklist
Richest rankings methodology: a six-item checklist for celebrity net worth lists covering eligibility, valuation, liabilities, and uncertainty.
A celebrity net worth publisher's richest rankings methodology is easier to assess with a checklist than with general claims about care. This guide offers six disclosures to look for, rather than evaluating any one publisher's page. A method is a set of instructions. A page describing an attitude toward evidence is something else, and the two are easy to confuse.
What to take away
- A method is instructions someone else can follow, not a description of care.
- Published statements usually name source types without naming sources.
- The test is whether a second person could rebuild one entry.
Six things a real method states
The population. Exactly who is eligible: individuals or families, living or including estates, which countries, what threshold. Without this the ordering is not defined.
Six things a real method states
- Populationexactly who is eligible
- Quantityassets or net assets
- Valuation dateone date stated
- Valuation ruleshow each asset priced
- Liabilitieswhat was obtained and assumed
- Uncertaintystated interval per entry
The quantity. Assets, assets minus liabilities, or something else. Named once and applied consistently, not swapped between paragraphs.
The valuation date. One date for everything priced in a market, stated on the page.
The valuation rules. How each asset class is priced, including private companies, property and stakes in partnerships. If a multiple is applied, from which comparables and chosen how.
The treatment of liabilities. What was obtained, what was assumed, and what the assumption does to the result. This section separates a method from a gesture.
The uncertainty. A stated interval for each entry, derived from the assumptions rather than attached decoratively.
Use all six as a test: a statement covering them gives readers more to assess than a general description of intent.
Illustrative methodology language and what it leaves unclear
| Typical phrasing | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| We consult filings, court records and industry sources | Which categories were consulted, not which documents |
| Figures are reviewed by a team of researchers | That work happened, not what it produced |
| We adjust for debt where known | That liabilities are handled only when visible, which is rarely |
| Private companies are valued using comparable multiples | Not which comparables, nor on what date |
| Estimates are as of publication | Not a valuation date, since publication is a range of days |
| Subjects are given an opportunity to comment | That the input differs between people who engage and people who do not |
These examples are illustrative, not quotations from named publishers. Each row describes something a careful person would do. None of the phrases lets a reader rebuild an entry, and rebuilding is what distinguishes a method from a promise.
What statements say vs establish
Typical phrasing
- Consult filings
- We consult filings and court records
- Reviewed by team
- Figures reviewed by researchers
- Adjust for debt
- We adjust for debt where known
- Comparable multiples
- Private companies valued by multiples
- As of publication
- Estimates are as of publication
- Chance to comment
- Subjects may comment
What it establishes
- Consult filings
- Categories consulted, not documents
- Reviewed by team
- Work happened, not what it produced
- Adjust for debt
- Liabilities handled only when visible
- Comparable multiples
- Not which comparables, nor date
- As of publication
- Not a valuation date, a range of days
- Chance to comment
- Input differs by who engages
How to apply the reproducibility test
To apply the test to a celebrity net worth entry, take one entry from a ranking and try to reconstruct it from the methodology statement alone. Which documents were held? Which prices at which date? Which multiple against which comparables? What was assumed about debt?
This is a test readers can apply to an individual publisher's page, not a finding about any named ranking. Statistical agencies publish their designs in full. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does so in its Handbook of Methods, an example of methodological documentation rather than a rulebook for wealth rankings.
Survey researchers also have disclosure conventions. The American Association for Public Opinion Research sets them out in its disclosure standards. They offer a comparison for the kinds of limitations a method can disclose; they are not a standard for richest rankings.
Subject comments and net worth estimates
One item deserves separate attention because it is a methodological problem rather than an editorial nicety. When subjects are invited to comment, some do and some do not, and the two groups end up measured by different processes.
A person who engages may correct errors, supply context, and argue for a treatment of their assets. A person who does not may be estimated from public material alone. The input quality can then vary with a personal decision that has nothing to do with wealth. A useful methodology page should explain how it handles that difference.
Related coverage
Our discussion of publishing methodology is in estimate methodology. Why the format itself resists uncertainty is on richest rankings, what the strongest available documents actually contain is on executive net worth, and why the lifetime version of the question is no easier is on career earnings.
Common questions
Is a detailed methodology page a good sign?
It is a better sign than nothing, and it should be read against the six items above rather than admired for its length. Detail about process is not the same as detail about inputs.
Do any published rankings state an uncertainty interval?
This checklist does not compare named rankings, so it cannot say which ones publish an uncertainty interval. Look for an interval for each entry, with the assumptions behind it explained; acknowledging uncertainty in prose is not the same as publishing an interval.
Could a ranking be made reproducible?
For a narrow population with full disclosure obligations, partly. For anyone whose assets and debts are private, no, and no method statement can fix a missing input.
