From Passport to Residence: What Two Henley Reports Reveal About the Same Strategic Choice for HNWIs

In our post “2026 Global Passport Landscape Deconstructed”, we examined a core observation: the true “value” of a passport is not simply the number of visa‑free destinations, but a composite signal of geopolitical standing, governance quality, and national credibility. We dissected the passports of the United States, Portugal, and St. Kitts and Nevis, and concluded that an individual’s global mobility is largely “anchored” by their nationality.

In June 2026, Henley & Partners released the Private Wealth Migration Report 2026. If the Passport Index answers the question “which passport takes you further”, then this Wealth Migration Report answers “which jurisdiction is more welcoming to your wealth”. The two reports, from the same source and aimed at the same audience, ultimately point to a deeper question: for high‑net‑worth individuals pursuing a global footprint, how should identity and assets be strategically configured?

A Noteworthy Methodological Shift

To appreciate the report’s value, one must first understand what has changed.

Earlier editions of Henley’s wealth migration reports centred on “millionaire migration estimates” – precise net inflow/outflow figures. However, in summer 2025, these estimates drew criticism from the UK‑based think tank Tax Policy Associates, which questioned the robustness of the data sources and methodology.

The 2026 report takes a noteworthy turn: it no longer attempts to count “how many millionaires have moved”. Instead, it introduces a new “Global Wealth Mobility Framework” that uses a “Wealth Mobility Competitiveness Score” (out of 100) to assess each jurisdiction’s structural capacity to attract internationally mobile wealth.

This framework evaluates multiple factors: tax policy, rule of law, quality of life, political stability, investor migration pathways, and capital mobility. In other words, the report has shifted from “counting heads” to “comparing institutional fitness” – focusing not on short‑term migration flows, but on whether a place is institutionally worth staying for the long term.

The report itself states that the new framework is designed to provide internationally mobile wealth holders with a structured reference for evaluating different jurisdictions’ “competitiveness” – i.e., which places have the institutional conditions to consistently attract and retain wealth.

Structural Signals Behind the Rankings

Based on the new framework, the 2026 rankings reveal several noteworthy patterns:

Singapore ranks first globally with 79.5 points, followed by New Zealand (75.8). The second tier includes the Cayman Islands (74.3), Cyprus (73.5), the Netherlands (72.8), Portugal (72.5), Italy (72.3), Hong Kong SAR (71.2), Switzerland (70.8), and Greece (70.5).

Meanwhile, the “pressured competitive jurisdictions” include Germany (69.7), Norway (69.0), the United Kingdom (68.3), South Korea (66.2), and France (65.7).

While the ranking itself is not the ultimate takeaway, the patterns behind it are worth noting:

First, smaller countries are systematically outperforming. Eleven of the top 16 jurisdictions have populations under 10 million. These countries cannot compete on domestic market size, so they are forced to compete on institutional quality – predictable regulation, efficient tax systems, strong legal institutions, and clear investor residency pathways. This is a strategy of “competing through institutions rather than scale.”

Second, traditional large European economies are under pressure. The UK, Germany, and France – once wealth magnets – now lag behind Italy, Greece, and Switzerland in the score.

Third, the United States faces a structural paradox. The US is the world’s largest private wealth market, yet its citizenship‑based taxation – which requires citizens to report global income regardless of residence – creates an inherent barrier to attracting internationally mobile wealth. Ironically, the US is both the most important producer of global wealth and one of the most significant sources of high‑net‑worth individuals seeking alternative residency options.

The Common Logic of the Two Reports: Both Measure “Institutional Quality”

When we place the Passport Index and the Wealth Migration Report side by side, an interesting commonality emerges:

The Passport Index measures a country’s openness to “people” – how many countries grant visa‑free access to its citizens. The Wealth Migration Report measures a country’s welcome to “capital” – how favourably its institutional environment receives mobile wealth.

Both essentially ask the same question: what is this country’s “credit rating” in the international community?

A highly mobile passport reflects international trust in a country’s political credibility, rule of law, and civic quality. A high wealth‑migration score reflects international capital’s assessment of a jurisdiction’s tax efficiency, legal certainty, and political stability.

Passports govern the movement of people; institutions govern the stay of capital. And what underpins both is the same factor – governance quality.

The Implicit Message for HNWIs: From “Choosing a Passport” to “Building a Portfolio”

 If the Passport Index reminds HNWIs that “your nationality may be limiting your global choices”, the Wealth Migration Report adds another dimension: “where you choose to reside may be affecting the long‑term fate of your wealth.”

One of the most noteworthy concepts in the report is the “Sovereign Portfolio” – the world’s wealthiest individuals are gradually moving away from the traditional single‑country relocation model. Instead, they are diversifying residencies, citizenships, investments, and business interests across multiple jurisdictions.

Parag Khanna, founder of AlphaGeo, offers a vivid analogy: globally mobile wealth holders select jurisdictions in much the same way that sovereign wealth funds allocate portfolios – diversifying across different climates, governance systems, and geopolitical regions to hedge against shocks that no one can fully foresee.

What does this mean?

It means the traditional mindset of “choose one country, get one passport, settle down” is being replaced by a more sophisticated strategy: residing in one place, holding citizenship in another, and spreading business entities, bank accounts, and investments across different jurisdictions. This is not about avoidance; it is about reducing concentration risk from policy changes in any single country.

The Passport Index tells you which passport takes you further; the Wealth Migration Report tells you which jurisdictions are more welcoming to your wealth. The logic of the “Sovereign Portfolio” is: I want both – and more than one of each.

This is precisely the extension of the thinking we outlined in our previous article on passport choices – moving from “which passport to choose” to “how to combine identities and asset locations” is two phases of the same decision‑making process.

Concluding Remarks: The Report’s Value Lies in the Questions It Raises

The value of this report does not lie in offering “absolutely precise millionaire statistics”. Rather, it raises a meaningful question: in an increasingly fluid world of capital and talent, what kind of institutional environment is most attractive to wealth?

The report’s scoring framework – covering taxation, rule of law, quality of life, political stability, and investor pathways – provides a useful analytical reference for that question. For HNWIs concerned with global positioning, the report offers a systematic lens through which to assess different jurisdictions’ institutional readiness to attract and retain wealth.

Of course, every report has its limitations. The weighting of the scoring framework and the completeness of the underlying data mean it is a reference tool, not a definitive answer. But as a trend indicator, it captures a crucial shift in today’s wealth landscape: for high‑net‑worth individuals, building cross‑jurisdictional optionality is moving from an option to a strategic imperative.

At FirstCapital Advisers, we continue to focus on what this trend means for globally mobile families – whether in Asia, Europe, the Americas, or elsewhere. The report provides a macro picture; translating that picture into actionable personal strategies is the ongoing work we pursue in practice.

---

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Specific circumstances should be discussed with qualified professionals.

About FirstCapital Advisers

FirstCapital Advisers is a boutique cross‑border advisory firm serving corporations and families. Our “Twin Pillars” strategy – Corporate & Institutional Advisory and Private Wealth & Global Mobility – offers one‑stop solutions ranging from corporate finance and cross‑border M&A to global asset allocation and residency/citizenship planning. If you would like to learn more about family wealth planning, please contact our team.