Sunday, May 17, 2020

Emma Watson is the second richest British actor in the Sunday Times Young Rich List



[Version fran├žaise]




Emma is the second wealthiest actors in the UK among people aged 30 and under with a fortune worth £52 million. Her former 'Harry Potter' co-star Daniel Radcliffe comes first with £94 million. It's the last time they're on the list as they'll both be 31 by the time next year's list is released. They were on the list since they were 20.

Other actors on the list are Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Cara Delevingne and Aaron Taylor-Johnson.

Source: ContactMusic



If you have news to share (pictures, infos, scans...), please send an email to eden@emmawatson-updates.com
Follow the blog:

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

That seems like a huge discrepancy between Dan & Emma, particularly taking into account BATB.

I'm surprised Dev Patel isn't on the list (he turned 30 after Emma).

Anonymous said...

Well Dan was the highest paid actor in the Potter series,due to being the titular character. But what's kinda sad is how none of the other at the time "child" actors made the list outside of the main trio. I'm not sure if Rupert ever made the list as consecutively as Dan or even Emma did. Phelps twins,T.Felton, M.Lewis and B.Wright should've been paid more as well. They were there since the beginning.

Anonymous said...

Well Dan did make anywhere from 80 to 95 million on HP alone. Rupert's paycheck isn't clear and Emma made around 60 million.

Anonymous said...

The others were paid very well for the amount of screen time they had. The money for the top
10 is just far too high for them to feature. Rupert featured consistently during the potter years, he dropped down following potter but was still on the list, he isn’t there this year as he’s too old. I would be surprised if Emma isn’t worth more than that, the money is a guesstimate. Dan’s wealth grows enormously just from the interest alone.

Anonymous said...

Emma will drop down this list unless she tries to salvage her career. Not that she cares of course. She'll be married and expecting by then.

Gacek870 said...

I always wonder how they estimate this numbers. I know that Dan isvested in art, but we barly know about Emma investments, so I think it's just guessing.

Anonymous said...

Dan is estimated to have made 90 million USD to 100 milion USD just for Potter and Emma is estimated to have made 60 million USD.And Rupert's network is now estimated to be 50 million USD however as the anon above said, his paycheck for HP isn't clear. To be fair Dan did portray the main and titular character. Going off of that Emma has technically made more than Dan for her work. Both of Dan and Emma have added atleast 20 million to thair networks since Potter ended. However Dan has more credits than Emma. Even if she goes into activism more than acting she's gonna be well off for a while. For some reason I don't really see her becoming a housewife that relies on her husband for money (not that there's anything wrong with that).I just don't see any of the main trio sign on to a project just for the money. While not all of their projects have been successful atleast it wasn't a cash grab either. Im genuinely curious to see what the future holds for all the Potter (children) now adults. So far none of the "main child cast" actors/actresses have had a full on melt down I genuinely wouldn't wish that on anybody. Or if there will even be a market for a similar series to Potter with the same impact years from now.

Anonymous said...

How do they know the money she has? Is public the money she got paid for the movies she has done?

£52millons seems "little money" for 8 Harry Potter movies and B&B (all blockbuster).

Anonymous said...

Celebrities net worths are generally estimated by agencies. However there have celeberties that have said they're not always acccurate.Their networth is either higher than that or lower,keep in mind they dont have access to this money at any time. It's just how much they're "worth" or in other words how much people have invested in them. Also Dan's paycheck would doubled from the previous movie (not always) as the series went on. And keep in mind that Dan has the most post Potter credits (43) out of the main "child" cast.

Anonymous said...

Sorry English isn't my first language. I meant Dan has 43 credits including Potter. Networths can sometimes be lower or in most cases higher than the general estimation. And that even if they have a "big" networth, they don't necessarily have access to that money all time. Stay safe and wash your hands.

Anonymous said...

Emma got paid around $60M for HP and $15M for BATB but that is without counting the money she has spent all this years traveling, shopping, paying taxes etc also £94M is "little money" for Dan too but maybe Sunday Times has a good source about their financial accounts

Anonymous said...

"I always wonder how they estimate this numbers. I know that Dan isvested in art, but we barly know about Emma investments, so I think it's just guessing." It is just guessing. No one knows how much they spend and how much they got from investments.

Emma is wealthy for almost 2 decades now. Imagine if she bought property in London in the late 2000s and what that would be worth now. She could easily have twice the net worth mentioned. Or you know gambled it all away.

Emma seems to live below her means in the sense that she doesnt buy huge mansions and a differently colored Ferrari for every week day. She could live of interest rates with that amount of money. Just passively making a couple hundred thousands a year.

I would bet Emma is actually richer than the sum mentioned.

Anonymous said...

The Times would have access to a lot of Dan’s details as he holds a lot of his monies via a UK company which posts annual accounts, but it wouldn’t have details on his private investments. A lot of Dan’s accumulation of wealth but just be through interest alone. Emma doesn’t have a UK company, she holds money as a private individual for privacy reasons (and has an offshore company for asset holding so it her homes aren’t in her name or searchable - she seeks to have had way more problem with stalkers than the boys) so the times would be a guesstimate of salary from HP, Beauty, other roles and also her endorsements, HP and B&B residuals, receipts from her image rights for mechanise and private investments. I would think Emma is worth more than they’ve estimated. She’d earn substantial amounts from interest and residuals alone.

Anonymous said...

You have to remeber that is not how much money they got, more like how much value their names have. I think that £52 million is a lot considering a rumors that Emma paychecks for 3 first HP movies were ''only'' six figures. So besides 4 others HP movies ( I consider DH as a one movie) and BATB and maybe Noah (but she was a support character there) her other movies wasn't probably that well paid.

Anonymous said...

Emma doesn’t have a UK company, she holds money as a private individual for privacy reasons (and has an offshore company for asset holding so it her homes aren’t in her name or searchable - she seeks to have had way more problem with stalkers than the boys)

You really bought this PR statement. Come on, we all know why offshore companies are created. Of course her people denied that and they said it was for privacy. What they supposed to do?

Anonymous said...

Networths aren't how much money they actually have. It's how much money people have invested in them throughout their careers. And it's an estimated amount usually they either have more money or sometimes less. Either way Emma was well off enough to go to 2 Ivy League schools and has atleast 3 homes in diffrent cities.

Anonymous said...

2 Ivy League schools?

I'm pretty sure it was one, Brown University.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I “bought” the PR statement because I’m a finance lawyer and know how the transparency, tax evasion and tax avoidance rules in the UK work so know not to just think “dodgey” when I hear “offshore” like lay people do, which is way too simplistic, offshore companies are created for a myriad of reasons. I’ve helped set up several. If I was famous and buying property, I’d buy it through one, and if buying property is what you use it for you pay the same tax regardless of where the company is incorporated. If she had her income paid to it, unless it was set up through a series of trusts and an orphan structure (which from the Panama leak it wasn’t it was a private company) she wouldn’t get a legal tax avoidance benefit from it, as she’s domiciled in the US and UK, it’s be tax evasion which is illegal and she’s have been in the press by now for being brought to court/fined by HMRC like several other celebrities. The only other way to make it legal would be live offshore, or structure it a different way, but she’d struggle to show her source of income not being from the UK and US. An actual company, or if you obtained money through buying and selling etc. in multiple countries make it easier to dilute source of income. But that’s all moot. So yeah it turns on facts and structures, we don’t “all know what offshore companies are used for”.

Anonymous said...

Oxford is technically considered an Ivy League school in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

I'm well aware that Emma isn't perfect and has flaws like the rest of us. But other words what the anon who is a financial lawyer said was. That believe or not all offshore accounts are used for tax evasion. Which means if Emma was guilty of tax evasion she would've gone through court or at least would've gone through trial (which she didn't). Before any of y'all say that it's cause she's rich, richer and more powerful people than her were hauled off to court and some were even found guilty of tax evasion. I'll admit I was a bit skeptical of somebody owning an offshore account could be legal. But all it takes is some research of your own to realize what Emma did isn't in any way illegal. And it happens more often than any of us think. People mostly use them for privacy. Which given Emma's track record with stalkers I'm not surprised.

Anonymous said...

You can belive in what you want, but other celebrieties doesn't do this kinfd of things. I know Emma is famous, but she's not Michael Jackson kind of famous. First of all she didn't break a law, but what she did was immoral and this PR statement was made to make her look good.

Anonymous said...

It was not the first time her team saved her butt. When Will Adamowicz was caught in a drug situation, Emma's team quickly rushed to say that they no longer had a relationship. I understand the pressures of fame, but at this point it is ridiculous for an arch-known person to say that she uses tax havens to maintain her privacy.

Anonymous said...

Ivy League consist of 8 universities, all are located in the USA. Plus she was only a visiting student for a year in Oxford so I don't know why people act like she graduated from it.

Eden said...

Not gonna lie, I thought the privacy reason was BS at first. But she literally visited and decided to buy her London house via Skype because she was scared paparazzi would find out about it like they did when she visited her NYC apartment. She didn't do anything either illegal or morally wrong as Mr/Mrs lawyer finance says it didn't help her avoid taxes.

Anonymous said...

"decided to buy her London house via Skype because she was scared paparazzi would find out about it"
But she would be caught there sooner or later anyway. That doesnt make much sense.

Anyway I also doubt thats all she has. She will probably be upwards of 100 million by this point. She moves in very different circles with billionaires now and seems to have speficically relocated to San Francisco to date a Silicon Valley Investor type of guy.


Also this finance lawyers writing style reminds me of someone from the shut down Pottershots forums, name starting with L.

Gacek870 said...

Eden said...

She didn't do anything either illegal or morally wrong

I agree with first part, not a second one.

She literally visited and decided to buy her London house via Skype

Isn't that just a rumor, It sound so crazy, it's hard for me to be believe in it.

Anonymous said...

I don't fully agree with lawyer above. If there was no tax benefit, she could have just as easily set up a domestic shell company. As long as it was private, only the government would have needed to know the identity of the stakeholder.

Eden said...

"Isn't that just a rumor, It sound so crazy, it's hard for me to be believe in it."

It comes from one of Emma's interview.

Gacek870 said...

Thanks Eden for information.

Anonymous said...

(different Anon) Honestly, I wouldn't even care if she *was* using the account to pay less tax. As long as she's doing it legally, I don't see any reason for someone to pay more taxes than they have to. It's a system problem.

Anonymous said...

To the person that said set up a domestic shell company, again I’m the lawyer and if you set up a private company in the UK you give full details including shareholders, directors, addresses, full company annual accounts etc. to Companies House which is then searchable by everyone, for free, using companies house beta. Google and look up any UK company you want to and see their accounts, directors members etc. This also includes a persons with significant control register which gets around owning a company through another company, it has to go all the way back to the human that eventually sits behind and owns 25% or over, and this person is named. Honestly, google it. If you get an experian or research subscription you get even more information. The UK is adamant about transparency. It’s a celebrities or rich persons nightmare, which sends them offshore for all sorts of reasons as I said.

Anonymous said...

My mom is a tax lawyer and works in proving that people have committed tax evasion, fraud among other things. The thing is she said if Emma did do something illegal she would've atleast been through trial. And there was no way in hell tge media wouldn't have had a field day with that (no matter how good her PR team is). Offshore account aren't always illegal, they're
actually used more than we thonk (source:my mom).Emma isn't the first or will be the last celebrity to buy a house through skype,"normal" people do it too. That's how my brother bought his. Also you should consider how many times celebrity houses whose addresses you can Google get broken into or get stalked. Buying a house in a major city through skype doesn't sound that far fetched. Also as far as I'm aware she isn't friends or related to any billionaires. She does have friends who are extremely well off that aren't in the entertainment industry. But in the Vougue interview she said she's really happy she went through university because of her friends in diffrent workforces.

Gacek870 said...

Only time I saw Emma around a billiners was when she watched Chelsea game with Roman Abramovich about a dacade ago.
https://www.zimbio.com/photos/Roman+Abramovich/Emma+Watson/Chelsea+v+Manchester+City+Premier+League/EDr1ZBDB1ka

Anonymous said...

At the beginning (HP period) Emma was a child star (not an actress) and then she turned into a celebrity.
She never was an actress, not to mention an artist.

Anonymous said...

I know this happened a long ass time ago. But telling people that you and your ex have broken up and don't talk anymore isn't a bad thing. Nobody's responsible for anybody else's actions(at least in the U.S. they're not, I know it's diffrent in other parts of the world) Also it's not like she threw him under the bus, they just said they broke up and don't talk anymore.

Anonymous said...

You might not answer this and that's ok. But how do you know she relocated from LA to San Francisco?

Anonymous said...

The thing with her boyfriend is, that there are rumors that they broke up because that drugs accident . Emma and her team just cut ties with him publicly to protect her image. Before that they never talked about break up and her private life.

Anonymous said...

Not quite true, her team announced she had broken up with Tom Ducker and Jay Barrymore.

Robert M. said...

Is it important to find a specific description?
It seems to me that last comment was just to stir up trouble/strife / raise malevolence.

To me, Emma is a kind-hearted, thought-provoking and honourable human being that tries to help people to make the world a better place.

So: Love <3 to Emma :-)

Robert M. said...

(I referred to anon at 2:48 pm.)

Anonymous said...

Sorry in advance my English isnt the best.And this doesn't have to do with most of the comments. But I agree with the other anon at 9:13PM. I never really understood why is a bad thing when her team said that they had already broken up and didn't talk. Some people acted like she was throwing him under the bus or something, when 4 to 6 months had passed since they had broken up. The same way people don't blane her exes if she messes up.I genuinely dont see how it was her responsibility for the pictures that were released of Will. I didn't pay much attention to Emma back then. He semmed like a nice guy (who is an adult) so whether it was little pieces of paper or something else the responsibility falls him. Also Emma's team rarely confirms a breakup right when it happens. They usually confirm it a couple months later the same way that they don't confirm to relationship rumors right away.

Anonymous said...

I agree with anon at 10:09 PM. There is a strong possibility that they broke up to protect her image. It's normal thing to do in Hollywood world.

Gacek870 said...

I said it already one time on the other post, there is nothing wrong that her PR guy Luke Windsor protect her image, it is his job and that's why she is paying him probably a big money. Moreover even if she broke up with him because coke incident, it's her decision and she did what was the best for her in a long run.

Anonymous said...

"I didn't pay much attention to Emma back then. He semmed like a nice guy (who is an adult) so whether it was little pieces of paper or something else the responsibility falls him."

True statements except thats not really how it works when you are a nobody dating a somebody. Even though Will was the with the drugs it inadvertently reflects on Emma because that is who he was dating at the time.

Its possible that neither were dating at the time as i recall people on Pottershots (who followed her and her dating life pretty closely) saying that Emma was seen with a different guy a couple of months prior to the New Years Eve pic of Will.

Im not sure i buy into that as it seemed far to coincidental at the time when it happened that her PR group were that quick to jump on it. I personally think they were still together but that is just my own belief. Never the less it makes total sense for them to distance her from him even if she knew about his casual drug use.

Even when Will posted his FB post about what happened it was assumed that Emma had him take it down because it was removed shortly after it was posted and would have drew more attention to it all.

Then of course there were pictures a month or so later where Will was picking up some of his items from her place in New York somewhere. I would think that had they already broken up before hand that he would have picked those up long ago. IMO

Anonymous said...

Im not sure if I'm remebering the timeline correctly. But didn't Will's pictures comeout around the January of 2014? Cause she was spotted with Matt at New Years or the first 2 weeks of 2014. And if they had broken up then how does that have to do with her. I didn't read Will's FB post cause I honestly don't care who she dates. He seemed like a nice guy though. And I think it's safe to say they've both moved on

Anonymous said...

miss Pottershots i suppose with emma in semi retirement there was no need for it. still would have been nice to bring it back during lock down for everyone to chat etc