You Built Your Fortune Here. Why Should You Stay?

Something extraordinary happened at Meta this autumn.

The company found itself negotiating an issue that rarely appears in corporate governance discussions: where its founder should live.

Mark Zuckerberg had been considering leaving California amid concerns about a proposed billionaire wealth tax. Meta's independent directors, meanwhile, were concerned about what his departure might mean for the business.

The result was an elaborate corporate agreement involving a new class of shares, voting control, financing flexibility and a conditional commitment by Zuckerberg to remain resident in California, or wherever Meta maintains its headquarters, for eight years.

This wasn't speculation about a billionaire threatening to leave. It was documented in Meta's own SEC filings.

Think about what that says.

Silicon Valley, arguably the world's most successful technology ecosystem, had helped make Zuckerberg one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Yet keeping its most famous founder close to the business had become a matter for corporate negotiation.

Across the Atlantic, Britain has been confronting an uncomfortable version of the same problem. Some of the City of London's best-known financial figures have been establishing residence overseas. And in its October Budget, the government unveiled new incentives designed to encourage successful entrepreneurs to remain in the UK.

These developments raise a question that extends far beyond billionaires and tax policy.

What happens when the places that create wealth can no longer assume they'll keep the people who created it?

At Neoria, we think this points to a change in how people approach international mobility. Where someone lives is becoming a decision they can actively evaluate, rather than simply an extension of where their career or business happens to be based.

And that has implications for both the people making those decisions and the places competing to attract them.

London is discovering that loyalty has limits

For decades, London offered successful international businesspeople a compelling proposition.

Its financial markets, professional networks, legal infrastructure, culture and international connections made it an obvious place to build a career and accumulate wealth.

It wasn't necessarily the cheapest place to live. But for many entrepreneurs and financiers, the advantages outweighed the costs.

That calculation is being revisited.

In October, former Goldman Sachs International co-chief executive Michael Sherwood confirmed to Sky News that he had relocated to Jersey.

Hedge fund founder Chris Rokos was reported by Bloomberg to be transferring his tax residence to Greece, with his firm also planning an office in Athens. Richard Gnodde, another former senior Goldman Sachs executive, was reported to be relocating to Milan in 2025.

These are not peripheral figures. They spent substantial parts of their professional lives inside the financial ecosystem that helped establish London as a global powerhouse.

Their circumstances differ, and not all have attributed their moves to taxation. But there's a danger in dismissing these departures simply because they don't establish a mass exodus.

London doesn't need to lose thousands of wealthy residents for a change in the behaviour of its most internationally mobile businesspeople to matter.

Rokos's reported move is particularly interesting. Athens isn't replacing London as a global financial centre. But Greece has been actively courting international investment, and the planned Athens office suggests that attracting wealthy residents can bring business activity with them.

Established hubs don't have to collapse for alternative destinations to benefit.

Britain's Budget reveals an uncomfortable contradiction

The UK government's Budget on 28 October 2026 was revealing.

After years of debate about the treatment of wealthy international residents, including the abolition of the old non-dom tax regime in April 2025, the government announced a new incentive for successful entrepreneurs.

Its proposed Founders' Relief would offer a 10% Capital Gains Tax rate on up to £10 million of qualifying lifetime gains for eligible founders and early investors in certain high-growth businesses.

Among the proposed conditions is a requirement to have been UK tax-resident for five continuous tax years before a qualifying disposal. The relief is intended to apply from April 2027, subject to consultation and legislation.

The measure forms part of a government strategy with a rather telling name: Start. Scale. Stay.

Britain wants entrepreneurs to start companies, grow them into valuable businesses and keep those businesses in the UK. The new tax relief also creates an incentive for qualifying founders to remain personally resident.

The government is attempting to retain the economic benefits of entrepreneurial success while maintaining wider tax changes that some internationally mobile residents have found less appealing.

At the same time, the Budget announced a reduction in the lifetime limit for the existing Business Asset Disposal Relief from £1 million to £500,000, also from April 2027.

The new founders' incentive is targeted. It won't address every concern raised by wealthy investors or financial professionals.

But the message is unmistakable.

Britain is no longer concerned only with attracting entrepreneurs. It wants to make sure the businesses they create stay in Britain, and that successful founders have reasons to remain personally.

Governments understandably expect people who prosper within their economies to contribute towards the public services and institutions that support them.

Yet those same governments must contend with an awkward reality: some of the individuals they most want to retain have considerable freedom to choose where they live.

California has taken the argument to another level

California's situation is even more dramatic.

On 3 November, voters will decide on Proposition 40, a proposed one-time wealth tax of up to 5% on qualifying billionaires' covered assets.

The proposal would raise funding primarily for healthcare, with additional allocations for food assistance and education. Supporters argue that substantial private wealth should contribute more towards essential services. Opponents are concerned about the possible loss of wealthy residents, investment and future tax revenue.

Under the proposal, liability would be based on residence on 1 January 2026. Leaving the state now would not automatically avoid the tax.

Yet the debate has already coincided with some remarkable residency decisions.

Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have both established residence outside California, according to statements from their representatives reported by Forbes.

Page's representatives confirmed a move to Florida, while Brin's confirmed Nevada residence. Forbes also identified a change in Brin's voter registration, although the precise tax-residence position of either individual is a separate question.

And then there is Zuckerberg.

Meta's SEC disclosure confirms that he was considering relocating outside California because of potential exposure to the proposed wealth tax.

The company's independent directors were concerned about losing his proximity to Meta's headquarters, leadership team and artificial intelligence operations.

The eventual agreement addressed several issues. A new class of non-voting shares would provide financing flexibility and allow Zuckerberg some liquidity without automatically surrendering voting control. There were also conditions relating to his continued leadership and Meta's share performance.

Crucially, the agreement included an eight-year commitment to remain resident in California, or another jurisdiction hosting Meta's headquarters, while he continued to meet the relevant leadership conditions, subject to specified exceptions.

This wasn't a simple financial reward for staying. The agreement had substantial corporate purposes.

Nevertheless, the underlying development is remarkable.

One of the world's most valuable technology companies considered its founder's personal residence important enough to negotiate it as part of a major corporate transaction.

And it reveals something about the continued strength of Silicon Valley.

Meta has good reasons to want Zuckerberg nearby. The concentration of specialist talent, research, investment and professional relationships in California remains difficult to replicate elsewhere.

Yet the possibility of his leaving was credible enough to require a response.

Movement between US states is legally different from international relocation. But both the California and London stories expose the same tension: the location of a successful business and the preferred residence of the person behind it are not necessarily the same thing.

The exodus debate is missing the point

Whenever a prominent entrepreneur or investor relocates, attention turns to whether the wealthy are leaving in significant numbers.

It's a reasonable question, but the evidence is mixed.

A 2026 study in the American Economic Review found that wealth taxes can influence migration decisions, while their wider economic effects were comparatively modest in the Scandinavian countries examined. US research has also shown how strongly wealthy people remain attached to their professional networks and communities.

What interests us at Neoria is the change that can happen long before someone actually moves.

Where people create wealth and where they choose to live are becoming two separate decisions.

An entrepreneur may need to live in London while building a company, but not necessarily after selling it. A professional who moved to a financial centre twenty years ago may have entirely different priorities today. Someone running an international business might have considerably more flexibility than when they started.

Many will decide to stay. Others will move. Some will simply want to understand their options.

But once staying becomes a choice rather than a default, the relationship changes.

And that raises a question relevant to many more people than those with billionaire fortunes.

How can you know that where you live is still your best option if you've never properly compared it with anywhere else?

Why Neoria is interested in this shift

That question is central to why we created Neoria.

International relocation often begins with a destination someone has already chosen: a country they've visited, a recommendation from a friend or an attractive tax regime they've read about.

They then start approaching advisers to establish whether the move is feasible.

But that means starting halfway through the decision.

What if another country would suit their circumstances better? What if the attractive tax regime comes with difficult immigration requirements or unexpectedly high living costs? What if their current home turns out to offer a better overall fit?

These are questions worth investigating before choosing a destination and commissioning specialist advice.

Neoria helps people explore and compare international relocation options by bringing immigration, financial considerations, cost of living and lifestyle into one process. Rather than starting with a country and working backwards, people can investigate which destinations might actually suit their circumstances.

The objective isn't to encourage people to leave. Nor is it to suggest that complex legal or tax decisions can be resolved without specialist advice.

It's to make the initial exploration more informed, more accessible and less dependent on whichever destination someone happens to have heard about first.

The billionaire stories are dramatic, but the underlying issue isn't exclusive to the wealthy.

People change jobs, build businesses, raise families, retire and reassess their priorities. The reasons they originally chose somewhere to live may no longer apply.

Sometimes the most valuable outcome of exploring your options is discovering that you have good reasons to stay.

But at least it becomes a decision you've made with your eyes open.

Established business hubs will have to earn the decision to stay

London and Silicon Valley remain extraordinary places to build businesses and careers. Their advantages were developed over decades and won't disappear because a few prominent residents relocate.

But being the best place to build a fortune doesn't automatically make somewhere the best place to enjoy it, raise a family or plan the next stage of life.

The UK government's Start. Scale. Stay. strategy and Meta's negotiations with Zuckerberg suggest that even the most established business centres are having to confront that distinction.

They have spent decades competing to attract the world's most ambitious people. Retaining them may require just as much attention.

And the competition isn't only about tax. It's about whether a place continues to offer the opportunities, stability, connections and quality of life that people value as their circumstances change.

Building your fortune somewhere is a powerful reason to remain. But it shouldn't be the only reason you stay.