6 ms·

What is it like to be broke after being a billionaire?

3 points by shayannafisi 11y ago

angersock 11y ago
Then, my wife divorced me. I lost a large portion of my net worth during that process. This is a very real issue that happens, and honestly something conveniently overlooked in the "Fuck male privilege" of the current times.
- dalke 11y ago
  "I had lost about half my fortune in my divorce." How is a 50/50 split after a divorce anything to do with privilege? The author, btw, attributes his going broke to: "My team screwed up some basic arithmetic that led to my financial fall." ... "You might be wondering what an idiot I am for hiring such bad personnel who couldn't even add up some basic budgets and realize there was an issue." ... "But as to the specific person (the manager) who actually was responsible for managing and supervising budgets, I have absolutely no anger towards. He is my son." It sounds more like you can attribute it to nepotism. Though even there the author says: "It was definitely not his fault."
  - angersock 11y ago
    Elsewhere in the article he specifically talks about how he was having to patch together project budgets using his own funds--and having lost half of those funds, it's not unreasonable to imagine that that is perhaps what pushed him over the edge. I'm willing to bet that that half of a fortune is not being put into as many economically active projects as the part he'd kept is.
    - dalke 11y ago
      The last part is pure conjecture. You could also bet that he should have cut his losses and started a new company with his funds, and done better. Or that even with 2x money he wouldn't have made it. Or, of course, if he hadn't engaged in nepotism and instead hired someone who could handle the job. In any case, it's irrelevant to how "privilege" plays a role, which was your point.
      - angersock 11y ago
        I was observing that, in the current times, it's very popular to point out how easy men have it, observations typically lumped under the term "privilege". This story illustrates one of the common cases that does seem to be rather ignored in that accounting, hence why I brought it up.
        dalke 11y ago
        And I ask, what does privilege have to do with this story? How is a 50/50 split from a divorce some sign of "Fuck male privilege"? Based on the information given, what should the split have been to be equitable? We know nothing of the circumstances for any other ratio to make sense. Was the seed money hers? Did they flip a coin to decide who was going to run the company and who was going to raise the kids? Was there a prenuptial agreement saying there would be a 50/50 split on a divorce? Instead, you seem to be reading something in the story based not only on what appears to be pure conjecture, but counter to how the author apportions blame. You continue the conjecture by positing that had the author had more personal money to dump on the problem, then it would have been better. But we don't know that. Was he willing to fire his son? Was his business idea any good? Or would it simply have been more money down the drain? Nor do we know what his wife has done with the money.
        angersock 11y ago
        The article is mostly separate of my point--this is quite alright. HN would be boring if every comment was only to be directly related to whatever article was being discussed. It is strongly hinted (at least in my reading) that the money required to cover the fuckups could've been at least partially covered by the author's pre-divorce wealth; had they written something like "even without the divorce I couldn't have fixed the troubles we were in" then it would've been much clearer.
        dalke 11y ago
        It's completely tangential. You're reading into it things that aren't there, and seemingly using it as platform to express views similar to what I've seen in anti-feminist writings. Do you agree with me that everyone has the right to a no-fault divorce? If so, then it doesn't really matter what might have happened had there been no divorce. They got a divorce, end of story. If not, then who has the 'privilege' of being able to divorce? Do you agree that a 50-50 cash split is a reasonable split after a divorce, at least when you know nothing about the details of the marriage and reason for divorce? If so, then there's no "privilege", or sign of "Fuck male privilege." If not, then you haven't said what the non-privilege version should be. Since people do get divorced, do you not also agree with me that it's a factor to consider in business planning? And what's not clear about the essay? The author said, 1) the team screwed up, because 2) the owner's son didn't have enough experience, and 3) the owner didn't provide enough oversight. As the company stated to flounder, he got bad press, and lost investment interest. So he decided to risk his own money on the chance of a big win. And note, this is after the divorce, so it's his own decision to invest his own money. If he hadn't done so, he would be worth millions. We also don't know if his wife would have agreed to the gamble if they had stayed married. He then lost the gamble. So it's not like he went broke because of the divorce, or diminished funds - it's that he made a gamble and lost. He already said it wasn't his son's fault, even though the son was the most proximate cause to his problem. Why should he think that he needed to even add the statement that you want, when it was clearly his decisions that lead going broke, and where he places full responsibility on himself?

3 points by shayannafisi 11y ago

Then, my wife divorced me. I lost a large portion of my net worth during that process. This is a very real issue that happens, and honestly something conveniently overlooked in the "Fuck male privilege" of the current times.

dalke 11y ago
"I had lost about half my fortune in my divorce." How is a 50/50 split after a divorce anything to do with privilege? The author, btw, attributes his going broke to: "My team screwed up some basic arithmetic that led to my financial fall." ... "You might be wondering what an idiot I am for hiring such bad personnel who couldn't even add up some basic budgets and realize there was an issue." ... "But as to the specific person (the manager) who actually was responsible for managing and supervising budgets, I have absolutely no anger towards. He is my son." It sounds more like you can attribute it to nepotism. Though even there the author says: "It was definitely not his fault."
- angersock 11y ago
  Elsewhere in the article he specifically talks about how he was having to patch together project budgets using his own funds--and having lost half of those funds, it's not unreasonable to imagine that that is perhaps what pushed him over the edge. I'm willing to bet that that half of a fortune is not being put into as many economically active projects as the part he'd kept is.
  - dalke 11y ago
    The last part is pure conjecture. You could also bet that he should have cut his losses and started a new company with his funds, and done better. Or that even with 2x money he wouldn't have made it. Or, of course, if he hadn't engaged in nepotism and instead hired someone who could handle the job. In any case, it's irrelevant to how "privilege" plays a role, which was your point.
    - angersock 11y ago
      I was observing that, in the current times, it's very popular to point out how easy men have it, observations typically lumped under the term "privilege". This story illustrates one of the common cases that does seem to be rather ignored in that accounting, hence why I brought it up.
      - dalke 11y ago
        And I ask, what does privilege have to do with this story? How is a 50/50 split from a divorce some sign of "Fuck male privilege"? Based on the information given, what should the split have been to be equitable? We know nothing of the circumstances for any other ratio to make sense. Was the seed money hers? Did they flip a coin to decide who was going to run the company and who was going to raise the kids? Was there a prenuptial agreement saying there would be a 50/50 split on a divorce? Instead, you seem to be reading something in the story based not only on what appears to be pure conjecture, but counter to how the author apportions blame. You continue the conjecture by positing that had the author had more personal money to dump on the problem, then it would have been better. But we don't know that. Was he willing to fire his son? Was his business idea any good? Or would it simply have been more money down the drain? Nor do we know what his wife has done with the money.
        angersock 11y ago
        The article is mostly separate of my point--this is quite alright. HN would be boring if every comment was only to be directly related to whatever article was being discussed. It is strongly hinted (at least in my reading) that the money required to cover the fuckups could've been at least partially covered by the author's pre-divorce wealth; had they written something like "even without the divorce I couldn't have fixed the troubles we were in" then it would've been much clearer.
        dalke 11y ago
        It's completely tangential. You're reading into it things that aren't there, and seemingly using it as platform to express views similar to what I've seen in anti-feminist writings. Do you agree with me that everyone has the right to a no-fault divorce? If so, then it doesn't really matter what might have happened had there been no divorce. They got a divorce, end of story. If not, then who has the 'privilege' of being able to divorce? Do you agree that a 50-50 cash split is a reasonable split after a divorce, at least when you know nothing about the details of the marriage and reason for divorce? If so, then there's no "privilege", or sign of "Fuck male privilege." If not, then you haven't said what the non-privilege version should be. Since people do get divorced, do you not also agree with me that it's a factor to consider in business planning? And what's not clear about the essay? The author said, 1) the team screwed up, because 2) the owner's son didn't have enough experience, and 3) the owner didn't provide enough oversight. As the company stated to flounder, he got bad press, and lost investment interest. So he decided to risk his own money on the chance of a big win. And note, this is after the divorce, so it's his own decision to invest his own money. If he hadn't done so, he would be worth millions. We also don't know if his wife would have agreed to the gamble if they had stayed married. He then lost the gamble. So it's not like he went broke because of the divorce, or diminished funds - it's that he made a gamble and lost. He already said it wasn't his son's fault, even though the son was the most proximate cause to his problem. Why should he think that he needed to even add the statement that you want, when it was clearly his decisions that lead going broke, and where he places full responsibility on himself?