2 ms·

Not super rich. In the U.S he would be in the top 1%. http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/rich-o-meter-20/tab/article/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/0

• hugh3 17y ago
  7500? I think you mean ~1.2 million. Still, this is what I was curious about -- is it possible the journalist screwed up the numbers? Five million bucks doesn't make you especially wealthy nowadays; it's more a "comfortable middle class retirement" sort of sum. And yet this guy supposedly had a net wealth of five million bucks, of which $2.34 million was in his primary house, $1 million in his secondary house and $600K was in his glider collection. Add in some cars and furniture and he would have less than $1 million left over for sensible income-producing investments. Seems like an unwise proportion of his money was plunged into useless toys; he was trying to live like a super-rich man without the super riches to back it up. No wonder he was unhappy.