17 ms·
Companies and Billionaires
- idlewords 10y agoI don't understand why the source of the Koch brothers' wealth is listed as "Diversified". They owe their fortune to petroleum.
- Nav_Panel 10y agoLooking at their wealth breakdown now: $12.7B from Georgia-Pacific (a "pulp and paper company") $10.6B from "Other Businesses" $9.6B from Koch Pipeline (petroleum) $4.5B from Flint Hills Resources (refining/chemicals/biofuels) $3.8B from Molex ("connectors and interconnect components") $3.5B from Koch Fertilizer $3.0B from Invista ("polymers and fibers") all other sources below $2B Looks pretty diversified to me. Just because they made their fortune in petroleum doesn't mean that's currently the largest source of their wealth. Source: the Net Worth Analysis from the RICH function on a Bloomberg Terminal
- idlewords 10y agoTo me, "source" implies where the wealth came from, and it's misleading to say that the Koch brothers grew rich from a diverse portfolio of anything. They were born into oil wealth.
- Nav_Panel 10y agoOh, true, if read that way then petroleum is probably the correct thing to put there. Curious.
- the_watcher 10y agoThe rest of their wealth also has sources.
- honkhonkpants 10y agoMany of the people on this list should have their source listed as "birth".
- ryandrake 10y agoFunny how many "self made" millionaires and billionaires, when you dig down to root cause, owe it to birth and family connections.
- oldmanjay 10y agoPerhaps obviously, when your interpretation makes the article not make sense, it's useful to try interpretations that work. I guess another way to put it is that a very human mistake to make is to infer something and assume it was implied, then use that assumption to form a dismissal. I get that your particular interpretation is likely meant as some subtle manner of dismissal of the Koch brothers (something along the lines of how they didn't earn their wealth would be my guess) and I'd like to encourage you to state such feelings directly. It's far more interesting than low-grade emotional rhetoric that just turns into boring no-light-low-heat discussion.
- idlewords 10y agoThis is a spreadsheet, not an article, so I'm confused about your first point. When looking at a list of billionaires, it's natural to wonder "where did this fortune come from?", and in the case of the Koch brothers, the answer is "oil". I don't think it requires a deep dive into my psyche to defend this interpretation of the "source" field, though I'm always happy to swim around down there.
- hkmurakami 10y agoSuppose I make my first $10M getting lucky in technology, then make my next $1B getting lucky in real estate by leveraging my lottery winnings. What's the source of my wealth in this case? (this seems to be a clarifying exaggeration of what is being asked here)
- ryandrake 10y agoIn my view: Technology. Without that first $10M, you'd never have had the opportunity to make $1B in real estate. When I think "source" I'm digging down to root cause.
- e7c6ht6iad 10y agoBut if you only made $10M, you wouldn't be on the list.
- sardonicbryan 10y agoI think the intended usage for this spreadsheet is more along the lines of "derived," as in where does X derive their current wealth from, or "What current holdings qualify the person for this list." Otherwise this table would involve an order of magnitude more research and editorializing. For example, Elon Musk has "Tesla" listed as his source even though as we know his initial wealth came from Paypal. At least, that is the usage that seems to best fit with what's in the spreadsheet.
- unholythree 10y agoGreat so every time I spring for the brand name molex connectors I'm helping those assholes out.
- bdavis56 10y agosounds like someone's jealous. why are they assholes when they're selling you a product that helps you?
- etjossem 10y agoFor completely orthogonal reasons. It's not about what they sell, it's about what they do with the money. More US political candidate financing this year came from the Koch brothers than both major political parties combined. [1] Congressional policy decisions always have to keep future fundraising prospects in mind. It is not a stretch to describe candidates who depend on Koch largesse to win as "bought and paid for." Keystone XL (a certain pipeline Koch Industries stands to benefit disproportionately from) is a controversial issue, and it ought to be considered with an eye towards policy impact rather than next year's electability. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-...
- zanny 10y agoThey are in a ton of different industries: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/4/1/1288957/-Sign-the-pledge-Don-t-buy-these-Koch-products http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/4/1/1288957/-Sign-the-ple...
- chollida1 10y agoWell if you are asking where did their initial wealth come from, you are correct, it came from oil. But keep in mind that they have more than doubled their net worth in the past 8 years. And in those 8 years it was a diversified portfolio that more than doubled their wealth, so given that more than half their net worth was accumulated with a diversified company I can see where Forbes is coming from. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-brothers-net-worth_us_56a3ac86e4b076aadcc6d1f4 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-brothers-net-worth_... For what its worth Bloomberg also lists their industry as diversified. TL/DR you and Forbes both have a point and the only reasonable thing is to is to take Obi Wan Kenobi's advice and agree that you're both right "from a certain point of view"
- idlewords 10y agoThank you, that's a helpful explanation!
- dwaltrip 10y agoFor those who are wondering (I was), doubling your money in 8 years is about an average return of 9%. So pretty solid, but not absurd. Although I imagine such returns, with acceptable risk levels, become harder to find when you are dealing with 11-figures.
- doublerebel 10y agoThe Rule of 72 will save you from having to wonder from now on.
- whamlastxmas 10y agoIt's actually been really quite easy for the past decade - just buy real estate. It's very expensive, easy to sink billions into, and over the past 8 years you'd be easily doubling your money on a lot of it.
- thecosas 10y ago+1 for the OP's username
- kilroy123 10y agoNaïve question. The richest people in the world, who are billionaires from pretty much just stock. How do they convert that to real money to buy things? Do they just simply wait until the stock is at a high point, and sell a lot? Maybe move that money to other investments?
- elliotec 10y agoI think yes probably both.
- dfischer 10y agoThese individuals can easily call up banks and get a loan on their worth. "Hey, Morgan Stanley I need 2 mil deposited in my account" - "ok" This is also how they avoid income tax. ;) They can take in millions and it's just a loan. Then they pay it back off with stock or other asset deals.
- harryh 10y agoYou might be able to move around when you incur income tax a little bit that way, but you can't avoid it.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoThis is exactly right, you can shift it into another tax year but you can't legally avoid it. But everyone's tax situation is different.
- charlesdm 10y agoThere are ways, e.g. by donating to your own accredited charitable foundation.
- icebraining 10y agoBut then you can only use the money for certain purposes.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- davidf18 10y ago#2, who owns Zara among other clothing brands, never completed high school, but Zara has brilliant ideas. No connections, I think he started as a messenger for the firm that he was to head. He's sounds like someone Malcolm Gladwell would write about.
- tamersalama 10y agoAmancio Ortega - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amancio_Ortega https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amancio_Ortega
- zerr 10y agoLets also not forget he pays Spanish/EU taxes.
- rdlecler1 10y agoForbes missed Kimbal Musk. Looks like they need to add a wikisearch to their methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimbal_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimbal_Musk
- _archon_ 10y agoI was also surprised to not see any familiar names from the superrich industrialists in 19th and early 20th century America. Where are the Vanderbilts and Carnagies? I know the industrialists donated hugely to charity and public works, but I'd expect wealth to remain.
- foundersgrid 10y agoNice work! Quick q: How did you set Google Docs to display like that where no one can edit the widths of the columns?
- md8 10y agoShare the read only sheet and append htmlview?sle=true# at the last If you remove this part, you can see the read only version of the spreadsheet.
- kelukelugames 10y agoHow accurate is this? Asking because Trump not releasing tax returns made some news.
- kens 10y agoI think most people don't realize just how much money the richest people have. People generally think of normal(ish) distributions like height, where if you're 10% taller or shorter than average, you're a tall or short person, and 40% taller makes you the tallest person in the world. In comparison, wealth has a very, very long tail, making it hard to visualize. Here's what I've come up with to visualize wealth. Suppose you start counting, going up by 1 million dollars every second, and people sit down when you reach their net worth. Most people in the US will sit down immediately. After about 9 seconds, people in the "1%" will start sitting down. Mitt Romney would sit down after 4 minutes. Near the 17 minute mark, billionaires would start sitting down. Eric Schmidt would sit down around 2.8 hours. Finally, after nearly a day, Bill Gates would sit down. The point of this is there's a huge range of billionaires (analogous to comparing 17 minutes to a day), and the 1% hardly even registers on this scale (like a few seconds).
- AstralStorm 10y agoExponential cumulative distribution. Mostly because wealth of the few on the top I'd made by accumulation of wealth of the ones below. A mathematical description of exploitation.
- charlesdm 10y agoOne of the "problems" of capitalism. Excessive capital accumulation past a certain point. What makes the system great, is also one of its fatal flaws.
- rantanplan 10y ago> What makes the system great.. Excessive capital accumulation is what makes this system great? Do I read that correctly?
- asib 10y agoPerhaps charlesdm meant that what makes capitalism great is the freedom to accumulate capital, but the fact that this also allows excessive accumulation is a flaw.
- imron 10y agoIn 20-30 years, Zuckerberg is going to be in a league of his own.
- nugget 10y agoMy money is on Bezos to take the #1 spot and stay there for decades.
- known 10y agoPyramid scheme
- hbbio 10y agoAre you sure about that line? Elizabeth Holmes Holmes elizabeth-holmes elizabeth-holmes 32 blood testing Healthcare F United States 1.47E+12 1000 1867
- softwarelimits 10y agoHow to download this as an open-office document? Or at least a csv file?