4 ms·

Has there ever been speculation as to who the richest person in the world is when taking into account private funds instead of just public? Would the list be a

Has there ever been speculation as to who the richest person in the world is when taking into account private funds instead of just public? Would the list be any different?

adventured 9y ago
Both Forbes and Bloomberg attempt to track private funds. If you look through their profiles for example, they list estimated private funds (non public stock holdings, such as cash, real estate, private business ownership, etc). They generally leave royalty, dictators, and similar abnormal situations off the lists.
- ido 9y ago
  Why are Gates, Bezos, et al less abnormal than royales and dictators?
  - pcrh 9y ago
    Heads of state often don't "own" their property the same way a private individual does in that they cannot liquidate their holdings. The Queen of England, for example, can't simply sell Windsor castle. The "personal" property of dictators has the habit of becoming state property on their death or fall from power.
    - sytelus 9y ago
      Ummm... I think they sure can if public access to property is not allowed and if they wanted to. For example, why can't they lease out part of their property that only they have access for 1000 years lease which would be a "sell" for all intent and purposes.
      - Noughmad 9y ago
        Because then they wouldn't be royalty for long.
    - ido 9y ago
      The Queen can't because her role is purely symbolic and she has no real power, but could e.g. Sadaam or Gaddafi when they were in power? IIRC Putin has a lot of actual liquid assets as do many other plutocrats.
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        Putin has a lot of assets (possibly even the most of anyone), but nothing close to the full assets of Russia. Dictators can definitely use their power to enrich themselves greatly, but they can't capture the entire country's assets; they need to use a lot of the assets just to keep the country running and to stay in power. The people that help them to stay in power will expect to get something out of it for themselves. It's kind of like how you wouldn't count the shares of Microsoft that Gates gave away to early employees as part of Gates's assets even though Gates was effectively the dictator of Microsoft.
        ido 9y ago
        Nobody is saying you'd count all the country's GDP, only that their own richness is already as high as the others.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    There is a fundamental difference between a gun and a dollar.
- sytelus 9y ago
  > They generally leave royalty, dictators, and similar abnormal situations off the lists Did not knew that but makes sense... Dictators essentially own entire country and their income is whole GDP. That would dwarf business billionaire many times over.
  - lifeformed 9y ago
    Billionaires would still be near the top of the list if you compare them with dictatorship GDPs. ~80B puts you far above most small or poor countries.
    - te_chris 9y ago
      Small countries, but there's still quite a lot of corrupt bigger countries. Russia, Thailand, Malaysia are the first that come to mind.
    - puranjay 9y ago
      Dictators are dictators only as long as the military supports them. If you're the dictator of say, Egypt, and you decide to "sell" the Great Pyramids, I'm sure some people in the military would have a problem with that. The "absolute" power of dictators also comes with terms and conditions.
treyfitty 9y ago
Some people speculate Vladimir Putin. http://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/ http://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/
- hourislate 9y ago
  Putin and his family are worth well over 100 billion. He has been stealing the wealth of the Russian People for decades.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rapsey 9y ago
I'm sure there are a number of old money families that control wealth of at least an order of magnitude higher. They are powerful enough to not make it visible and directly tied to them. Rothchilds are most likely effectively trillioners.
- matthewbauer 9y ago
  That seems hard to believe. I suppose if you start counting families you can get some pretty big numbers but trillions definitely is too high.
  - mehwoot 9y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20060115031554/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article56239.ece https://web.archive.org/web/20060115031554/http://news.indep... "...to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family." Definitely unfair to count families though. The rothschild family has hundreds (if not thousands??) of members now.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  Do you have your tin foil hat on? Intergenerational wealth breaks down relatively quickly when dealing with significant numbers of heirs to a family fortune. Most will probably still be UHNWIs, but that's it.
  - rapsey 9y ago
    A family whose wealth was built by their knowledge of how to manage wealth let their fortune dwindle? If I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist for finding that hard to believe I guess I am.
    - charlesdm 9y ago
      As a family, they'll be worth a lot. But not that much. We're probably talking 100-200+ descendants over the centuries. Some will have done well in life (e.g. doubled / tripled / quadrupled their inheritances), others will have wasted it all.

Has there ever been speculation as to who the richest person in the world is when taking into account private funds instead of just public? Would the list be any different?

adventured 9y ago

Both Forbes and Bloomberg attempt to track private funds. If you look through their profiles for example, they list estimated private funds (non public stock holdings, such as cash, real estate, private business ownership, etc). They generally leave royalty, dictators, and similar abnormal situations off the lists.

ido 9y ago
Why are Gates, Bezos, et al less abnormal than royales and dictators?
- pcrh 9y ago
  Heads of state often don't "own" their property the same way a private individual does in that they cannot liquidate their holdings. The Queen of England, for example, can't simply sell Windsor castle. The "personal" property of dictators has the habit of becoming state property on their death or fall from power.
  - sytelus 9y ago
    Ummm... I think they sure can if public access to property is not allowed and if they wanted to. For example, why can't they lease out part of their property that only they have access for 1000 years lease which would be a "sell" for all intent and purposes.
    - Noughmad 9y ago
      Because then they wouldn't be royalty for long.
  - ido 9y ago
    The Queen can't because her role is purely symbolic and she has no real power, but could e.g. Sadaam or Gaddafi when they were in power? IIRC Putin has a lot of actual liquid assets as do many other plutocrats.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Putin has a lot of assets (possibly even the most of anyone), but nothing close to the full assets of Russia. Dictators can definitely use their power to enrich themselves greatly, but they can't capture the entire country's assets; they need to use a lot of the assets just to keep the country running and to stay in power. The people that help them to stay in power will expect to get something out of it for themselves. It's kind of like how you wouldn't count the shares of Microsoft that Gates gave away to early employees as part of Gates's assets even though Gates was effectively the dictator of Microsoft.
      - ido 9y ago
        Nobody is saying you'd count all the country's GDP, only that their own richness is already as high as the others.
- mkempe 9y ago
  There is a fundamental difference between a gun and a dollar.
sytelus 9y ago
> They generally leave royalty, dictators, and similar abnormal situations off the lists Did not knew that but makes sense... Dictators essentially own entire country and their income is whole GDP. That would dwarf business billionaire many times over.
- lifeformed 9y ago
  Billionaires would still be near the top of the list if you compare them with dictatorship GDPs. ~80B puts you far above most small or poor countries.
  - te_chris 9y ago
    Small countries, but there's still quite a lot of corrupt bigger countries. Russia, Thailand, Malaysia are the first that come to mind.
  - puranjay 9y ago
    Dictators are dictators only as long as the military supports them. If you're the dictator of say, Egypt, and you decide to "sell" the Great Pyramids, I'm sure some people in the military would have a problem with that. The "absolute" power of dictators also comes with terms and conditions.

treyfitty 9y ago

Some people speculate Vladimir Putin. http://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/ http://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/

hourislate 9y ago
Putin and his family are worth well over 100 billion. He has been stealing the wealth of the Russian People for decades.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rapsey 9y ago

I'm sure there are a number of old money families that control wealth of at least an order of magnitude higher. They are powerful enough to not make it visible and directly tied to them. Rothchilds are most likely effectively trillioners.

matthewbauer 9y ago
That seems hard to believe. I suppose if you start counting families you can get some pretty big numbers but trillions definitely is too high.
- mehwoot 9y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20060115031554/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article56239.ece https://web.archive.org/web/20060115031554/http://news.indep... "...to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family." Definitely unfair to count families though. The rothschild family has hundreds (if not thousands??) of members now.
charlesdm 9y ago
Do you have your tin foil hat on? Intergenerational wealth breaks down relatively quickly when dealing with significant numbers of heirs to a family fortune. Most will probably still be UHNWIs, but that's it.
- rapsey 9y ago
  A family whose wealth was built by their knowledge of how to manage wealth let their fortune dwindle? If I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist for finding that hard to believe I guess I am.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    As a family, they'll be worth a lot. But not that much. We're probably talking 100-200+ descendants over the centuries. Some will have done well in life (e.g. doubled / tripled / quadrupled their inheritances), others will have wasted it all.