I agree; and didn't say it was dubious. That said; the title was phrased with a slight negative connotation; before it was changed it was like: Newmark was an

I agree; and didn't say it was dubious. That said; the title was phrased with a slight negative connotation; before it was changed it was like: Newmark was an idealist; now he's a billionaire He is likely a paper billionaire but the article didn't really prove to me he's less of an idealist not that he would sell; making that figure hypothetical. Sure he's rich; but he could be much more so and the reason is ethics and idealism. So too me; I think saying the company is worth x; and he owns most of it fails to consider he likely wouldn't sell and has built a profitable business users love while remaining humble and ignoring greed Edit: I know of one large anonymous donation he has made personally and I an nowhere near connected or know anyone that knows him personally