4 ms·
Yes, but even so, the (fictional) RoI on the start money is a few orders of magnitude. Which is not quite ordinary.
by ccozan 7y ago
Yes, but even so, the (fictional) RoI on the start money is a few orders of magnitude. Which is not quite ordinary.
- microtherion 7y agoSure, but how much was Perot being lucky vs. him being smart? If Apple had gone with acquiring Be instead of NeXT (which I think was a distinct possibility), Perot's investment could quite possibly have ended up a write-off.
- cgy1 7y agoHe was basically betting on Steve Jobs so for me Perot was being smart.
- solveit 7y agoI'll take a 50% chance of a X1000. Less flippantly, it was a smart bet to make at the time even though things could have gone differently, since we (now) know there was a possible world (ours!) in which it went X1000.
- nostrademons 7y agoIt's interesting how much of that happened post-acquisition, though. Holding NeXT from 1987 - 1996 = max 3x return. Holding AAPL from 1996-present = 340x return. This return was available to ordinary people on the public stock markets, too - if you were an average Joe who put $60K into Apple in 1996, you would now have Ross Perot's initial $20M investment sitting in your pocket.
- patrickthebold 7y agoI get your point, but let's take a minute to remind ourselves that the average person does not have 60k lying around to invest.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sitkack 7y agoThe average hypothetical alternate history investor seems to have that kinda money.