4 ms·

"The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its cre

by crgt 15y ago

"The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations." This article makes an important distinction between the top 1% and the top .1% that the NYT piece glosses over: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manage...

rudiger 15y ago
Indeed, it's not that the conclusion of the article is wrong; the top 1% (whether measured by wealth or by income) are actually a pretty diverse group of people (in terms of occupations). However, the top 0.1% or even 0.01% are possibly a much more monolithic group, perhaps largely involved in the financial services and banking industries? This may be the more relevant group to discuss.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Your article is a bit deceptive - "some association with the financial industry" can mean an entrepreneur who made their money by building equity in a startup rather than earning a salary: One of our clients, net worth in the $60M range, built a small company and was acquired with stock from a multi-national. Stock is often called a "paper" asset. Another client, CEO of a medium-cap tech company, retired with a net worth in the $70M range. The bulk of any CEO's wealth comes from stock, not income, and incomes are also very high... Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a high level programmer in a successful IT company. So by their criteria, Larry and Sergei, Steve Jobs, etc, all made their money "as a result of some association with the financial industry".

4 ms·

"The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its cre

by crgt 15y ago

rudiger 15y ago
Indeed, it's not that the conclusion of the article is wrong; the top 1% (whether measured by wealth or by income) are actually a pretty diverse group of people (in terms of occupations). However, the top 0.1% or even 0.01% are possibly a much more monolithic group, perhaps largely involved in the financial services and banking industries? This may be the more relevant group to discuss.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Your article is a bit deceptive - "some association with the financial industry" can mean an entrepreneur who made their money by building equity in a startup rather than earning a salary: One of our clients, net worth in the $60M range, built a small company and was acquired with stock from a multi-national. Stock is often called a "paper" asset. Another client, CEO of a medium-cap tech company, retired with a net worth in the $70M range. The bulk of any CEO's wealth comes from stock, not income, and incomes are also very high... Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a high level programmer in a successful IT company. So by their criteria, Larry and Sergei, Steve Jobs, etc, all made their money "as a result of some association with the financial industry".