14 ms·
Last time he pledged to give away half his wealth over x years didn't it basically tripple during that period?
by modo_mario 1y ago
Last time he pledged to give away half his wealth over x years didn't it basically tripple during that period?
- jsbg 1y agoDid it triple because the assets he owns tripled in value?
- modo_mario 1y agoIn which case he didn't actually charitably give away any of those assets I'd assume?
- melling 1y agoMaybe it’ll triple again and he’ll throw in a cure for cancer(s) or Alzheimer’s.
- bravoetch 1y agoHe does mention existing support for programs related to Alzheimer's research in the article.
- legitster 1y agoSame thing happened to Buffet.
- gtirloni 1y agoThe end goal isn't for him to be poor-ish but to do something supposedly useful with the money he has today.
- bee_rider 1y agoIt seems weird to write this, but: In the billionaire’s defense, he probably didn’t plan on us as a society deciding to shoveling money at his class as quickly as we possibly could.
- jjj123 1y agoYou really think his team didn’t plan on or even help lobby for that?
- DavidSJ 1y agoMSFT is up 18x during that time and the S&P 500 is up 5x during that time. His investments are some mixture of MSFT and other things, so we might say he would have been up around 10x if he'd given no money away. Since his net worth is only up 3x, that means he gave away about 70% of his wealth.
- willvarfar 1y agoHe won't have given away 70% of his wealth. If he gave away a dollar at the beginning that is 10 dollars that dollar didn't turn into etc.
- monooso 1y agoAFAIK he didn't give it all away in one lump sum at the start.
- DavidSJ 1y agoFirst giving away X% and then getting a Y% return on investment has exactly the same effect on his wealth as first getting a Y% return and then giving away X%. So to determine X, we can just ask how much money he’d have now had he not given any away, and it looks like he has about 70% less than that.
- modo_mario 1y agoHe said he would do it over 5 years. MSFT was up roughly 2x not 18x
- DavidSJ 1y agoHowever long he took, he has ~70% less wealth than he would have had if he didn't do it. If it took him longer, that only means he gave the wealth after it had more time to appreciate.
- modo_mario 1y agoHow? Why do you take him at face value? You confidently gave an explanation earlier that was hogwash.
- tootie 1y agoIt's part of the strategy. He endowed a giant philanthropic org. You can leverage an endowment by investing it aggressively and spending the proceeds to keep the fund running indefinitely. What he is now announcing is a pivot to start spending principal so the endowment starts to shrink until it hits zero.