6 ms·

Ask HN: Why aren't there any families with a trillion dollars in assets?

• argonaut 12y ago
  How do you know there aren't any families with a trillion dollars in assets? Wikipedia? ;)
  • jayzalowitz 12y ago
    I believe there are, but your definition of family has to be loose.
  • wintersFright 12y ago
    yes, having incredible wealth would draw a lot of unwanted attention. The Rothschild's had their wealth confiscated at least once through nationalisation of banks they owned. It's best to lie low and disguise crazy wealth as much as possible.
• glbrew 12y ago
  Well this probably isn't what you are looking for but the Saudi family (of Saudi Arabia) is worth "well over $1.4 trillion." That is spread out between an extended family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_family#Wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_family#Wealth
• MrBlue 12y ago
  The Rothschilds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
  • chatmasta 12y ago
    This. Interestingly, I was just reading on this topic the other day. Many sources (see Wikipedia article) suspect/assert that the Rothschilds are worth somewhere in the trillions. Since that's more than the GDP of most countries, it fuels a lot of illuminati/"new world order" conspiracy theories. With that kind of wealth, one family has the power to manipulate international markets. By coupling that manipulation with timely investing, the Rothschilds can multiply their fortune indefinitely. Honestly, neither the idea that they control trillions+ nor that they are manipulating markets, seems that far fetched to me. Their family has multiple dozens of individuals spread throughout the world in financial roles, some of them visibly managing billions of dollars in assets. They've controlled their wealth far longer than transparency laws have had any real effect, so it would not surprise me at all if combined, they controlled trillions of dollars. If you've got a family who all knows each other, meets up multiple times per year, and controls trillions of dollars, what do you think is going to happen? Obviously their loyalties all lie to each other, not individual countries. I imagine their family retreats include more than a few "back room meetings" of the most powerful members, where they openly discuss their assets and strategize how to use them to their advantage. It's not hard to imagine a small group of people controlling that much money becoming hungry for power and influence. It's a scary thought, but the world seems to be doing fine so far, so I'm not too worried.
• grimtrigger 12y ago
  There's a saying my mom used to say: "money never makes it past the third generation". The idea is that if you grow up wealthy, you don't have the skills/drive necessary to keep that wealth going.
  • ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". I always took that as an estimate of the lifespan of a firm. If that firm lasts beyond that, it's been reengineered to be relevant.
    • webmaven 12y ago
      I always heard that as "rags to riches to rags in three generations".
      • ArkyBeagle 12y ago
        That too :) Either is nicely snappy.
• ssivark 12y ago
  The size of a family grows exponentially with generation. Assuming a young couple. In 3 generations (~70 years) the family size would have become close to 10x. More often than not, wealth is divided among extended families. So, to maintain per-capita wealth, the initial pool would need to grow at a matching rate by 10x in 70 years -- which is an annual growth of roughly 3-4% (in real value, i.e. over-and-above inflation). Otherwise, wealth will simply be diluted exponentially, apart from getting consumed/expended. (Unless at every step you manage to keep marrying rich) If you start with a large amount of wealth, achieving such a growth rate (3-4% per year, in real value) is no mean feat. 1. For starters, one cannot depend on "employment" which has a relatively small return. You need to find a way of earning money on your capital. 2. The political and societal conditions might not be conducive. The person(s) in the zeroth generation might have been lucky in many ways. This relates to the idea raised in the OP above. 3. People growing up in wealth might not have the skills, or the luck. 4. Or they might not have the desire. They might prefer to move higher along Maslow's hierarchy once the lower level needs are met. To quote John Adams: "I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematicks and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, musick, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelaine."
• patrickdavey 12y ago
  How do you know what assets these families have? Most of them I'd imagine would have assets so wrapped up in opaque trusts in secrecy jurisdictions (Caymans, British Virgin Islands etc.) that I can't see how you'd ever really know. For a very interesting read on the above, check out http://treasureislands.org/the-book/ http://treasureislands.org/the-book/ ... a fantastic read.
  • sien 12y ago
    Exactly this. There is an article about how the super rich in Germany keep very quiet. Wealth lists are only on what people can find and often exclude royalty. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28472884 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28472884
    • GFischer 12y ago
      Plenty of people not in those lists have laughed at them - many have reasons to lie low, others count as their fortune assets managed by family, retainers, figureheads and frontsmen. I know the list for my country (Uruguay) is wildly inaccurate, and have no reason to believe that it's different in other countries - possibly in the U.S. they're more open, but not in the Middle East, Brazil, Mexico, China or Russia.
  • patrickdavey 12y ago
    My HN fu is limited, but I'm wondering why the downvote? Karma is so precious ;)
• ramoq 12y ago
  Actually I believe the House of Saud aka Saud Family (in Saudi Arabia) has a well known estimated net-worth of over 1.4 Trillion. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#Wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#Wealth
  • josephschmoe 12y ago
    That's about 15000 people. 15000 people in the 99%-99.9% would have about 120 billion. 15000 people in the 99.9%-99.99%? They'd have about 600 billion. The top 0.01% has about 6 trillion. So, it's a family of 15,000 99.97%ers!
• cellis 12y ago
  The Waltons may only be worth 1/10-12th of that, but they sure as hell have control over a nearly half-trillion dollar revenue corporation. At that scale, what matters more is direct influence over the lives of the many,i.e. power, not fiat dollars that can be pressed up and dilute you arbitrarily if need be. "You may have all the money Raymond, but I have all the men with guns." ~ Frank Underwood
  • ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    "Control over" maybe, but the thing is on rails. And some dilution: there are five years since 1992 where CPI ( which has a reputation for overstating inflation ) is over 3%: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1913.cfm http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/ca...
• sixQuarks 12y ago
  The truth is, we don't know who the richest family is. It was revealed that Egypt's ousted dictator had about $100 billion in assets stashed away. That would make him the world's richest man. How many others are out there and how much are they hiding, who knows?
• sixQuarks 12y ago
  Mubarak's family was estimated to have hidden $700 billion in assets: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/11/egyptian-estimate-of-mubaraks-wealth-soars-to-700-billion/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/11/egyptian...
• nicholas73 12y ago
  Rockefeller's Standard Oil split off into most of the major US oil companies today. With shares spread through family members, foundations, and diversified into other companies, it's not inconceivable that they are massively more wealthy than a Forbes list member.
• eruditely 12y ago
  The primary issue with the question is the "Why" part. This would imply that there was some reason if there wasn't. This implies some form of soft historicism, or some agency. There is not why, there is only there is/not. Why would make sense in some novel case statements.
• josephschmoe 12y ago
  The answer is very simple: As total investment increases, return on investment trends towards a stable average. Inheritance tax takes care of the rest. This is why we as a society need inheritance tax. It prevents dynastic wealth from taking over.