Millionaires and billionaires living under their means

Everyone thought he was a saint. Before they found the trusts and foundations in Liechtenstein.

 

And you are talking Kr, not USD Placid.

No, I mean USD. The question is if he owns INGKA etc. Check wiki and other reliable sources :-p

That's not really the reason why, he can surly afford any car on the planet. But he is a very conservative guy.

 

You are right though, he is most likely hiding a lot of money, some say his real worth is close to $100 billions!

 

$100 billion!? I don't think anyone is worth THAT much yet...?

 

 

No, I mean USD. The question is if he owns INGKA etc. Check wiki and other reliable sources :-p

 

Right you are Placid. Apologies.

 

$100 billion!? I don't think anyone is worth THAT much yet...?

 

Gates was worth 100+ back in what, late 90's?

I think some of it might have to do with as mentioned, that much of the wealth is paper money. Twitter for example is not even profitable, but is currently worth almost as much or even more than the Ford Motor Company, which some say is indicative of a bubble. I can understand the living in a plain house and not being too into fancy cars or clothing, as some people just legitimately are not into that stuff, but the stuff like flying coach I just think is silly. If I had the $$$, I'd always fly private. Much more comfortable. Also, these guys should realize that they are creating wealth, and the economy needs people to spend money right now.

 

And despite all the hoopla over Warren Buffett, he doesn't live poor by any means. He just doesn't live extravagantly. A Lincoln Town Car is a solid decent vehicle. And his house that he has lived in for so many years is about 6,000 square-feet, which while not comparable to say a 30,000 square foot mansion, is still pretty huge for the average family or average person in the United States. Buffett also uses a private jet.

Right you are Placid. Apologies.

 

 

 

Gates was worth 100+ back in what, late 90's?

 

IKEA's revenues are about $34 billion, how would that make him worth $100 billion...? Koch Industries is privately-owned with $100+ billion in revenues, and the Koch Brothers who own it are each worth about $18 billion or so.

The real recluse was Sam Walton. He drove an old pickup truck till he died. I think we've talked about the major factor being cash events as outlined in Richistan.

 

I knew a couple who in 1998 put a million dollars into their son's startup and it went public. The million shares went to 30 dollars/share. They didn't cash out and the bust brought them back down. I think they rode the ship all the way down to break even. So unless you cash out you don't have anything.

In the end all these persons are still NORMAL human beings just like everyone else, only extremely talented and gifted.

 

I think the media tries to portray a certain image of these extremely wealthy (young) individuals but in a wrong way. People seem to get obsessed by the likes of Zuckerberg, but he's a plain guy who just runs a company. They don't want to be celebrities and their goal isn't to be one or necessarily live the decadent life.

 

It seems all we want to hear is that one of them buys several expensive mansions all over the world, with the cars, money and perhaps other substances... the works.

 

Something we can look up to, not the boring life some of them lead now.

IKEA's revenues are about $34 billion, how would that make him worth $100 billion...? Koch Industries is privately-owned with $100+ billion in revenues, and the Koch Brothers who own it are each worth about $18 billion or so.

 

Wasn't agreeing with the 100 + figure, was just stating that he was right in thinking that the guy could be worth 100+ USD, not Kr.

 

 

Re: Koch, old American money is far more intriguing.

IKEA's revenues are about $34 billion, how would that make him worth $100 billion...? Koch Industries is privately-owned with $100+ billion in revenues, and the Koch Brothers who own it are each worth about $18 billion or so.

Dude, one's worth isn't measured by the current annual revenue of their company...

Wasn't agreeing with the 100 + figure, was just stating that he was right in thinking that the guy could be worth 100+ USD, not Kr.

 

 

Re: Koch, old American money is far more intriguing.

 

Koch isn't necessarilly old money, he inherited his father's company, which was a moderately successful enterprise at the time, and then over a period of about forty years, through much trial and error, built it into the company it is today.

 

Dude, one's worth isn't measured by the current annual revenue of their company...

 

No, but revenues play a role in a company's value.

Warren Buffet owns a beach house in Laguna Beach.

Koch isn't necessarilly old money, he inherited his father's company, which was a moderately successful enterprise at the time, and then over a period of about forty years, through much trial and error, built it into the company it is today.

 

Yeah sorry, that's what I meant. Old not including Koch. Old meaning the robber barons.

 

Has anyone produced anything that tries to explain where their wealth went? ( without been heavily conspiracy theory based? )

Yeah sorry, that's what I meant. Old not including Koch. Old meaning the robber barons.

 

Has anyone produced anything that tries to explain where their wealth went? ( without been heavily conspiracy theory based? )

 

You mean where the guys like the Vanderbilts (and other such original super-wealthy guys) wealth went? One, exponentially expanding family over the years (their children have children, who have children, who have children, etc...), which divides the fortune up further and further, plus the people inheriting the wealth are not necessarilly good stewards over it, etc...

Of course he could afford any car he wants.

 

I guess my point was that he lives that way ( frugally ) to portray a certain image, yet the whole time he has been avoiding massive amounts of tax and been incredibly clever with it all.

 

Good on him.

 

Exactly.

 

Placid is also right.

you can't spend it when their throwing dirt in your face

Its so annoying to hear "oh he's so down to earth even though he has millions, etc.". It's just that it comforts the average Joe to know there are people out there with extravagant means that CHOOSE to live like them.

Just saw this thread thought i'd jump in and clear up some points.

A lot of these people are paper rich. Many of them are not worth $50 , 100, mil etc in actual cash. They may have only a few hundred thousand in the bank. Zuckerberg is a billionaire on paper. When Company X buy Company Y for $100 mil its mostly in stock and not cash. If company X is not publicly traded then it is very hard to turn the stock into cash. If Twitter or Facebook etc buy out a company its using their non publicly traded stock. So most of this money is paper. I'm pretty sure if the money was 'real' these guys would be spending it or at least spending more than they currently are.

 

On the other hand if they do actually have the money and choose to live like this I guess its their business. If it makes them happy who cares. Once you have that kind of money you don't really care about status symbols like $400k cars and $20 mil mansions. It might have something to do with Maslows hierarchy of needs. The need for status symbols is in the 4th level - Esteem. These people may have moved on past that level to the highest level - self actualization. They have achieved a lot, people respect them and their accomplishments speaks for itself. So therefore they have nothing to gain through status symbols and in fact the possession of such symbols might become an impediment on their progression forward. Its easier to stay focused and driven while living in a 1 bedroom apartment than it is when you have a 20k sq ft mansion, a garage full of exotics, 100 ft yacht and a private jet.

Just wanted to add now a days it is almost as easy to sell your shares of a private company as public, given there are people interested in buying, there are a handful of private exchanges around, and Zuck has a fair amount of fortune in cash, not talking % of his fortune, just a large enough amount facebook could go bankrupt and he'd still never have to work.

 

I think some of it might have to do with as mentioned, that much of the wealth is paper money. Twitter for example is not even profitable, but is currently worth almost as much or even more than the Ford Motor Company, which some say is indicative of a bubble. I can understand the living in a plain house and not being too into fancy cars or clothing, as some people just legitimately are not into that stuff, but the stuff like flying coach I just think is silly. If I had the $$$, I'd always fly private. Much more comfortable. Also, these guys should realize that they are creating wealth, and the economy needs people to spend money right now.

 

And despite all the hoopla over Warren Buffett, he doesn't live poor by any means. He just doesn't live extravagantly. A Lincoln Town Car is a solid decent vehicle. And his house that he has lived in for so many years is about 6,000 square-feet, which while not comparable to say a 30,000 square foot mansion, is still pretty huge for the average family or average person in the United States. Buffett also uses a private jet.

Twitter is valued at the very highest end at less then 1/5 ford's value. Not to say i don't think its over valued and signs of a bubble.

 

You mean where the guys like the Vanderbilts (and other such original super-wealthy guys) wealth went? One, exponentially expanding family over the years (their children have children, who have children, who have children, etc...), which divides the fortune up further and further, plus the people inheriting the wealth are not necessarilly good stewards over it, etc...

Wheels is dead on here, added with lots of charitable giving usually at the end of a patriarchs life or the second generation.

Keep in mind there are some that still have wealth as well, such as Rockefeller, DuPont, Rothschild, Johnson, and the Mellon, those are all the ones i can get off the top of my head.

Just saw this thread thought i'd jump in and clear up some points.

 

Just wanted to add now a days it is almost as easy to sell your shares of a private company as public, given there are people interested in buying, there are a handful of private exchanges around, and Zuck has a fair amount of fortune in cash, not talking % of his fortune, just a large enough amount facebook could go bankrupt and he'd still never have to work.

 

 

Twitter is valued at the very highest end at less then 1/5 ford's value. Not to say i don't think its over valued and signs of a bubble.

 

 

Wheels is dead on here, added with lots of charitable giving usually at the end of a patriarchs life or the second generation.

Keep in mind there are some that still have wealth as well, such as Rockefeller, DuPont, Rothschild, Johnson, and the Mellon, those are all the ones i can get off the top of my head.

 

I think you can add the Hearst family to that list too. This is a very valid point by wheels. Usually the people assuming the wealth are so entitled that they never learned how to handle it in the first place. It just ends up flying out the window until there is nothing left.

Reminds me of this Born Rich documentary...

 

 

 

 

Let's face it if you have money you have the freedom to do what you want- whether it is to go to the best restaurants or Argentina for skiing. I like Tim Ferriss's thinking more though - to do those things efficiently without having loads of money.

 

Those who choose not to do anything different at all when they have the means to - I don't buy it. You have to reward yourself some ways - so if it is charity/new start ups/etc that's still rewarding, and I love that this is the way they choose to do it instead of buying a Bugatti, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do the same.

at least they're not annoying like those $30k millionaires

 

Warren Buffet owns a beach house in Laguna Beach.

 

He bought that for his wife who wasn't living with him

I think you can add the Hearst family to that list too. This is a very valid point by wheels. Usually the people assuming the wealth are so entitled that they never learned how to handle it in the first place. It just ends up flying out the window until there is nothing left.

 

But surely to god, the wealth that those early families created can't have just vanished into thin air from missmanagement and over spending? The amount of influence they had in their day has to remain to some degree, surely? Likes of the families that have been mentioned.

I'm from SV and know some well-off people, and none of them live like that. While many of them dress like they shop at Goodwill or drive cars like Camrys or wear $100 watches, they all live in nice houses in good areas. I wouldn't read too much into that article. The writer probably had to search long and hard to find people like that to write about

 

I think part of it is that SV culture shuns conspicuous consumption, and especially right now there's a backlash against rich people or people who show off. People are living more low-key. You hardly see exotics anymore, for instance. I can't remember the last time I saw one? Maybe a Vantage was the last one I saw, and something like would be as common as a Hyundai in Southern Cal. I haven't seen a Lambo on the street in months.

 

 

But surely to god, the wealth that those early families created can't have just vanished into thin air from missmanagement and over spending? The amount of influence they had in their day has to remain to some degree, surely? Likes of the families that have been mentioned.

 

There are lots of very very wealthy people who fly below the Forbes List radar, so just because they don't show up on the yearly report don't think it isn't around.

There are lots of very very wealthy people who fly below the Forbes List radar, so just because they don't show up on the yearly report don't think it isn't around.

 

I know that. All I wanted to know is if anyone has tried to track where some of family investments lie today.

A lot of these people are paper rich. Many of them are not worth $50 , 100, mil etc in actual cash. They may have only a few hundred thousand in the bank. Zuckerberg is a billionaire on paper. When Company X buy Company Y for $100 mil its mostly in stock and not cash. If company X is not publicly traded then it is very hard to turn the stock into cash. If Twitter or Facebook etc buy out a company its using their non publicly traded stock. So most of this money is paper. I'm pretty sure if the money was 'real' these guys would be spending it or at least spending more than they currently are.

 

Facebook has to IPO and Zuckerberg has to sell off stock for years before his liquid net worth would be anything close to his estimated $10+ billion on paper. He probably has a mortgage on his house.

 

What I've noticed is that spending money on expensive shit is really distracting. Running a start up tech company is extremely difficult, it just doesn't work out very well with 50% of your attention. The guys that are partying on the weekends or worried about tiling the bathroom in their second house will never even make it to the point where they have a wildly successful company (unless they just put in money and have little to do with day to day operations.) Some people get to that point and then they lose it. In technology there is no coasting, your company has to constantly improve by leaps and bounds to remain viable. I have a big party and it can take me two weeks to get back on course. Take a guess, there are a lot less parties now.

 

Warren Buffet lives middle class but has no problem charting private jets. Very few wealthy people actually live a strict middle class lifestyle, as the article states.