Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the 0.001% invest

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 216 posts

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#171

Post by mottenkufelxx »

shaki-dora wrote: post #82
pjc50 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for voluntarily withdrawing this.

Yet even now the removal message refers to it as a “fun” fact, making me somewhat less enthusiastic about OP’s moral compass. Although, I guess, in the best possible light, and some squinting, one could consider this an artifact of inelegant phrasing, or anchoring on whatever the post previously said. Then again, when first told of the true nature of their post, the instant reaction was to defend it with pretend igno…

HN + surrounding community have still not come to terms with what they have created, thus maintaing the totally irresponsible ‘absolutist’ view on free speech.

History, it rhymes.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#172

Post by wil421 »

jjeaff wrote: post #150
wil421 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it got him into the White House. I guess for Trump the image of being an important business man is worth much more than money.

Which is why it's so interesting that the NY Times article ( that exposed his success as a product of a huge inheritance) didn't get much traction among any of his followers.

The people promoting Trump do not care in the slightest. I doubt they’ll even care if any serious allegations come out of Muller’s probe.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#173

Post by syn0byte »

ABCLAW wrote: post #164
mruts wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the portfolio's of dozens of family offices (I worked at a portfolio analytics company so I had free reign to snoop around), and none of the offices seemed competent. The returns were terrible and the portfolio construction laughable. Instead of striving for out performance, the funds just catered to the whims and idiosyncrasies of the family. Also, many of these funds were too small to make sense, AUMs fro…

>One of the exceptions was [Person]'s family office, which managed a shit-ton of money and had some good people who actually knew something about portfolio construction. I'm not sure what type of professional you are, but you may be in breach of your responsibilities by disclosing the specifics listed above. I know this message might seem silly, but I'd hate if you got in trouble for complimenting the guy's affairs.…

I'd love to see Brin's lawyers explain to the court how they found the real world contact info of a random user on HN.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#174

Post by superhuzza »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #158
barrow-rider wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on risk tolerance and how flashy they want to be. Donald Trump, if his public finances are to be believed, would have roughly the same net worth had he just invested the money his dad gave him in mutual funds. Instead he managed to create a series of failing companies and questionable ties... but managed to live the high life and stamp his name on bloody everything.

> Donald Trump, if his public finances are to be believed, would have roughly the same net worth had he just invested the money his dad gave him in mutual funds. There was a factoid going around years ago that said Donald Trump's net worth was equal to the value of his inheritance if it had been invested in an index fund. But note that under that hypothetical, he never would have spent any of it. Do you think the his…

>that said Donald Trump's net worth was equal to the value of his inheritance if it had been invested in an index fund.

Incorrect, it would have been worth substantially more, at about 13 billion (his current wealth is around 3-4 billion). So he still would have been able to spend billions and be further ahead than he is today.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/katestalter/2016/09/01/would-do...

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#175

Post by pesmhey »

jjeaff wrote: post #150
wil421 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it got him into the White House. I guess for Trump the image of being an important business man is worth much more than money.

Which is why it's so interesting that the NY Times article ( that exposed his success as a product of a huge inheritance) didn't get much traction among any of his followers.

I remember listening to an interview with the bylines. Everyone in that interview sounded so sure it would dent Trump’s reputation. Man, I’m really not a fan of the guy, but his opponents have absolutely no idea what they’re up against, and haven’t for a long time.

Trump is the harbinger of a return to patrimonialism. Family offices, a return to patrimonialism. You get a bunch of people who never really understood civics or finance and you try to govern them technocratically, and you’re going to struggle. But everyone in this demographic understands families. They see this dude being passed down wealth, and ‘making something’ of it, and setting his kids up. People understand that, especially the type of person who doesn’t necessarily understand how the neoliberal world works, in ways that are both in their favor and against it.

Family offices are another data point in this trend towards capital accumulation, stark income inequality, and a retreat from public exposure.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#176

Post by icedchai »

mruts wrote: post #62
potatofarmer45 wrote: post #42

I've worked for a family office in Hong Kong. What was really telling for me was how the rate of return KPI was measured. We were not benchmarked against the S&P 500, or any index. We were measured directly against the fund of another frenemy family. So long as the fund outperformed the other family, all was good. It's crazy because you could be underperforming treasury bonds, and still be good because the other offi…

I've seen the portfolio's of dozens of family offices (I worked at a portfolio analytics company so I had free reign to snoop around), and none of the offices seemed competent. The returns were terrible and the portfolio construction laughable. Instead of striving for out performance, the funds just catered to the whims and idiosyncrasies of the family. Also, many of these funds were too small to make sense, AUMs fro…

It's hard to beat the market. Why would the people managing funds at family offices do better?

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#177

Post by philwelch »

alehul wrote: post #116
barrow-rider wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on risk tolerance and how flashy they want to be. Donald Trump, if his public finances are to be believed, would have roughly the same net worth had he just invested the money his dad gave him in mutual funds. Instead he managed to create a series of failing companies and questionable ties... but managed to live the high life and stamp his name on bloody everything.

To offer a better and less political answer: the reason that an UHNWI doesn't park their entire net worth in an index fund is because there is some probability, however minute, that the markets will collapse and never recover. Additionally, we could say that success in active investing is (often) a function of how much you're willing to spend to find the right opportunities. For an UHNWI, this is likely enough to bea…

> To offer a better and less political answer: the reason that an UHNWI doesn't park their entire net worth in an index fund is because there is some probability, however minute, that the markets will collapse and never recover.

Sure, but it seems like the solution to that isn't "new and innovative private investments", it's "invest more money in treasury bonds from stable first-world governments and maybe precious metals".

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#178

Post by vernie »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #79
mruts wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the portfolio's of dozens of family offices (I worked at a portfolio analytics company so I had free reign to snoop around), and none of the offices seemed competent. The returns were terrible and the portfolio construction laughable. Instead of striving for out performance, the funds just catered to the whims and idiosyncrasies of the family. Also, many of these funds were too small to make sense, AUMs fro…

A friend of mine who manages ultra wealth people said most people who turn up don't say "How much can you make me" but say "Can you make sure I'm never poor". It's often about preservation of wealth more than gains for these people. That said I've discussed some returns they make and it's incredible. I don't want to say what I recall, as it was a couple years back and it sounds like an exaggeration. They said this is…

I'd love to know what those people consider being poor.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#179

Post by superhuzza »

lixue wrote: post #117
gberger wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you're telling me he could have turned $1M into $3B just through investing in mutual funds?

Assuming a 10% return, which is about the max I could find for a single fund over 20 years, it'd take 84 years to turn $1M in to $3B. Conversely, plenty of funds do 15-20% in the short term. 15% only takes 57 years, and 20% brings it down to 44. So, doable, but you'd be considered a pretty amazing investor. And this all assumes the money was invested from the day he was born.

You're not considering a) leveraged stock purchases (using debt, like he did with real estate) and b) that his inheritance was significantly more than 1MM. Check out this analysis from forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katestalter/2016/09/01/would-do...

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#180

Post by rising-sky »

syn0byte wrote: post #173
ABCLAW wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One of the exceptions was [Person]'s family office, which managed a shit-ton of money and had some good people who actually knew something about portfolio construction. I'm not sure what type of professional you are, but you may be in breach of your responsibilities by disclosing the specifics listed above. I know this message might seem silly, but I'd hate if you got in trouble for complimenting the guy's affairs.…

I'd love to see Brin's lawyers explain to the court how they found the real world contact info of a random user on HN.

Well, not so random, seems like it would be pretty easy when you give narrow personally identifiable snippets like "I worked at a portfolio analytics company so I had free reign to snoop around"...

Who knows other similar comments they've said in other threads on HN?

Post reply on HN