Live data from Hacker News

How the 0.001% invest

economist.com

31–40 of 216 posts

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#31
post #9
post #6

[removed fun fact due to it being false and still being published in modern books .. sigh]

You seem to miss the most salient point! The Rothschilds are still investing, and you can join them. RIT (Rothschild Investment Trust, London listed) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIT_Capital_Partners (not investment advice)

Seconded I have done very well investing in RCP though its on a premium now.

Note Its a defensive IT designed to preserve wealth

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires

Interesting to see the deltas (YoY) increase in wealth of these billionaires.

The top 5 have a growth of $8-15bn a year in wealth in the past few years. This increase in wealth is mostly an increase in institutions that keep growing at a very healthy rate (Amazon, Microsoft, BH, Facebook, etc).

I think it's important to remember that all of these persons (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc) are the primary owner of a large institution that creates the wealth. Building orgs to put money to use is what they did to make their money in the first place, so it makes sense that they would do that with their private wealth as well.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#33
post #13

0.001% of the world is about 75k people [1], there are about 2200 dollar billionaires [2], so only(!) ~3% of these people are billionaires. Not a real point to make, but I was wondering, and it might save someone else time. [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.001%25+*+world+popul... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires

As that wiki link points out, wealth isn't entirely public or measurable; so the list isn't complete. It explicitly excludes dictators and royalty (so, hey, saudi family!), and " excluding and ranking against those with wealth that is not able to be completely ascertained"

That makes perfect sense of course; but all those excluded parties from that ranking still need to manage wealth, so getting exact or even estimated numbers here is going to be tricky. And then there's the family != person disconnect - although it seems to me that most people in this situation got lucky somehow, so it's rather unlikely there are multiple original sources of wealth in such families. If there are several individually wealthy family members it's probably more likely due to dilution.

But yeah, you'd assume the median family wealth of a the top 0.001% of people is likely below 1 billion. But how much? Who knows.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#34
post #6

[removed fun fact due to it being false and still being published in modern books .. sigh]

I'd be interested to see what the fake "fact" was in your post, on case I had mistakenly believed too.

It was a decades-old, anti-semitic trope. So the amount of "fun" it ever created is somewhat is dispute.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#35
The majority of the world's richest people have their wealth tied up in companies they either founded or inherited.... if they are investing their capital they have limitations most of us do not have to face. If I go from having to invest $1m to $100m to $100bn, my investment universe shrinks each time.

For example, a small investor can invest in companies with market cap of ~$50m+....not possible for Warren Buffet. He can only invest in maybe less than a few hundred companies...with market caps in the region of a few $100bn.... there are of course treasuries/bonds but no seriously wealthy person has all of their money in bonds. In part because the returns are so low and income taxes are meaningfully higher than cap gains.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#36
post #6

[removed fun fact due to it being false and still being published in modern books .. sigh]

I'd be interested to see what the fake "fact" was in your post, on case I had mistakenly believed too.

Judging from the other links, it’s the Waterloo stock market legend.

There seems to be some reluctance here to even referring to it, but I don’t subscribe to that so here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild#Waterl...

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#38
post #33
post #13

0.001% of the world is about 75k people [1], there are about 2200 dollar billionaires [2], so only(!) ~3% of these people are billionaires. Not a real point to make, but I was wondering, and it might save someone else time. [1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.001%25+*+world+popul... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires

As that wiki link points out, wealth isn't entirely public or measurable; so the list isn't complete. It explicitly excludes dictators and royalty (so, hey, saudi family!), and " excluding and ranking against those with wealth that is not able to be completely ascertained" That makes perfect sense of course; but all those excluded parties from that ranking still need to manage wealth, so getting exact or even estimat…

> If there are several individually wealthy family members it's probably more likely due to dilution.

While this is probably true in general, there are at least two famous exceptions from Germany.

There is the notable case of Adolf "Adi" Dassler, founder of Adidas, and his older brother Rudolf Dassler, founder of Puma, who separated from their joined shoe manfucaturing business and independently built two of the largest shoe (and now sports equipment) manufacturing companies in the world. Both still headquartered in the tiny 23000 people city Herzognaurach, Germany (close to Nuremberg).

And the similar story of Karl and Theo Albrecht, founders of Aldi (Albrecht Discount), which was split in Aldi Nord (north) and Aldi Süd (south), both growing their company in billion dollar businesses and each becoming billionaires. Granted though they had slightly different styles of running their business, their success was based on the same innovative business idea and a geographic non-compete agreement.

Re: How the 0.001% invest

#39
Back when I was fantasizing about what I'd do if I won the lottery, I looked into family offices a bit and concluded that there's basically no point as far as the investing advice goes. It's still likely a good idea for some of the ultra-wealthy for estate, tax, and philanthropic purposes, but on the investment side? The standard passive indexing approach used by middle class individuals scales in a cost-effective manner to the billions of dollars of assets. And as a bonus, you don't need to stake your fortune on a trust-based relationship. Instead, you get to base things off of institutions and audits - Vanguard isn't going to take the money you shoved into VTSAX and embezzle it through investing in their distant cousin's "company", even if it is a billion dollars.
Post reply on HN