/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.1982261]

Have the first trillionaires (or billionaires with their net worth in the high hundreds of billions) already been born?

[Anonymous No.1982271]

>>1982261
Yep I'm right here :)

[Anonymous No.1982276]

>>1982271
jej
nt m8

[Anonymous No.1982281]

The sistem is made so that no one can obtain a trillion, besides countries themselves.
You can buy a war for a trillion anon.

[Anonymous No.1982282]

>>1982261
If we assume optimistic development of life extension technology and an average 2% annual inflation rate, yes.

[Anonymous No.1982342]

>>1982261
Right here lad

[Anonymous No.1982875]

Satoshi will be a trillionaire when Bitcoin is at $1M

[Anonymous No.1982992]

>>1982261
if you had 1 trillion dollars.
how would you hold onto / keep track of it.

how would you make sure the ppl you trusted weren't walking out the door with millions, hundred millions and even billions a day?

[Anonymous No.1983034]

i mean.. you cant hold it all in your pocket.

banks, politicians and lawyers will rip you off for a trillion dollars...

populations will rise up against you for a spare trillion dollars....

there isn't that many spare trillion dollars lying around on earth.
ppl would rather steal and cook books than try to understand how to create new, genuine value.

[Anonymous No.1983044]

>>1982261

Gaddafi supposedly had $2-300B stashed away in various investment accounts from siphoning oil profits off of Libya for years.

If there is a trillionaire it is probably the Saudi king.

[Anonymous No.1983092]

try trillionaires with their net worth in the high hundreds of trillions, faggot

[Anonymous No.1983098]

try trillionaires with their net worth in the high hundreds of trillions, faggot

[Anonymous No.1983125]

>>1982261
Satoshi Nakamoto will become the world's most wealthy individual, and arguably the most powerful. It won't be long now..

[Anonymous No.1983129]

>>1982261
Yes, Rockefeller's net worth would've been about $800 Billion when adjusted for inflation. Ganghis Khan's would have extrapolated that by almost $300 Billion.

So I mean, we've had them. They will likely happen again once a new market is born and someone (Not a company) is a vanguard to that industry/sector.

Bill gates is a good modern example: He made about 100 Billion (Before Tax) with Microsoft, because he played his cards wrong. Obviously he's still the richest man in the world, but he could be MUCH richer if he'd done it right.

Microsoft went public in 1986 with a market cap of $778 Million, Bill Gates owned 45% of that, so $350 Million.

Today, Microsoft's Market Cap is $516 Billion, which would mean that Bill's 45% stake would be worth $232 Billion.

But of course he had to turn a LARGE chunk of his stock into cash, just to hoard it. Anyway, if he had sold ALL of it in 1999, when it was fairly high, he would've made about $200 Billion, after taxes, which would just be 15% because of Capital gains, he would have $170 Billion.

Assuming he put it all on the S&P, now he would have 187% of that, or $318 Billion.

That's assuming he didn't fully acquire companies nor any other income. He's just 61 Years, assuming he lives to 95, he would have over $1 Trillion because of Compounded Income.

So, short way of saying it: Bill Gates mismanaged his money HUGELY and still made it to #1 Richest Man.

Same goes for Buffett, but the other way around. He bought majority of Berkshire after IPO, and now it's worth 400 Billion. If he had just bought it completely off and privatized it, he would DEFINITELY have most of that to himself.

So our first Trillionaire will either come when inflation gets extremely high and everyone becomes a Trillionaire, or when the next Vanguard of a new Sector/Great Investor play his cards right.

[Anonymous No.1983199]

>>1983034
>>1982992
Satoshi has no problems there.

[Anonymous No.1983232]

>>1983125
Hopefully he will use the money for the greater good and adapt every LN into anime.

[Sage No.1983245]

>>1983098
NANI

[Anonymous No.1983253]

>>1983245
oops my old nametag

[Anonymous No.1983271]

>>1983129

Interesting. Here's a (You).

[Anonymous No.1983776]

>>1983129
These companies wouldn't have been as big if Gates and Buffett held their initial shares. Couldn't have happened for Berkshire, and unlikely even for Microsoft. Growth happens from perceived value. Performance helps but so does more people having a stake.

[Anonymous No.1983993]

>>1983199
>trillion
>mtgox
>satoshi

[Anonymous No.1984067]

Yes, 21BTC+ holders in 10 years.

[Anonymous No.1985181]

>>1982261
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE MCCLOUD!

[Anonymous No.1985210]

>>1983129
>Bill gates is a good modern example: He made about 100 Billion (Before Tax) with Microsoft, because he played his cards wrong. Obviously he's still the richest man in the world, but he could be MUCH richer if he'd done it right.
Houses made of paper are easy to steal.

Once you become a piece of the system it's expensive to protect the account. If the bureaucrat beast can make more money stealing from you than by extorting then it will take everything.

This is beyond the red pill.

[Anonymous No.1985225]

I read awhile back that there was 'unlisted' individuals that easily have much more money than that, obviously someone owns the huge multinational corporations, right? Wouldn't those people have way more than a trillion in assets already?

[Anonymous No.1986188]

>>1983776
If you're talking about management decisions, they could've gone public partially (Say, 20%) with board seats. Same effect.

>>1985210
Agreed... To an extent.

[Anonymous No.1986311]

>>1982261

I don't think so. Mabe some arab royal family has a trillion total, but it is split between hundreds of "princes"