Antivirus Software Pioneer John McAfee Loses Fortune (2009)

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=8462247&singlePage=true

by a5seo • 15 years ago

142 57 15 years ago

abcnews.go.com

> In McAfee's case, his Rodeo paradise -- on which he's spent millions -- drew only a few modest bids. The home, which included the airstrip and hangar, sold for $525,000 to a couple from the Washington, D.C., suburbs. "It's a little less than what I paid for the landscaping," he said. "Somebody got a great deal."

I wonder how much that's worth now.

Luc• 15 years ago

I was curious - here's some pictures and a map of the place, now called the 'Painted Pony Resort': http://wikimapia.org/13741915/Painted-Pony-Resort

rokhayakebe3• 15 years ago

Ok, I wouldn't spend $100,000 for that.

mikecolella• 15 years ago

I have been there and taken a flying lesson in a "trike" from the airfield. It wasn't a luxurious place.

acangiano2• 15 years ago

Sad story, but I love that he is at it again.

According to Wikipedia: "Beginning in February 2010, John started a new venture in the field of bacterial quorum sensing. His new company QuorumEx is headquartered in Belize and is working towards producing commercial all natural antibiotics based on anti-quorum sensing technology."

I just love how the man, even at 66, still swings for the fences. He doesn't dick around with small projects and SaaS. He seems to have a track record of going after game changing technologies.

SwellJoe3• 15 years ago

There's nothing sad about this story. He's still worth $10m. He will never want for food, shelter, a new Porsche, etc.

Sure, a lot of money was wasted on extravagant things, and he's found that the market value of a private playground in a desolate stretch of desert is not very high. But, that doesn't make the story sad. He's not a stupid man; he can't have imagined that these things would sell for what he spent on them.

acangiano2• 15 years ago

Perhaps we have a different perception. To me, destruction of his personal wealth (going from $100M to $4M) is sad. Sure, he made bad investment choices, and I'm in no way implying that he'll starve or go homeless, but I still find it sad. On the plus side, the man seems to have rediscovered his true self in the process.

nickmolnar2• 15 years ago

Sad story?

I think you miss the point. He was never in it for the money. The toys, houses, and cars were a distraction. Read his quotes in the article. The sad part is that he wasted so many years showing off when he could have been fulfilling his passions.

tryitnow• 15 years ago

"he could have been fulfilling his passions."

and given his talents and interests those passions could have helped us all by creating new and awesome products. Paradoxically, if he spent more time following his passion instead of consuming he'd probably have a lot more money too.

rdouble• 15 years ago

Another interesting factoid about him is that he didn't start his software company until he was 44.

thevivekpandey2• 15 years ago

Good to keep in mind in these times when you start feeling too old at 30: "twenty nine, past my prime; I feel so behind the time"

msisk6• 15 years ago

I don't know -- this article at FastCompany linked from Wikipedia puts a different light on his move to Belize: http://www.fastcompany.com/node/1615167/print

Hard to say what the truth is here, but it's an interesting story nonetheless.

jleader2• 15 years ago

Interesting paragraph from the FastCompany article:

"As all this information [about the wrongful death lawsuit] unfolds for me, many things that had seemed odd begin to make sense: McAfee's publicity campaign to promote the idea that he'd lost 96% of his wealth; the fact that he told me he has sold all of his U.S. assets; his having given away all the companies he set up in Belize; and his quorum-sensing research, a topic that gave his relocation to Belize a noble spin, even though in practice he seemed to devote little attention to it."

So is the ABC News story one of the results of that publicity campaign?

SiVal• 15 years ago

The print version of the article linked to here jumps into the middle of the story. You have to go through a page at a time to get the whole thing.

Frankly, the Fast Company article makes a lot more sense. This, "I lost all my assets, but I'm a happier guy, and now I'm off to Belize with a few pennies in my pocket," stuff is pretty convenient for a guy with five pending lawsuits including a wrongful death that could cost him, well, all his assets.

losvedir• 15 years ago

Wow, fascinating. That article paints McAfee and this story in an entirely different light, doesn't it? Thanks.

edit: I should add, I wonder which is more accurate? About 10 years ago my uncle's family was involved in a lawsuit which ended up going to the supreme court. 20/20 and 60 Minutes (I think it was those two) did shows on the story, and it was very interesting to see each show spin the story a different way. So, the media can definitely pick a side which they think will sell well, and selectively quote and share details. I wonder if that's happening here.

tsotha• 15 years ago

That article really makes him out to be a serial liar and sort of a con-man.

thevivekpandey2• 15 years ago

As much as I would have loved to get awed by him going for game changing technologies, it appears that reason behind him relocating to Belize is to escape lawsuits in the US, and his focus is hardly on research. See the link in the wikipedia article: http://www.fastcompany.com/node/1615167/print

0x122• 15 years ago

Can't blame the guy, the only reason he got sued is because he has money.

Another thing that is possibly part of this is that people feel the need to lay blame for everything, they can't just accept that someone died and that's that.

It's tough to lose a loved one but no amount of money will bring them back and blaming the guy that bankrolled the operation seems a little weird to me. The pilot was responsible, he should have known the limits of his license. But the pilot is dead and probably was penniless anyway so the blame gets shifted to the nearest entity with money.

In the end, the people that will win are the lawyers, everybody else just loses, even if they get some money they've still lost, for all the time that they could spend to heal they kept the wound wide open.

nikcub• 15 years ago

Not sad at all - he is better for it. He did what rich people are expected to do - buy shit, and found out that it isn't as satisfying as people are lead to believe.

hammock• 15 years ago

Paper-rich assets inflated by the bubble are being repriced for everyone, not just one guy. An airplane is still an airplane, the fact that its unrealized paper value is less does not change its intrinsic qualities. The tragedy is when you have debt, etc and are forced to sell in a down market.

dmaz• 15 years ago

For more insight into McAfee's mind (and a bit of a "before" picture), take a look at Outside magazine's article from February 2008, "Flying John McAfee".

http://outsidego.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=...

diminish• 15 years ago

"..My father always said, 'Real estate, you can't lose in real estate' ... you know, oddly enough you can."

Mine says it too..

carsongross2• 15 years ago

The current crisis is going to destroy that nostrum, and reduce real estate to what it is: a depreciating liability/consumable that produces no wealth and that has high transaction costs. Leverage has been the name of the game for 30 years, and the mortgage has been the only way that the little guys could play that in a major way.

There was a thread a while back talking about how to rationally buy a house, and bunch of people mentioned what a great hedge real estate is against inflation. But no one talked about deflation.

Look at the BONES, man:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/japa...

sixtofour2• 15 years ago

I agree that real estate suffers cycles like anything, but how is it a consumable?

zobzu• 15 years ago

id be pretty happy with 10M and nothing to worry about.

DanielBMarkham2• 15 years ago

There are so many experiences to have in life, you would think that people with a lot of wealth would have many of them.

But, as this article points out, it's easy to trap yourself with the things you like. Like fishing? You buy a huge boat. Like flying? You spend millions on a cool plane. Like scenery? You buy several houses.

Pretty soon, all your time and energy goes into the things you own. Or, as people say, the things own you instead of you owning the things. John puts it very well: you can only live in one place at a time.

Once my startups begin to mature, I plan on renting just about everything. That way I can try many different things without the pain of ownership. If I find myself doing something over and over again -- and it would have to be dozens of times -- I might consider buying something permanently. Maybe.

Concentrate on experiences, not possessions (or money)

EDIT: I heard somebody refer to what happened as a "luxury consumption trap." Just wanted to add that nothing about this has anything to do with the amount of money involved. This is more about your relationship to the things you own, however much they might cost. You can tie yourself up with five dollar items as easily as you can five million-dollar items. (It's true, however, that people seem especially blind about this when this happens with larger-ticket items.)

_b8r0• 15 years ago

I can't agree enough. I used to buy toys all the time (you know, exotic workstations on different architectures, fancy PDAs and so on, you probably know the drill) and realised after a while that I had a whole load of few year old tech that I never really used. These days I cut back. The only thing I really spend money on is travel, accommodation and food. Possessions only tend to stick around for short periods of time. Experiences stay with you forever. I don't think I've ever met anyone who on their deathbed was likely to say, "I wish I had more stuff"

sixtofour2• 15 years ago

"Possessions only tend to stick around for short periods of time. Experiences stay with you forever."

Absolutely.

My parents bought me lots of presents for birthdays and Christmas.

When I was about 12 they took me to the Santa Cruz Boardwalk. I played that sucker hard that day.

I don't remember any of the presents. I still remember that day. I'm over 50.

Think about that, when you want to do something for your kids, or your spouse. Or yourself.

_delirium2• 15 years ago

Re: the edit (since that was me), I do think the luxury-consumption trap is qualitatively different, and one that applies to both experiences and stuff. Some of it does overlap with the general being-owned-by-things problem, which can be a problem at various levels of spending. But there's a different kind of paralysis that can come from "now I'm rich, I can do rich people stuff!". For some people that's great, but for other people it leads to them doing what they think $100m-net-worth people should be doing, whether that's yacht purchases or globe-hopping or $200/plate restaurants, even if they personally would be happier coding, starting businesses, or eating burgers.

At least, it doesn't seem too uncommon for people in tech who had successful exits to live a high-spending retire-in-luxury lifestyle for 2-3 years, then "burn out" on that in one way or another.

DanielBMarkham2• 15 years ago

Perhaps this is related to having some sense of value just in the amount of money involved?

Many folks won't think twice of spending a hundred hours or more each year managing a property they rarely use because of the value of the property. Whereas if they spent that same amount of time worrying over something inexpensive? It would either be considered a hobby -- done exclusively for the experience -- or a sign of some sort of OCD.

I have been very fortunate in my life to have gone many times between having lots of extra cash and having to scrimp and save. I found it took several such cycles for me to finally "get it" For a long time, when I was flush I would buy things. A top-of-the line computer each year. A vehicle that I paid to have refurbished to my specifications. A large piece of land for an office. And so on. One day I woke up, looked around, and thought just what is the purpose of all of this? Owning things gave me a sense of security, and perhaps a sense of social collateral, but the trade-off just wasn't worth it. If you want security, it's better just to have cash in the bank. If you want to socially signal with your possessions, I'd advise making enough to first pay somebody else to manage all of it before you load up. Or better yet, just do long-term leasing and have maintenance and such be completely hands-off from your end. Assuming you have the money, the buying is the easy part.

sunchild2• 15 years ago

We all live on some spectrum of consumer vs. producer. Some entrepreneurs (classic producers) never stop being primarily producers. Those are the people who remain frugal and are indifferent about their fortunes. Others fall toward the consumer end of the spectrum, and sometimes lose their way.

I think it's universally true that producing is always better than consuming, but perhaps someone will refute that point convincingly.

jrspruitt2• 15 years ago

I totally agree with you. To me the producer is already doing what they enjoy doing, the financial gains are a side effect, and will pretty much just be used as funding to buy what's needed for them to keep producing. Would be like someone who enjoys running a business, the money is a part of it, but not the only goal, it blurs the line between hobby and work. The consumer spends their time consuming, the side effect of that is waste, once the consumption is over, the thrill is gone, the usefulness, if there was any, runs dry, it's tossed aside, as something new needs to be consumed.

There are things I want, that are not needed for my survival, but they are things I actually enjoy having, they serve some constructive purpose. I don't understand buying stuff just to buy stuff, just to have a new car, or just to have the latest version, it doesn't make sense. I think that is where some people that come into lots of money go wrong, spending it becomes their hobby, with out a job you got a lot of free time to keep yourself entertained. Producers would seem to inherently have the ability to deal with that free time in a much more fiscally responsible manor.

meric• 15 years ago

For society:

Society rewards production better than consumption.

Yet, when you think about it, when no one consumes, the value of production becomes zero, too.

Perhaps my initial sentence should be changed to: Consumers reward producers.

They're like a pair of chopsticks.

For individuals:

One could argue that when possible, consuming is always better than producing. You're swapping pieces of paper for real goods and services!

We're sort of fortunate that programming counts as "production" while playing computer games count as "consumption", and we're more interested in the former than the latter. I see it as just how the world works; "Fate" if you will. (I'm not religious, though).

EDIT: I save as much as possible and program lots, while my brother spends almost every dollar of his paycheck. So I'm biased.

kiba• 15 years ago

I splurge too much on food. Everything else is either saved or invested.

I am a 20 years old who have it better than most. While everyone is accumulating debt, I am learning tons on the job while sailing by with a modest start in saving and really lucky investment.

daew• 15 years ago

There is speculation that he sold off all his assets and moved them all to Belize etc to protect himself from lawsuits, including a wrongful death lawsuit.

http://www.fastcompany.com/node/1615167/print

rokhayakebe3• 15 years ago

This is a life-long training and you do not need to be a millionaire to do it. Look around your apartment, house, bedroom or closet. I guarantee you 75% of what is there you haven't used more than twice in the past month. In my case I just bag stuff I do not find myself using and take a trip to Goodwill. Ah, sometimes it feels so good to have less things.

Arjuna• 15 years ago

This is a link to the related interview segment with McAfee that appeared on Nightline.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8468447

andyjenn• 15 years ago

"I spent 90% of my money on women and drink. The rest I wasted” - George Best

abbasmehdi• 15 years ago

Inspiring story that seperates needs.from wants. Somebody found the uninstall button on the pre loaded AntiVirus (puns intended) ;)

sleight42• 15 years ago

"Luxury" is relative.

McAfee is cited as saying, “We are the ultimate consumer society. If you succeed within that culture, then you’re simply more bonded to it.”

Any item in your possession or service that you command that exceeds your functional needs of it is, for you, a luxury. It's not just about the rich. Can you truly claim that you need that 60" television to watch your favorite sporting match?

Have you seen Independence Day? I found the movie highly ironic. Talking to my father about the movie sometime after watching it, I remember remarking that what separated us from the aliens bent on annihilating us to consume our planet for its natural resources was one thing: time.

naner• 15 years ago

In McAfee's case, his Rodeo paradise -- on which he's spent millions -- drew only a few modest bids. The home, which included the airstrip and hangar, sold for $525,000 to a couple from the Washington, D.C., suburbs.

"It's a little less than what I paid for the landscaping," he said. "Somebody got a great deal."

Yeah, if they can afford the upkeep.

johnx123-up• 15 years ago

Sad story. I vaguely predicted that AV market would crash when I first saw crowd power on social antivirus at http://socialav.com/

Antivirus Software Pioneer John McAfee Loses Fortune (2009)

Related Stories