Five richest men have doubled their wealth since 2020

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/15/worlds-five-richest-men-have-doubled-their-fortunes-since-2020-oxfam.html

by belter • 3 years ago

44 32 3 years ago

cnbc.com

rapjr9• 3 years ago

There can be only one! The obvious endgame here is one person owns the world.

alex_young• 3 years ago

http://web.archive.org/web/20240118072928/https://www.cnbc.c...

nostromo• 3 years ago

Literally everyone invested in the S&P 500 (the most commonly touted investment strategy requiring zero effort or insight) has doubled their investment value since the low of March 2020 (the dates used in the article).

SPY low in March 2020: $228

SPY now: $475

fjh• 3 years ago

Yes, it's a curious coincidence that the people writing this report, surely in good faith, just happened to pick March 2020 as the point of comparison.

RobRivera• 3 years ago

Yea its such a case of biased sampling. Next up, my blood pressure spikes after pounding 2 esspressos and a cokacola

ChadNauseam• 3 years ago

I thought we were done seeing this trick in 2021, when there were all those news articles describing how much money billionaires had "made" "during the pandemic" which also used March 2020 as their baseline.

MatthiasPortzel• 3 years ago

Seven of the world’s ten biggest companies have a billionaire as their CEO or main shareholder, the report found.

This is similarly insightful. It’s unsurprising that the richest companies are owned by the richest men.

happytoexplain3• 3 years ago

Should I be angry that my employer-managed 401(k) is only up 43% in that time period?

Edit: This is not sarcasm - I'm not knowledgeable about investment.

ryandrake3• 3 years ago

Yes, but only if that 401(k) is entirely invested in a (relatively risky for retirement accounts) S&P 500 index, which is unlikely.

thegrim33• 3 years ago

401Ks usually target a somewhat safer subset of the market for investment than the raw S&P

gottorf2• 3 years ago

Your 401(k) is probably set up to invest in what's known as a target-date fund, where you pick a year (often rounded to the nearest one divisible by 5) you want to retire, and the fund manager allocates among various risk asset classes based on that. Almost always, the further away you are from retirement, the more risk you can take; when you near retirement, it's probably almost all in bonds and other less risky assets.

Sometimes employer-managed 401(k) fund managers take a much larger management fee compared to, say, Vanguard, which adds up over decades, so you could be mad about that.

hunter2_• 3 years ago

That depends entirely on the ratio between how much you already had invested at the start of that time period versus how much you invested throughout that time period. If the ratio is nearly infinite (i.e., you had a lot to begin with and hardly added any more) then yeah your S&P500 balance should've grown about 100%. But if the ratio is nearly zero (i.e. you didn't have much at all invested at the start but contributed heavily since then) and for simple math we say that the S&P500 grew linearly, then you should expect only a 50% growth because only the early contributions rode that train while the recent contributions hardly had a chance. In reality it'll be somewhere in between.

And as pointed out by others, this assumes S&P500. If you're in a lifecycle fund instead, that's a bit like having mostly S&P500 when you're young and hardly any when you're old.

darth_avocado• 3 years ago

Also, SPY high in Feb 2020: $330. Did the world's richest men (and everyone else who invested in SPY) lose a third of their wealth in the month back then?

worik2• 3 years ago

SO it is OK then.

Nothing to see here, move along. Back to work.

We do not pay you for reading HN.

Back to work I said!!

curiousgeorgio• 3 years ago

And most of that growth is just on paper; it represents very little growth in actual spending power. It can be explained by (1) some economic recovery after COVID and (2) devaluation of the dollar.

You have more dollars, but they're worth significantly less, so you're really not much better off.

youngtaff• 3 years ago

Tax their wealth

worik2• 3 years ago

Tax their wealth

Wealth taxes are an obvious response.

They are difficult and distortionary but for social cohesion there needs to be some levelling

It is not a sin to be rich

It is a sin to be poor

Being poor is a sin of the rich

jbs769• 3 years ago

The more interesting question would be how did the 5 richest people in 2020 do. My guess is some did better than others. And how does that compare to the S&P.

koolba• 3 years ago

But each $1 they have is only worth about $.84[1]. Though I really doubt that has much impact on any of their day to day expenses.

Plus I’m pretty sure CPI does not include private islands and rocket ships.

[1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=2...

the_doctah• 3 years ago

No shit. Imagine how many small businesses had to close due to shutdowns. Everything about the Covid response in America was a disaster.

tonmoy• 3 years ago

March 2020 seems like a pretty arbitrary starting point

manquer• 3 years ago

If the goal is to write a clickbait article, then there is no better time to baseline against to prove the story author is building .

March 2020 is the lowest markets went in the early days of COVID, and last few years have been amazing for any asset holders unlike any other in recent memory .

gwern• 3 years ago

Since 2020, eh? Well, that's a familiar-sounding year... how much has it increased since 2019? And don't forget inflation. (Oh wait, it's from Oxfam, cherrypicking years and 'forgetting' about inflation is just par for the course with their reports.)

SirMaster• 3 years ago

Good for them?

I've about doubled my wealth since 2020 too and I'm just an average joe... Most of my wealth is in stocks and real-estate.

ryandrake3• 3 years ago

We all seem to love to deliberately ignore the meaningful difference between someone whose wealth goes from $10B to $20B and someone whose wealth goes from $10K to $20K. One person can now buy/exert even more monstrous political power and influence over government and the media than before, while the other might have enough for a down payment on a car. But, yea, I guess they're totally the same thing.

gottorf2• 3 years ago

One person can now buy/exert even more monstrous political power and influence over the media than before

People say that, but if that were true, we would have a President Bloomberg sitting in the White House now, with perhaps a Koch brother as the junior senator from Kansas. Tabloids wouldn't be printing Bill Gates's association with Jeffrey Epstein. Ocasio-Cortez would still be a bartender.

In reality, it turns out that being rich is neither necessary nor sufficient for being powerful, influential, or noteworthy of any kind.

I guess they're totally the same thing.

Sure, mathematically it's literally the same thing; both people have doubled their wealth. If your argument is that rich people have it easier than poor people, that's absolutely true. If your argument is that the same market forces that made someone's $10k worth of stocks become $20k should not have the same effect on someone else's $10B worth of stocks, well, I guess you could start by blaming the Fed.

Five richest men have doubled their wealth since 2020

Related Stories