Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnid | Hacker News Reader

You would be surprised how hard it would be to lose billions of dollars. That kind of wealth is usually locked up pretty tight such that access is only available to some trickle of dollars coming out of the interest, trust funds, etc...

If a trustee loses everything then the next year, they have access to another annuity distribution.

View on HN

Which is to say, they are well diversified. With increasing diversity and massive assets it becomes more and more difficult it to earn exceptional rewards. Does most paths of asset returns exceed inflation and familial growth?

This is actually an interesting experiment. I'll run a crude test this weekend bootstrapping against the S&P500 to see how likely it is for wealth to propagate X generations into the future and report on Monday.

That is interesting. Warren has a bet out against someone that a portfolio of hedge funds will not outperform the total market returns after accounting for taxes, management fees, etc.

as diversity approaches 100%, performance approaches market returns.

The question is, how long can extreme wealth remain extreme wealth? Considering the wealth gap is increasing, I would suggest forever unless there is a "market correction" like socialism or something.

If that was the case, you would expect there to be a few hundred-billionaires out there.

There are a few hundred billionaires out there. 5 billion barely get's you into the top 100.

Hundred-billionaire as in an individual with greater than 100 billion; not a few hundred people with greater than 1 billion.

But then those funds are managed in a family office and provide liquidity/investments/etc. and that capital on its own can provide value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com