Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

LeverageShares OP t1_j3r57oq wrote

Source:

Forbes

Dataviz.com

Tools Used:

Microsoft Excel

Adobe Illustrator

0

tomveiltomveil t1_j3r64ic wrote

The age axis is a mess. If you can't find data for every year, then you should space out the X axis so that there's a constant amount of progression from year to year.

167

holdenontoyoubooks t1_j3r7drc wrote

Yeah you’ve made a few blunders here in that the x axis isn’t nicely spaced, and the lack of log on the y axis gives no scale for doubling time

53

[deleted] t1_j3r8a52 wrote

Hopefully he dies soon before he can leech any more money from the rest of us.

Rest in piss.

−9

PM_ME_A_PLANE_TICKET t1_j3r8c1l wrote

That graph looks strikingly similar to one of the wealth and income inequality in the US.

6

Elbynerual t1_j3r9yon wrote

Fun reminder that he was gifted his initial starting money, which was almost the equivalent of almost 100,000 dollars today.

6

GigaFastTwin t1_j3rbf3w wrote

Hope for me yet, guy only had $19M at 44... Let’s gooooo!

7

SiFasEst t1_j3rf7xb wrote

Did you adjust for inflation? Because his $1M at 30 is probably more like $5-10M today.

21

SUPERSAMMICH6996 t1_j3rh3xj wrote

Damn... why are you so salty? At least Buffet is one of the few multi-billionaires who doesn't seem to have a shady past nor preys on others in order to make his gains. He is just a really gifted investor.

2

Elbynerual t1_j3rnuai wrote

Oh? Where do you think the initial 5k came from? That's what I'm referring to. The data starts at 5k. And that was many decades ago, where current inflation makes it close to 1 million in today's money

1

EAS893 t1_j3rnw03 wrote

I don't think that's accurate.

His first fund started with something like 100k in around 1950 which is something like 1.2 million today, but it wasn't a "gift" it was assets under management he convinced investors to let him manage for them.

He definitely has a lot of privilege from his background. He's literally the son of a multiterm US House of Representative member and has attended multiple Ivy League Universities. He had connections to be able to find those investors that were mostly luck and circumstances of birth, and if you listen to any interviews with the guy you'll hear that he acknowledges this "ovarian lottery" as he calls it.

That said, with his returns, he still would have ended up wealthy even without those initial investors and just investing his own money, it just probably wouldn't be centibillionaire level wealthy.

7

EAS893 t1_j3royuu wrote

What money are you referencing? Do you just mean the fact that he had parents capable of taking care of him?

I'm asking, because having read a decent bit about this particular guy, I don't remember anything that stuck out to me in his life as a "windfall" of sorts like you're describing aside from just being born to a family with political connections.

It legitimately didn't seem like he had much handed to him that the average upper middle class person wouldn't have also had handed to them. There's privilege from being from that background for sure, but most upper middle class people don't become multi-billionaires.

5

urgjotonlkec t1_j3rp7w7 wrote

Not really. Let's say you go to Vegas with $10,000 and put it all on black at the roulette table. There's a roughly 50% chance you double your money and 50% chance you lose it all. Win 23 times in a row and you will almost 110 Billion. That sounds extreme unlikely, but if ever US adult did it you would expect to have made 20 people succeed. Ironically that's roughly the same order of magnitude of centi-billionaires in the US.

0

LordFaquaad t1_j3rqk9v wrote

The difference is that roulette is a game of chance and investing in good companies isn't. That's the entire thesis behind value investing which buffett followed. The luck he talks about is getting in at the right time and exiting at the right time.

Speculation happens in the market but the only people that really benefit are the HFT traders, hedge funds and quantfunds / banks due to the trade volume/ speed of transaction. The market isn't based so much on chance as people think especially if you have enough money to move the direction of the stock

1

urgjotonlkec t1_j3rs2vy wrote

In any efficient market winning and losing is 100% luck just like a casino. Obviously if you have enough money you can push people around in a way that an average investor can't, but even getting to that point takes a lot of luck.

0

Elbynerual t1_j3ru0o5 wrote

His initial money came from when he was a teenager i believe. Someone else responded to one of my comments and said it was when he was 14. He didn't start from nothing. He started with over 80,000 dollars in today's equivalent

3

WetHotPinkPanties t1_j3rxzrs wrote

Looks like that all the money that was printed literally went to him

3

LordFaquaad t1_j3rzq86 wrote

You're telling me that every major investor is just luck? It had nothing to do with skill, knowledge and understanding?

Also the efficient market states that prices are representative of assets. This is simply not true in the current market. The market isn't a casino that has priced in everything all thr time. The companies have Financials and based on those Financials and other factors, investors make decisions.

2

LordFaquaad t1_j3s0wgj wrote

80k isn't really alot of money in investing. It's the equivalent of a drop in the ocean. Also he did work during his teen years doing paper routes and other odd jobs. Compared to buffet, bozos, gates etc. Were given far more

1

urgjotonlkec t1_j3s198c wrote

>You're telling me that every major investor is just luck? It had nothing to do with skill, knowledge and understanding?

Yes, that's a pretty common school of thought supported by considerable research. For instance people have looked at the fund managers with the highest performance in given years and there's no correlation year to year.

−1

navywater t1_j3snmnd wrote

Heyyy I’m on track to be the next warren buffett

1

twisted_cistern t1_j3tgfq7 wrote

But if you're a teenager without expenses is quite a nice start.

My friend had a job during high school and invested it all. When he went to grad school he bought a house with a ton of bedrooms (in a historically polygamous town) and rented them to his classmates...

On the road to 10 billion the difference between starting at 80k and a million isn't that big.

−1

andytdesigns1 t1_j3tzulz wrote

I wonder what perks rich man's heaven has? I'm sure our meaningless paper can buy some comfy clouds up there.

2

HopeFox t1_j3u45q6 wrote

So, neither the x-axis nor the y-axis is linear. The age values are spaced at apparently random intervals, and I'm looking at the difference between 620M and 1.4B, and the second bar does not look like it's 2.3 times the height of the first one. So this isn't really a "graph", just some pictures with numbers attached.

Besides, a logarithmic scale for the y-axis would be much more appropriate. Turning $1B into $2B is much more impressive than turning $10B into $11B.

5

jakmonk t1_j3u7xck wrote

This wealth isn’t coming out of thin air you know? It’s coming from wage theft, cheating out the government of taxes… etc.

0

1-PM t1_j3ubjul wrote

how the fuck was he worth 5k at 14

30

longjaso t1_j3uhqcg wrote

The fuck is wrong with this graph? It just skips ages arbitrarily and randomly. I would prefer to see a graph that doesn't visually skew shit like this.

1

rug1998 t1_j3v40w0 wrote

43 to 44 quite the midlife crisis

2

-Radioface- t1_j3vgz1o wrote

Just wait till the Billionaires get ahold of gene therapy to prvent aging. Its already in the works.

1

43morethings t1_j3vi9k8 wrote

Are the amounts from when he was young adjusted to account for inflation?

1

Dk1902 t1_j3vlfh4 wrote

No idea how many will see this, but I put together charts for log and inflation-adjusted numbers. The log is pretty interesting, as the log relationship flattens around age 60--as soon as it skyrockets in OP's chart:

Imgur

7

ykliu t1_j3vns3q wrote

What did he do between 26 and 30?

1

borkborkibork t1_j3vtvlh wrote

So you're saying there's still a chance I become billionaire?

1

Moosh90 t1_j3vye0t wrote

The scale is not the best

1

1945BestYear t1_j3vzllh wrote

This is part of the reason why it's a bad argument when someone accuses, say, a hollywood director, with a famous name and a big house in LA, of being hypocritical if they say something negative, either directly or in their work, about billionaires. Quintin Tarantino, who's on an extreme end in terms of success and wealth for Hollywood directors, has something like $120 million to his net worth, which means he's worth just below 1000x the median American of his age bracket (about $200,000) At the same time, Elon Musk at $144 billion is worth more than 1000 Tarantinos. If somebody thinks a person as wealthy or even a hundredth as wealthy as Tarantino is 'rich', that's fine, but they gotta see how one is just in a different magnitude to the other.

2

TimeZarg t1_j3w2vne wrote

Late 1956 to 1960. Benefited heavily from the Post-war boom I suspect, once you're hitting those kinds of numbers during that time it becomes harder to 'fail' because unless you massively fuck up on a big, risky venture the money can basically grow itself through stable, safe, lower-return investments.

6

against_the_currents t1_j41xhdy wrote

“After being mentored by Benjamin Graham, his first investment firm as a professional was Buffett Partnership, Ltd that he created in 1956 at 26 years old. In 1961, after his partnership was worth millions, Buffett made his first $1 million investment in a windmill manufacturing company.”

Not pulled from this, but here is a nice timeline I just found https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/30/how-warren-buffett-made-billions-became-oracle-of-omaha.html

1

Curtisg899 t1_j4lk518 wrote

What's greed about? He loves what he does so he continues to do so. His company provides lots of value to himself and to shareholders. He lives in a 500k house, he does it for fun not out of greed lol

1

bearposters t1_j5fh7lt wrote

What drove so much growth between 47 and 52?!

1