Billionaires under 40

[Jon Miller]

I saw this on Forbes when I was there to read another article.

3 Facebook
12 Inherited (nothing else noteworthy)
1 Napster (Facebook)
1 Japanese Social Site
1 Cell Phone/Software Retailer
1 Twitter/Square
1 Camera (GoPro)
2 Hedge-fund
1 Movie studio (Relativity)
1 Ukrainian grain trader
1 Aluminum trading
1 Mining (inherited ? but increased)
1 Chinese Steel
2 Google

Many of the inherited people had slightly older siblings who also inherited billions.

So for the most part, inherit... make something great (google/facebook/etc)... or be at the right place at right time (hedge-fund/trading/etc).

JM

[-Jrabbit]

"Something great" appears to be code for "social media."

Interesting that 10 of the 17 non-inherited are Web-related (that counts the retailer and Go-Pro). After that it's...commodities?

[Jon Miller]

I think that commodities requires some special (questionable, it might well be) contacts/etc. At least one of the commodities billionaires started with a mining company.

The key innovation for the movie company is financial, so he probably should be included in the financial billionaire category with the hedge fund billionaires.
"Kavanaugh founded Relativity Media after briefly serving as a consultant to other small businesses and venture capitalists.[5] His aim was to use mathematical tools to connect financing and movie projects in a more efficient manner than traditional Hollywood finance. At Relativity, he created what is now known as "the model," a monte carlo model designed to predict the odds of a given film being successful."
from wikipedia

JM

[Sava]

seems indefensible
but what do i know

[Tupac Shakur]

1 Ukrainian grain trader

I want to party with this guy, assuming "grain trader" is legit and not some euphemism for organized crime.

[Colonâ„¢]

Dude, it's "Ukrainian" that's an euphemism for organized crime.

[Tupac Shakur]

Don't be hatin' on the 'kraine.

[Jon Miller]

He is a politician now.

JM

[Colonâ„¢]

Don't be hatin' on the 'kraine.

I take that back. Ukraine doesn't have a mafia that's noteworthy. Even Albania has that. Ukraine is just sitting there, taking up a lot of space.

[KrazyHorse]

I saw this on Forbes when I was there to read another article.

3 Facebook
12 Inherited (nothing else noteworthy)
1 Napster (Facebook)
1 Japanese Social Site
1 Cell Phone/Software Retailer
1 Twitter/Square
1 Camera (GoPro)
2 Hedge-fund
1 Movie studio (Relativity)
1 Ukrainian grain trader
1 Aluminum trading
1 Mining (inherited ? but increased)
1 Chinese Steel
2 Google

Many of the inherited people had slightly older siblings who also inherited billions.

So for the most part, inherit... make something great (google/facebook/etc)... or be at the right place at right time (hedge-fund/trading/etc).

JM

Why do you think that there is a categorical difference between founding facebook and making a few billion founding a hedge fund?

[Tupac Shakur]

You really don't see the difference? Facebook quite obviously does much less good for the world than hedge funds.

[Jon Miller]

Hedge funds moves money from one investment to another.

Yes, a successful hedge fund moves money more efficiently compared to less efficient investment companies. However, it is not clear how much this 'beating the other investment companies' actually is correlated to improved results of the companies being invested in.

In a sense, a successful hedge fund move wealth from other hedge funds/investment funds/etc to that hedge fund's managers pockets.

On the other hand, facebook/etc has changed the lives of billions of people. It has opened up jobs and careers and companies and people spend a lot of time at it. If it had neve been, then all our lives would be very different.

If one of the hedge funds never existed, then it would just mean that the other hedge funds/investment companies would have a bit more wealth.

The actual efficiency of how money is invested would likely not change at all.

If every hedge fund had never been, or even if almost all of them had never been, then it might be possible that there would be a strong impact in efficiency of investments (I doubt it, the non-hedge funds do a good job).

Basically you are comparing Apple or Microsoft (Facebook or Google) to Quantex or Alienware (successful hedge fund X). Or comparing pre-WW1 Ford to 2007 Ford (this is a positive comparison to some particular hedge fund I think).

JM

[Jon Miller]

You really don't see the difference? Facebook quite obviously does much less good for the world than hedge funds.

The issue is that we are not comparing Facebook with all hedge funds. And especially not Facebook with all investment funds.

We are comparing Facebook with successful hedge fund Z.

Actually, this is a way the movie guy is 'more valuable' than the other hedge fund guys as that was a financial area that hadn't been optimized before. Sort of like the first successful hedge fund or something.

JM

[Aeson]

Facebook and Google were in the right place at the right time.

Facebook also would fit what you're talking about with hedge funds. Without Facebook we'd use a different social platform. There are/were plenty of other social platforms with similar capabilities.

Google on the other hand does several things flat out better than anyone else has been able to do. Still, right place at right time though.

[Sir Og]

I don't think it is possible to be a billionare without being at the right place at the right time (i.e. without being lucky)

None of these people are what they are because they are a thousand times smerter or work a thousand times harder that the people who do not manage to become billionares.