Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

The latest news on Billionaires from Business Insider

older | 1 | .... | 47 | 48 | (Page 49) | 50 | newer

    0 0

    hong kong

    • Hong Kong is now the city with the most super-wealthy people in the world, unseating New York City.
    • A new report from Wealth-X showed that the countries with the fastest-growing population of ultra-wealthy individuals are Bangladesh, China, and Vietnam.
    • It points to an increasingly "balanced distribution of global ultra wealth."

     

    New York City is no longer the city with the most ultra-wealthy people. Now, it's Hong Kong.

    That's according to a new report from ultra high net worth intelligence and data company Wealth-X. Hong Kong's population of individuals worth at least $30 million jumped 31% last year to 10,010. New York was second at 8,865 folks, a relatively meager increase of 7%.

    We've known for a while that Hong Kong was likely to unseat New York as the world's multi-millionaire and billionaire capital.

    Wealth is exploding across Asia, and Hong Kong is the leading city — with neighborhoods like The Peak attracting buyers for villas worth about $19,400 per square foot.

    Of the 30 fastest-growing ultra-wealthy cities, China is home to 26 of them. Wealth-X credited China's "gradual and ongoing process of market liberalization," as well as its market growth in real estate and other high-value economies.

    The countries with exploding ultra-wealthy residents were outside of the usual suspects in North American and Europe. Bangladesh and China led, with Vietnam, Kenya, and India directly behind.

    And while the US in general is still by far the most ultra-wealthy country in the world, the American population of high net worth individuals grew remarkably slowly this year. That, according to the report, is "pointing to a more balanced distribution of global ultra wealth.

    SEE ALSO: Inside the Hong Kong billionaire enclave name-dropped in 'Crazy Rich Asians,' where Alibaba founder Jack Ma may have bought a $191 million mansion

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: How Columbia House sold 12 CDS for $1


    0 0

    wealthy anonymous top hat

    • Americans live in a time of income and wealth inequality that mirrors the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.
    • Historian HW Brands believes it reflects the tension between capitalism and democracy in the United States, a struggle that defines the country.
    • He said the ways out of the New Gilded Age are a new era of progressivism, a financial disaster, or a major war.
    • This article is part of Business Insider's ongoing series on Better Capitalism.

    The cultural backlash to America's financial system in the wake of the Great Recession brought the topic of widening inequality into the mainstream. Ten years after the crisis, income and wealth inequality between the top 1% and the rest of the country are both still rising.

    If you take a look at the last 40 years in the United States in the span of the country's history, it becomes clear that it can justifiably be called a "New Gilded Age," strikingly similar to the latter half of the 19th century. That period got its name from Mark Twain, whose coauthored novel of the same name portrayed a country with grand, ostentatious wealth providing a thin layer of gold, gilding, over a society in unrest.

    HW Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin, whose 2010 book "American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism, 1865-1900," explores a thesis that explains both the Gilded Age and our current period, told Business Insider: "Tension between capitalism and democracy has characterized American life for two centuries, with one and then the other claiming temporary ascendance."

    In Twain's Gilded Age, he said, "The influence of capitalism and the capitalists was greater in American life than it had ever been before. And arguably, than it ever would be, until maybe today."

    In the first Gilded Age, the ultra-rich shaped the US in their image

    In the wake of the Civil War, capitalism, unrestricted, became a force in America, with a new class of ultra rich shaping the country in their image — people like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and JP Morgan.

    Developments in industries like oil, steel, and finance brought never before seen prosperity to a small, elite class while ordinary Americans and waves of new immigrants struggled to get by, and cities had the poor stuffed into barely livable tenements.

    Someone like Carnegie would use his influence to bust unions and lower wages for his steel workers, while also dedicating a major portion of his fortune to philanthropy. The capitalists would be both ruthless in their business and beneficent to the lower classes, according to what they considered best for them — in both cases, it was a solidifying of the power dynamic that defined the era.

    The infrastructure built during this period helped develop the country, but industries like steel also quickly grew into monopolies, due to barriers of entry that small companies wither couldn't overcome, or that led to soon getting bought by the giant dominating that industry. It's a situation similar to what's happening now with tech behemoths like Amazon and the main players in the pharmaceutical industry, argues economist Joseph Stiglitz.

    Accompanying this shift in culture was a corrupt political system where bribery was a quick ticket to power, and the rich got richer.

    Average Americans were aware of this imbalance, and it led to growing feelings of populism. Some of this was of the particularly nasty nativist strain. It's not a coincidence that these issues are raised again today.

    "There's a feeling on the part of people, there was then and there is today, a feeling on the part of people who identify themselves as the 'real Americans,' that America is changing beneath them and there's a sense of frustration," Brands said.

    The pendulum shifted from capitalism to democracy in the early 20th century, Brands said, with the Progressive Era. America entered a period that journeyed through progressive politics bolstering the federal government and regulating business, through the New Deal in the '30s and the Great Society in the '60s. This ascendance of democracy, as Brands puts it, was strengthened by the reactions to the Great Depression and two world wars, major catastrophes that required a stronger federal government to survive.

    The New Gilded Age can't last forever

    Our New Gilded Age, then, can be considered starting with President Ronald Reagan taking office in 1981, and putting into place free market policies championed by economists like Milton Friedman. The economy boomed for stretches, and while the financial crisis of 2007-2008 caused Americans to question the capitalist system, it was nowhere on par with the Depression.

    As populism remains strong with both Democrats and Republicans, income inequality rises, and wage growth remains slow, it's apparent that while history never repeats itself exactly, we're going to transition out of this reality at some point.

    As Brands sees it, our emergence from the New Gilded Age could be through a financial catastrophe or major war, or, what he thinks is much more likely, through a peaceable political shift. He said that it looks as if it will come from the Democratic Party moving again toward the left, embracing policies like Medicare for all, for example, that would boost the power of the state. It'll be yet another era in the constant struggle between capitalism and democracy.

    "As long as people are free to make that case and as long as people are free to vote for or against that, then I think democracy will make a comeback," he said. "I think the pendulum swings and it's going to swing back."

    SEE ALSO: Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the US has a major monopoly problem

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Here's which countries have the most billionaires


    0 0

    marc benioff

    • Marc Benioff and wife Lynne Benioff announced Sunday that they're buying Time magazine for $190 million.
    • The acquisition will cost Benioff around 21% of the estimated $900 million he earned from March 2017 to March 2018, according to our calculations, and only about 4% of his total $4.9 billion net worth.
    • It takes Benioff about two and a half months to earn $190 million. It would take someone earning the typical US annual salary every day more than 11 years to earn that same sum.
    • Benioff isn't the first billionaire to purchase a media title — Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013, and Laurene Powell Jobs acquired a majority stake in The Atlantic. 

    On Sunday, Salesforce CEO and co-founder Marc Benioff and wife Lynne Benioff announced they are buying Time Magazine for $190 million cash as individuals. 

    This isn't the first time Time magazine finds itself in new hands recently: The move comes not even one year after Meredith Corporation acquired its namesake company, Time Inc., which also houses well-known titles including People, Better Homes and Gardens, and Entertainment Weekly.

    Nearly $200 million is a fortune, but to Benioff, it's not as much as it sounds. According to Forbes, his 2018 net worth is $4.9 billion, nearly $1 billion more than his $4 billion net worth in 2017. That means in just a year, his net worth increased by $900 million, earning him a spot on Forbes' 2017 and 2018 richest people in the world lists.

    Broken down, that's:

    • $102,740 an hour
    • $2.47 million a day
    • $17.3 million a week
    • $75 million a month

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Time, which generated $173 million in revenue in 2017, has an operating profit of $33 million. At $190 million, the Benioffs purchased the nearly century-old magazine for more than five-and-a-half times its operating profit — and around 21% of Benioff's estimated earnings over the past year. At $75 million a month, Benioff's wealth only had to grow for two and a half months to be able to afford the deal.

    When you look at Time's purchase price compared to Benioff's total $4.9 billion net worth, it cost him a measly 3.88% of his wealth to acquire the magazine.

    To put things in perspective, the median annual US salary in the second quarter of 2018 was $45,552, according to data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Benioff makes more than twice that much in an hour.

    As noted above, the $190 million Benioff spent on Time is roughly 21% of his earnings last year. For the median US worker, that 21% rate is equivalent to $9,565. A person earning the median annual US salary every day would need 4,171 days, or more than 11 years, just to be able to afford Benioff's Time acquisition. 

    Benioff may be a billionaire, but these numbers don't even begin to stack up compared to how much other billionaires make in an hour. Other notable billionaires, like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, make Benioff's $102,739 hourly rate look like pennies.

    how much money billionaires make in hour chart

    Benioff follows in the footsteps of other billionaires — Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013, and Laurene Powell Jobs acquired a majority stake in The Atlantic.

    The deal is expected to close in 30 days. As of September 17, one day following his acquisition announcement, Benioff's net worth is estimated at $6.6 billion by Forbes. 

    SEE ALSO: We did the math to calculate exactly how much money billionaires and celebrities like Jeff Bezos and Kylie Jenner make an hour

    DON'T MISS: Billionaire Marc Benioff's $190 million deal for Time could drag tech deeper into Trump's firing line

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know


    0 0

    steve ballmer

    • Billionaires often make extravagant purchases — like buying their own sports team.
    • CEOWORLD magazine recently ranked the 20 wealthiest owners of major league sports teams around the world.
    • Some billionaire owners own more than one team — like Paul Allen, who owns the Portland Trail Blazers and the Seattle Seahawks.

    Billionaires have a lot of cash to drop. Some are known to spend it on mansions. Others, private planes and luxury cars. And others still? They just buy their own sports team.

    CEOWORLD magazine recently ranked the 20 wealthiest owners of major league sports teams using Forbes' World's Billionaires ranking. They found that of the 62 billionaire team owners around the world, their collected net worth is $375 billion. And for some, one team isn't enough — together, they own 78 teams.

    In fact, three among the top five richest billionaire sports team owners own multiple teams, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen among them. Dietrich Mateschitz and Stanley Kroenke own the most teams on the list, with three and four each, respectively. Only one woman makes the list: Marian Ilitch, the cofounder of Little Caesars Pizza.

    From football to basketball, here's a look at the 20 richest owners of major sports league teams.

    SEE ALSO: Every pick from the first round of the 2018 NFL Draft will likely get multi-million dollar contracts — here's what each player is expected to make

    DON'T MISS: The 23 richest billionaire NHL franchise owners — and how they made their fortune

    20. Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, Thailand

    Net worth: $5 billion

    Team: Leicester City

    Source of wealth: Duty-free, self-made



    19. Joe Lewis, United Kingdom

    Net worth: $5.1 billion

    Team: Tottenham Hotspur

    Source of wealth: Investments, self-made



    18. Marian Ilitch, United States

    Net worth: $5.2 billion

    Teams: Detroit Red Wings, Detroit Tigers

    Source of wealth: Little Caesars Pizza, self-made



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    trump charity

    • Author Anand Giridharadas believes elite-led philanthropy fueled the rise of Donald Trump. 
    • In his new book, Giridharadas argues that Trump exposed the hypocrisy of wealthy philanthropists, then used it to beat them at their own game.
    • Giridharadas predicts that Trump may face a powerful reckoning as citizens begin to take charge of their own political futures. 

    On June 28, 2016, Donald Trump assumed the podium at a recycling plant in Monessen, Pennsylvania. In the audience were around 200 residents who had witnessed the city's decline from a booming manufacturing center to a desolate expanse of urban blight. The building where they gathered  a former steel mill that once held thousands of workers  had been downsized to a small facility of just 35 employees. 

    Seconds into his speech, Trump highlighted the grievances of the city's workers: "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy," he said. "But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache. When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians do nothing."

    It was an effective message — one powerful enough to turn the Democratic stronghold into a majority-red city during the 2016 presidential election. Across Pennsylvania, voters seemed to latch on to the idea that the wealthy elite had used their money to sway policies in their favor, away from the interests of the average American worker.  

    In many ways, they were right. In his new book, Winners Take All, Anand Giridharadas outlines how billionaire philanthropists like Mark Zuckerberg have used charity to bolster their reputation while simultaneously advancing their own agenda.

    In recent years, the Facebook CEO has touted technology as a solution to all sorts of crises, including lack of education, unemployment, and public health. In a 2017 commencement address at Harvard University, Zuckerberg talked about lifting up the poor and providing easier pathways for undocumented immigrants to attend college. All the while, his company has created a monopoly on not just the tech industry, but politics and the press as well. 

    Helpfulness, Giridharadas said, has become "the wingman of hoarding" — and Americans have taken note. 

    The history of 'big giving'

    The trend of organized philanthropy emerged at the close of the nineteenth century with billionaire tycoons like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller. As their fortunes continued to pile up, these men recognized that large-scale donations to the public good could earn them political influence, which could then be used to further their monopolies. For the first time, private billionaires began to act as stand-ins for small government.

    This angered many Americans, who saw the billionaires as "robber-barons" using charity to exert their own power. But by the twenty-first century, the nation had all but abandoned its antagonism of organized philanthropy. People began to see tech companies as panaceas for disaster and inequality, capable of inducing widespread global change. 

    This change arrived at the expense of blue-collar jobs that once formed the bedrock of the American economy. More than decade after the tech boom, America's skepticism had returned. According to Giridharadas, our nation is less susceptible to the idea that technology is changing the world than it was five or ten years ago. As a result, many have reverted to the Gilded Age belief that billionaires, and their billion-dollar companies, are to blame for our modern ills. 

    Under the current tax system, billionaires like Jeff Bezos likely pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Meanwhile, their companies have contributed to declining wages in highly concentrated labor markets. 

    It's an idea that Donald Trump began to harness long before his speech in Monessen, Pennsylvania. While announcing his presidential run in 2015, he told the crowd: "I watch the speeches of [my fellow Republicans], and they say the sun will rise, the moon will set, all sorts of wonderful things will happen. And people are saying, 'What's going on? I just want a job. Just get me a job.'"

    With these words, Trump highlighted the false promises of those in power, while exposing the palpable failure of our economy to provide for average citizens. "There has been a slow-burning takeover of all aspects of American life by the winners of market capitalism," said Giridharadas. "When the future rains on America today, it's the very few who tend to harvest all the rainwater."

    Trump may have been part of that takeover, but he was also instrumental in rallying against it.

    Exposing, exploiting, and embodying big philanthropy

    "I think of [Trump] as an exposer, an exploiter, and an embodiment of this cult of elite-led social change," said Giridharadas. "He did a masterful job of reading people's intuition that elites were paying lip service to them ... while in fact they were really out for themselves."

    This hypocrisy is present not only among the world's billionaires, but among elite circles like the Aspen Institute and Clinton Global Initiative, where corporate giving is hailed as a "win-win": good for the public, good for the public image. And yet, few of these circles have stopped to consider how their vast pools of wealth have tamped down opportunities for the very people they're attempting to serve.

    This was evident in the amount of rural and middle-Americans who voted for Trump in the 2016 election. As people in major urban centers like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco promised that technology, trade, and globalization were going to improve people's lives, Trump recognized that these forces were decimating entire communities.

    Trump then exploited that information by casting blame on marginalized and vulnerable Americans. Instead of going after hedge funds and reckless lenders, Giridharadas said, Trump "deflected [America's anger] onto immigrants and black people and Muslims and women. ... He made it about a wall."

    Whether in spite or because of that strategy, Trump landed himself in the nation's most powerful office. There, "he trademarked the whole arc of billionaire saviors," Giridharadas said. He became a champion of the white working class — those who lost their jobs at the hands of industrialization and saw little benefit from the tech boom. 

    Like Zuckerberg, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, Trump may have to reckon with the hypocrisy of his movement. 

    Fighting fire with fire

    With the next presidential election just two years away, Democrats have been working hard to identify the most effective challenger to Trump. For the most part, the list resembles the familiar prototype of billionaire philanthropists: Michael Bloomberg, Oprah, Howard Schultz, Tom Steyer, even Zuckerberg before last year's Cambridge Analytica scandal

    Giridharadas questions this inclination to nominate someone of Trump's wealth and stature: "What is it about us that keeps turning to billionaire sugar daddies and sugar mommies to rescue us from another fake billionaire change agent?"

    One possible answer is that Americans are inherently distrustful of movements — and for good reason. To many, the Obama era did not deliver the kind of transformative change it initially promised. Occupy Wall Street didn't redistribute the nation's wealth (in fact, wealth became more concentrated in the US in recent years). And the wave of technology apps that emerged in the last decade didn't always help people manage their money or reduce inequality.

    If mass movements didn't yield significant change, people thought, perhaps an individual benefactor with a steady stream of cash would do the trick.

    But the monopolist's relationship with the public is one of "master to servant," said Giridharadas. While citizens may benefit from a billionaire's generosity in the short term, their interests are rarely represented by big philanthropy. 

    When faced with this criticism, many tech elites have a way of spinning the conversation. According to Giridharadas, Silicon Valley companies often espouse the view: "We are here to make the world a better place. Why would you write a negative story about us? Do you hate the Afghan girls we are liberating? Do you hate justice? Do you hate the people in Africa whom we're beaming the internet to through balloons?"

    That attitude, he said, is "tougher for us to deal with as a society.""In some ways," he said, "it's much easier for us to process straightforward greed and power-grabbing."

    A new kind of movement

    While Trump may have beaten billionaire philanthropists at their own game, he's not immune to the same criticism.

    According to Giridharadas, the most effective way to challenge big philanthropy is to take back the power from the elite winners of the economy. On a small scale, that means more minorities and low-income people in positions of influence. On a larger scale, it means building a movement led by workers and citizens who can represent their own interests. 

    To accomplish this, Americans must dismantle the illusion that billionaires hold the answers — an illusion that has already begun to crumble under the unsteady footing of the Trump administration.

    In light of Trump's struggle to assuage working-class concerns, Giridharadas believes the reckoning is already underway: "After the Trump era, if you still think that billionaires are going to save us, do I have a book for you."

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: The Samsung Galaxy Note 9 is a $1,000 phone that's actually worth it


    0 0

    monaco yacht show

    • The Monaco Yacht Show takes place this week, where 40 new superyachts will make their worldwide debut.
    • Many yachts at the Monaco Yacht Show are owned by notable billionaires or have been chartered by the rich and famous.
    • These are just a few of the billionaire-owned yachts expected to be at the Monaco Yacht Show.

    The Monaco Yacht Show is set to take place from September 26 to September 29. A playground for the ultra rich, the yachting event of the year is welcoming 40 new superyacht debuts among a host of other well-known superyachts that have already hit the waters.

    With yachts over 100 feet costing an average of $1 million per 3.3 feet, many of these yachts are a mere indulgence among billionaires. The 1% flock to the show looking for their next purchase, while others put their colossal floating giants up for show.

    Using the Monaco Yacht Show's list of exhibiting yachts, we compiled a list of yachts expected to be at the show that are owned by some of the world's most notable billionaires.

    From motor yacht Kismet, owned by auto parts billionaire Shahid Khan and chartered by Beyoncé and Jay-Z, to motor yacht Aquarius, owned by Las Vegas businessman Steve Wynn, see which billionaire yachts are expected to be at the Monaco Yacht Show.

    SEE ALSO: 28 photos show how the 1% live it up at the Monaco Yacht Show, from cruising in on helicopters to partying aboard multi-million dollar yachts

    DON'T MISS: I spent 3 years writing about yachts, and owning one takes way more money than you think

    Axioma

    Owner: Dmitry Pumpyansky

    Net worth: $1.3 billion

    Russian billionaire Dmitry Pumpyansky largely built his wealth making steel pipes. He reportedly owns the 236-foot yacht Axioma, which features an infinity swimming pool. Her charter rates range from $700,722 to $747,829 a week.



    Apogee

    Instagram Embed:
    //instagram.com/p/BlwSKwVlmgk/embed
    Width: 540px

    Owner: Darwin Deason

    Net worth: $1.3 billion

    Tech entrepreneur Darwin Deason earned his wealth by selling his company to Xerox. He owns the 2015-foot yacht Apogee, which is currently for sale for nearly $25 million. She has a certified scuba diving instructor on board and a sundeck Jacuzzi that can fit up to 12 people.



    Cloud 9

    Instagram Embed:
    //instagram.com/p/BjuMiwHDpui/embed
    Width: 540px

    Owner: Brett Blundy

    Net worth: $1.3 billion

    When former chairman of BB Retail Brett Blundy isn't working on building a beef cattle empire in northern Australia, he's busy cruising his yacht, the 242-foot Cloud 9, which charters for nearly $900,000 a week during the winter. Everything on board was reportedly designed for Blundy, including bedroom suites named after Star Wars characters and various chess sets throughout the yacht, according to The Guardian.



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    jeff bezos

    • Billionaires typically can afford to spend $80 million a year, while most Americans earn less than $60,000.
    • While some billionaires live below their means, many spend their billions on real estate, private jets, yachts, and cars.
    • Despite their lavish indulgences, many billionaires also donate billions to charity.

    It's hard to fathom life as a billionaire

    Business Insider previously calculated that the typical billionaire can afford to spend $80 million a year, while most Americans earn less than $60,000. And for the world's richest billionaire, Jeff Bezos, who has an estimated net worth of $156 billion, spending $88,000 is similar to an average American spending $1.

    Where does one even begin to drop such billions?

    While some remain somewhat frugal, such as Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg, others are known to drop money on more lavish items. A sprawling real estate portfolio is a staple for billionaires, as is lavish means of personal transportation — think private jets, colossal yachts, and expensive cars.

    But while many billionaires are known to indulge, they're also known for their philanthropic efforts and donating billions to charity.

    See how billionaires spend their billions.

    SEE ALSO: Bill Gates is worth $95 billion and he plans to give most of it away — here's how he spends his money now, from a luxury car collection to incredible real estate

    DON'T MISS: The rich keep getting richer — here are the billionaires who made the most billions in a single year

    Billionaires are often on the go — many buy a private jet to makes the jet set lifestyle that much easier.



    Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, owns a $65 million Gulfstream G650ER private jet.

    Source:Business Insider



    Businessman Mark Cuban also owns a Gulfstream jet — he purchased a Gulfstream V for $40 million, the Guinness World Record for the biggest purchase ever conducted over the internet.

    Source:Business Insider



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    oprah winfrey

    • Oprah Winfrey's net worth is $2.9 billion, according to Forbes.
    • She spends her fortune on property across the globe, a private jet, vacations for her friends and staff, and investments in health and wellness-oriented companies.
    • Winfrey also donates time and money to a variety of philanthropic causes.

    Oprah Winfrey came from humble beginnings— now she's worth $2.9 billion, according to Forbes.

    So what exactly does she do with all that cash?

    We took a look at Winfrey's spending habits over the last few decades, and learned that she's got property across the globe and a private jet — but she also supports a range of philanthropic causes. And she's been known to take her friends and staff on lavish vacations, including "glamping" in Yosemite and a 10-day cruise.

    Find out more about how Winfrey spends her money:

    SEE ALSO: The life and career of Oprah Winfrey, who was nominated for an Oscar and lives in a $52 million estate nicknamed 'The Promised Land'

    Oprah Winfrey is a media mogul, a philanthropist, and an actress.



    Her current net worth is $2.9 billion, according to Forbes.

    Source: Forbes



    Winfrey spends her fortune many ways, purchasing real estate across the globe, investing in businesses, and supporting philanthropic causes.



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    warren buffet

    Forbes Magazine just came out with it's list of the top billionaires in the U.S. 

    We narrowed the list down to look at the most successful people in finance, which includes investments, trading, hedge funds and money management. 

    Read on to see the 10 wealthiest people in finance. 

     

    10. Philip Anschutz

    Net worth: $11.3 billion 

    Age: 78

    Country: US

    Industry: Diversified investments

    Source of wealth: Self-made

    Reclusive billionaire Philip Anschutz has built a fortune across oil, railroads, real estate, sports and entertainment. 

    Anschutz also owns the NHL's King team and part of the Lakers' basketball franchise. 

    He's trying to build the world's biggest wind farm in Wyoming. 



    9. David Tepper

    Net worth: $11.6 billion 

    Age: 61

    Country: United States 

    Industry: Hedge funds 

    Source of wealth: Self-made; Appaloosa Management 

    Tepper founded his hedge fund, Appaloosa Management in 1993, and now manages $15 billion. 

    Tepper bought the NFL's Carolina Panthers professional football team for $2.3 billion earlier this year. 

    In September, Tepper said that his firm had reduced its holdings of US stocks.

    "If you ask me what inning we're in, I think it's a late-innings game," Tepper, who manages about $14 billion in assets, told CNBC of the nine-year bull market in stocks.

    Appaloosa in May disclosed it had sold its entire stake in Apple, which had previously made up more than 7% of its portfolio. 

    The fund is also pushing for change at pharma company Allergan. 



    8. Steve Cohen

    Net worth: $13 billion 

    Age: 62

    Country: US

    Industry: Hedge funds

    Source of wealth: Self-made; Point72 Asset Management 

    Steve Cohen for years ran SAC Capital, one of the most successful hedge funds ever. Cohen was forced to shut down SAC after the firm pleaded guilty to insider trading charges. He launched Point72 Asset Management and started taking outside capital in 2018 after running it previously as a family office. He now manages $13 billion.

    Earlier this year, a female employee, Lauren Bonner, filed a lawsuit alleging widespread gender discrimination at the fund, including stark wage discrepancies between men and women for the same work. Doug Haynes, the firm's former president and a former McKinsey executive who was named in the suit, left soon after. Bonner's lawsuit was dismissed in federal court last week, and will now be arbitrated. 



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    warren buffett

    • Warren Buffett's estimated net worth is $88.3 billion.
    • But you wouldn't know the investor is America's third-richest man by his frugal lifestyle.
    • Buffett lives modestly and is one of the world's most generous philanthropists, opting to give away most of his billions to charity.

    Warren Buffett, America's third-richest man, has increased his net worth by around $10 billion in the past year, according to the Forbes 400, which was released on Wednesday. But what else would you expect from the "Oracle of Omaha," who began building his wealth at age 11? 

    Now 88, Buffett's estimated net worth stands at $88.3 billion — but you wouldn't know it by Buffett's frugal ways.

    Still living in the house he bought in the 1950s and driving an equally modest car, Buffett prefers to keep and grow his money rather than take it out of the bank. Not one for lavish purchases, he spends relatively little of his billions — except when it comes to philanthropy. 

    Buffett is regarded as one of the most generous philanthropists in the world, having donated more than $46 billion since 2000.

    However he uses his money, not much is spent on himself. See how Buffett spends — or doesn't spend — his billions.

    SEE ALSO: 24 mind-blowing facts about Warren Buffett and his $87 billion fortune

    DON'T MISS: Bill Gates is worth $95 billion and he plans to give most of it away — here's how he spends his money now, from a luxury car collection to incredible real estate

    Warren Buffett has a net worth of $88.3 billion, making him the world's third richest person.

    Source: Forbes



    He began building his wealth by investing in the stock market at age 11 and currently runs Berkshire Hathaway — but you wouldn't know he's a billionaire by the way he spends his money.

    Source:Forbes



    He previously told CNBC and Yahoo Finance's "Off the Cuff" that he's "never had any great desire to have multiple houses and all kinds of things and multiple cars."

    Source:CNBC



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    space travel virgin galactic

    • The world's ultra-wealthy spend money on things that most people can't even fathom buying.
    • One tech billionaire bought his own Hawaiian island, and a hedge fund manager spent at least $8 million on a 14-foot preserved shark.
    • From private islands to dinosaur fossils and tickets to outer space, here are 10 things you'd only buy if you had more money than you'd ever need.

     

    When you have more money than you know what to do with, it might not seem like a big deal to spend $8 million on a preserved shark, $2.2 million on a gold bathtub, or millions more on luxurious superyachts and private islands.

    Business Insider previously calculated that the typical billionaire can afford to spend $80 million a year.

    Here are 10 outrageously expensive things millionaires and billionaires spend their money on.

    SEE ALSO: This $446 million mansion in Hong Kong could break the record as the most expensive home ever sold in the world's most expensive housing market — and it's surprisingly modest

    1. Tickets to outer space



    Celebrities Ashton Kutcher and Katy Perry are among those who have reportedly bought tickets for a space tour aboard Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic spacecraft.

    Source: Business Insider



    Kutcher put down a $20,000 deposit for his $200,000 ticket in 2012.

    Source: Business Insider



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    richard branson

    • Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, has an estimated net worth of $5 billion.
    • When he spends his money indulgently, it's only to make money in return — like renting out real estate he owns, such as Necker Island.
    • In fact, Branson once said in an interview that he's "embarrassed" by displays of wealth, like leaving large tips and buying things for "pure luxury."
    • A member of the Giving Pledge, Branson would rather spend his money on philanthropy.

    Nearly 50 years after dropping out of high school at age 15 and founding his first business, Sir Richard Branson is now the billionaire chair of the Virgin Group, which brings in more than $21 billion annually in global revenue.

    Having overseen approximately 500 companies, Branson, who is known for his charisma and eccentric behaviors, has an estimated net worth of $5 billion.

    Ever the savvy businessman, Branson has spent some of his billions indulgently, but only to make money in return — like renting out real estate he owns (think Necker Island). When it comes down to it, Branson is rather frugal, opting not to own objects of pure luxury. He also donates much of his time and money to philanthropic efforts.

    Below, see how the eccentric leader spends his billions.

    SEE ALSO: Warren Buffett is the world's third-richest man — see how the notoriously frugal billionaire spends his fortune

    DON'T MISS: Bill Gates is worth $95 billion and he plans to give most of it away — here's how he spends his money now, from a luxury car collection to incredible real estate

    Richard Branson launched his first business at age 15. In 1972, he founded Virgin Records and went on to launch the Virgin Group conglomerate. Through this, he's built an estimated $5 billion net worth.

    Source:Forbes, Business Insider



    Branson is well-known for his jet-setting adventures and eccentricity, such as dressing as a butterfly to run a marathon.

    Source: Business Insider



    Virgin Media, Virgin Australia, and Virgin Atlantic are some of the biggest companies under Virgin Group.

    Source:Financial Times



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    giorgio armani

    • Fashion designer Giorgio Armani is worth $8.8 billion, according to Forbes.
    • The 84-year-old has made his fortune not only in fashion, but also in accessories, perfumes, makeup, sportswear, interior design, real estate, restaurants, hotels, and even chocolate.
    • Armani owns a 213-foot luxury yacht and homes in Italy, the French Riviera, and the Caribbean island of Antigua.
    • Here's a look at how Armani makes and spends his billions.

     

    Giorgio Armani, the co-founder and sole owner of fashion house Armani, is worth $8.8 billion, according to Forbes

    His empire also spans industries that include accessories, perfume, makeup, interior design, real estate, restaurants, and hotels. The business mogul brought in $2.7 billion in revenue in 2017, according to Bloomberg, which looked at filings with Italy's business register.

    The 84-year-old spends part of his fortune on multiple private homes all over the world, from Italy to the South of France to the Caribbean island of Antigua. He also owns a 213-foot luxury superyacht. 

    Here's a look at what nearly $9 billion buys.

    SEE ALSO: The 25 richest people in fashion

    Giorgio Armani is one of the richest people in the fashion industry, with a net worth of $8.8 billion.

    Source: Forbes



    Armani was born in the northern Italian town of Piacenza in 1934 and later attended medical school at Piacenza University for two years before leaving for his military service.

    Source: Bloomberg



    While on leave from the military, Armani got a job as a window dresser at Milan department store La Rinoscente, where he worked up to a buyer position, marking his first foray into fashion.

    Source: Bloomberg



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    roman abramovich

     

    Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, owner of the UK's Chelsea soccer team, is known for his mind-boggling collection of superyachts, luxury cars, private planes, and lavish homes around the world. 

    The Wall Street Journal once nicknamed his global collection of extravagant possessions "The Roman Empire."

    Once the richest man in Russia, Abramovich has amassed a vast personal fortune. The 51-year-old billionaire is the largest shareholder of Evraz, Russia's second-biggest steelmaker, and also owns stakes in the world's largest producer of refined nickel, according to Bloomberg.

    In 2008, Abramovich's wealth peaked at $23.5 billion, Forbes reported. Today, estimates for his net worth vary greatly, from $11.6 billion to $14.1 billion.

    Here's how Abramovich spends his billions.

    SEE ALSO: 10 things people buy when they have more money than they'd ever need

    DON'T MISS: Richard Branson is sitting on a $5 billion fortune but spent years cringing over displays of wealth — see how the eccentric billionaire likes to spend his money

    Roman Abramovich is a Russian billionaire with an estimated net worth between $11.6 billion and $14.1 billion.

    Source: Forbes, Bloomberg



    Once the richest man in Russia, Abramovich's net worth peaked in 2008 at $23.5 billion.

    Source: Forbes



    The 51-year-old billionaire became a high-profile figure in Britain after he acquired Chelsea Football Club in 2003.

    Source: Bloomberg



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    private plane jet luxury

    • Private jets are the choice mode of travel for billionaires, CEOs, celebrities, and world leaders.
    • These aircraft cost millions to hundreds of millions of dollars and often come with luxurious leather seats, full dining rooms, private bedrooms, and fine cuisine.
    • Here's what it's like to fly on a private plane.

     

    The preferred mode of travel for billionaires, CEOs, celebrities, and world leaders, the private jet can be seen as the epitome of luxury and wealth.

    Traditional commercial flying is an affordable service for the masses, but flying on a private jet is a very different world, Eric Roth, president of International Jet Interiors, told Business Insider.

    "Privacy, productivity, comfort, luxury and convenience are some of the major differences between flying private vs. commercial," Roth said. "You decide when you want to leave – YOU dictate the schedule — not the airlines. Chinese food for your flight from Teterboro to Van Nuys? No problem. Need to change your plans mid-flight and reroute to another city? OK."

    Private plane travel represents freedom for those who can afford it, he said.

    "Flying on a private jet can be the difference of being at three different cities for meetings and still returning home at a decent hour. Time is the one commodity that even money can not buy. A private jet is the best way to 'buy time,'" Roth said.

    Here's a look at what it's like flying on a private plane.

    SEE ALSO: Take a look inside 8 of the most luxurious private jets in the world

    DON'T MISS: 5 things you should know if you're flying private for the first time

    Flying on a private jet is a luxury form of travel usually associated with the ultra-wealthy, celebrities, business magnates, and world leaders.

    Source: Business Insider



    Private aviation didn't start becoming popular until the 1960s, after the first Learjet took flight in 1963.

    Source: Solairus



    In the 1970s, private planes were exactly as groovy as you'd expect.

    Source: Getty Images



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    Mark Zuckerberg dinner table

    • Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife have ponied up $1 million to support a statewide ballot measure that would soften penalties for drug possession.
    • Zuckerberg's investment in a ballot measure a long way from home is hardly unique.
    • This year, 25 American billionaires have invested more than $70.7 million for initiative campaigns in 19 states where they do not reside.

    There would appear to be no shortage of issues competing for Mark Zuckerberg's attention. Security breaches. Russian disinformation campaigns. Politicians' demands for more regulation.

    But the 34-year-old Facebook founder and CEO is also interested in a more local version of politics: He and wife Priscilla Chan have ponied up $1 million through their philanthropic Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative to support a statewide ballot measure that would soften penalties for drug possession. The constitutional amendment would also put savings from prison budgets into treatment for drug users.

    The measure wouldn't affect Zuckerberg's palace in Palo Alto, California, his 700-acre estate on the Hawaiian island of Kauai or another home he owns in San Francisco's hip Dolores Heights. This effort, dubbed Issue 1, is on the ballot in Ohio.

    Ana Zamora, criminal justice manager at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, said the charity is "pleased to support Ohioans in directing taxpayer dollars to rehabilitation, drug treatment, and education programs that are proven to improve public safety."

    Not all Ohioans are happy about the California billionaires' involvement. Louis Tobin, the executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, opposes the measure, arguing that fewer people will enter treatment without the threat of jail time.

    "We think setting criminal justice policy by constitutional amendment is a terrible idea, and I think what makes it even worse is that it's not being proposed by Ohioans. It's being driven by money from out of state," Tobin said. "We're going to have to live with the unintended consequences of this."

    Zuckerberg's investment in a ballot measure a long way from home is hardly unique. Liberal billionaire George Soros has given $5 million for issues on the ballot this fall around the country. California environmentalist Tom Steyer has spent $10 million.

    All told, this trio and 22 other American billionaires have invested more than $70.7 million for initiative campaigns this year in 19 states where they do not reside.

    Meanwhile, as little as $7.2 million has gone from their wallets and those of other billionaires to campaigns in their home states, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of state records.

    Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla ChanIn total, the $78 million tally from all 34 billionaires — local givers and out-of-state donors alike — may be pocket change to them, but it is more than 10% of the $648 million disclosed so far this year for statewide ballot measure campaigns, as tracked by the nonpartisan political encyclopedia Ballotpedia. And the total is likely an undercount of billionaires' influence on this year's ballot measures. It doesn't include gifts from billionaire-led corporations, nor from nonprofits where the billionaires are among a multitude of backers, nor from nonprofits whose donors' identities are unknown.

    As with Tobin and the prosecutors association in Ohio, the handouts from the wealthy to campaigns across state lines rankle some local opponents, even though no one questions their legality. Just who should decide issues in their states, they ask — the people who live there or some rich folks from out-of-state?

    Billionaire bigfooting

    "We believe strongly that a California billionaire coming into Arizona and spending $10 [million] to $20 million to cram this thing down our throats is problematic," said Matthew Benson, an opponent of a renewable energy measure in Arizona backed by billionaire investor Steyer, which would require utilities to get half their power from wind and solar sources by 2030.

    Other local activists say it's fine to have billionaires funding ballot initiatives, which let voters decide issues directly.

    "There's nothing illegal about this," said initiative expert and University of Florida professor Daniel Smith. "In some ways it's less corrupt than if they were making contributions to lawmakers or giving favors to lawmakers."

    Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that states cannot limit contributions to ballot measures partly because measures, unlike candidates, cannot be corrupted.

    Billionaires and ballot measures are not a new combination. Oil industry magnate John D. Rockefeller was behind a 1912 Colorado referendum campaign to eliminate an eight-hour-maximum workday for miners. California software developer Ron Unz funded a Colorado initiative in 2002 to ban bilingual education. Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has funded campaigns in California to hike cigarette and soda taxes.

    "The fact is that you need a lot of money to even get one of these campaigns off the ground," said Josh Altic, ballot measures project director for Ballotpedia, adding that the average cost for a campaign to get on the ballot in 2016 was more than $1 million. "It's not very unusual to have really rich individuals or financially influential corporations giving a lot of money."

    Cash from afar

    Two wealthy families who don't live in Florida gave millions to a ballot measure there this year. Five members of the billionaire Bonderman family — four children of private equity titan David Bonderman along with his wife, psychologist Laurie Michaels — contributed $3.2 million to the campaign for a measure that would restore voting rights to felons in the Sunshine State.

    In addition, hedge fund manager James Simons and his daughter Liz Simons gave a combined $1 million to the campaign.

    The Bondermans appear to be spread out among several states, none of them Florida. James and Liz Simons live in New York and California, respectively.

    james simonsKirk Bailey, the political director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said donors are attracted to the initiative campaign because it's a long-term, citizen-led effort to support a decision that should be in the hands of voters, not politicians.

    "We're one of only four states that permanently disenfranchises those who have felony convictions from voting," Bailey said. "And it's a really antiquated law."

    At least $9 million of the Florida campaign's $16 million war chest came from major donors out of state. That includes the Simons, Bondermans and a few familiar faces from the Ohio measure.

    None of the billionaires who gave in Florida and Ohio agreed to comment.

    A lawyer affiliated with an informal campaign to defeat the issue, Richard Harrison, did not return multiple requests for comment. But he argued in an opinion piece in the Tampa Bay Times last year that the initiative would "operate without regard to the seriousness of the crime, the severity of harm to the victims, or any of the other factors that one might reasonably want to consider."

    Middlemen nonprofits

    Most of the billionaires contributed in their own names, although several spent it through nonprofits they founded. For example, Steyer's NextGen Climate Action, part of his NextGen America network, has spent roughly $10 million on two measures to boost renewable energy in Nevada and Arizona. NextGen has provided nearly all of the funding for the campaigns.

    "This is all a vanity project for him," said Benson, the spokesman for Arizonans for Affordable Electricity, which opposes the measure in his state. "His primary objective is to set himself up to run for president."

    Arizonans for Affordable Electricity is one of four groups opposing the measure, all of which are funded by Arizona utilities. Two of the utilities backing the other groups are subsidiaries of Canadian company Fortis.

    NextGen America spokeswoman Aleigha Cavalier said the group was pushing the state measures because the Trump administration thwarted its work at the federal level to fight climate change. She said the group reached out to state partners early on, and together they came up with the idea for the initiatives.

    Tom Steyer"The notion that this is just because Tom Steyer is running for president is a little absurd, to be honest. We've been doing this stuff for years," she said. "The whole point of doing a ballot initiative is so that the people have a say, not the wealthy individuals."

    Soros, who's garnered notoriety for his hefty donations to various liberal causes, gave more than $5 million to nine initiative campaigns in nine states this year through his politically active nonprofit, the Open Society Policy Center, according to Bill Vandenberg, who helps direct the Open Society Foundations' giving in the states.

    "We've taken an interest in places around the country where the issues reflect our long-standing priorities," Vandenberg said. "We see our involvement as a great way to help ensure that all voices in a community are heard, not just those of the rich and powerful."

    The Soros funding includes $400,000 to back a measure in Maine that would raise taxes to pay for in-home care for seniors.

    "We fully expect that we're going to be outspent by out-of-state money," said Newell Augur, a lobbyist for the Home Care and Hospice Alliance of Maine and the chairman of the group fighting the measure.

    Augur said he believes outsiders are pushing the initiative in Maine because the state requires relatively few signatures — roughly 61,000 — to put a measure on the ballot, allowing groups to easily test voters' appetite for a new policy.

    "We're a cheap date," he said.

    A spokesman for the Maine People's Alliance, which gathered signatures for the initiative, said the wealthy corporations opposing it have vested interests in the status quo.

    "This is a grassroots, Maine-based initiative," said spokesman Mike Tipping. "We're happy to get support from people and advocates across the country that support these issues."

    The Alliance received roughly half its funding for the measure campaign from out of state, but Tipping said the group has 32,000 local members and thousands of small-dollar donors.

    Texas billionaires John and Laura Arnold are backing four measures inColorado, Michigan, and Utah with more than $1.1 million from their Action Now Initiative. The measures would allow independent commissions to draw political districts instead of the states' legislatures.

    Action Now Initiative CEO Sam Mar said in a statement that the group is supporting grassroots initiatives. The measures have drawn little organized opposition, other than an unsuccessful effort in Michigan to persuade the courts to remove the initiative from the ballot.

    (Laura and John Arnold are donors to the Center for Public Integrity. Open Society Foundations, which Soros funds, and the Ford Foundation were previously donors to the Center. More details on our funders.)

    And this year California billionaire Henry Nicholas is continuing his quest to have every state pass crime victims' rights laws named after his murdered sister Marsy. He's already spent $45.1 million of his own money and his foundation's to push the Marsy's Law measure in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,Nevada, and Oklahoma. The proposal is also on the ballot in North Carolina, but the campaign there has not yet recorded any contributions.

    His efforts in past years have already led to laws in five states. Nicholas and his foundation did not respond to a request for comment, but he is quoted on his foundation's website saying that Marsy's law would "provide for a more compassionate justice system for crime victims." Among other things, it would allow crime victims to be heard in court, notify them of all judicial proceedings, protect them from defendants, and provide restitution.

    The ACLU, which is opposing the measure in various states, has said that its provisions can undermine the presumption of innocence for defendants.

    Bucking the trend

    Not all billionaires gave to states far afield. Before his death on Monday, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen had pitched in to help the campaign for a gun control measure in his home state of Washington that would limit certain gun purchases to buyers who are at least 21 years old and undergo additional background checks, waiting periods, and safety training.

    "Initiative 1639 is a reasonable and necessary measure that will improve the safety of our schools and our communities, which is why I have contributed $1.2 million to the campaign," Allen said in an email to the Center for Public Integrity earlier this month.

    paul allenThe National Rifle Association and other opponents did not respond to requests for comment, but NRA Washington State Director Keely Hopkins called the initiative an "attack on every law-abiding citizen's constitutional rights" in a press release.

    Most of the billionaires gave to left-leaning causes, such as boosting renewable energy in Arizona or protecting salmon in Alaska. That's not surprising, said Ballotpedia's Altic, since the initiative process is most commonly used by the party out of power, and Republicans control both the legislatures and governors' mansions in 26 states.

    But at least two billionaires gave to conservative "no" campaigns this year.

    Trump donor and billionaire Los Angeles landlord Geoff Palmer gave $2 million to defeat California's Proposition 10, which would allow local governments to enact rent control measures.

    And Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein, who lives in Illinois, gave $10,000 to oppose a Massachusetts law up for a vote that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public venues.

    Neither conservative donor responded to requests for comment.

    Another billionaire, Boston-based investor Seth Klarman, gave $200,000 to the Massachusetts campaign to keep the anti-discrimination law.

    "All human beings deserve the same basic protections," Klarman said in an email. "I have faith that a majority of people share my belief, and will vote Yes on 3 to protect the rights of transgender people."

    In South Dakota, outsider money in ballot measures has so angered Speaker of the House Mark Mickelson that he penned his own initiative. The Republican is leading a campaign to ban out-of-state contributions to ballot measure efforts in his state, where politicians are still debating a 2016 measure backed by a national group that sought to tighten lobbying and campaign finance rules.

    The measure passed, but was overturned by the Legislature the following year. Now the same national group is behind a similar ballot campaign to again tighten ethics rules and create a new government accountability board — but this time in the form of a constitutional amendment, so that the Legislature can't repeal it.  

    "I'm sick and tired of liberal political groups and out-of-state businesses treating South Dakota like it's a political playground," Mickelson said. "My goal is to send all those people that don't live here a message: Go somewhere else."

    Critics have said his proposed ban on out-of-state funding is unconstitutional.

    "If they want to file and fight it in court, we'd be happy to see them there," Mickelson said. "But hopefully they just determine they can go screw around in Idaho or some other state."

    Local or not?

    For Zuckerberg, part of the motivation for getting involved in Ohio's Issue 1 may be rooted in his 30-state tour last year, which included a sit-down with a group of recovering heroin addicts in Dayton. Later in the tour, Zuckerberg spoke emotionally about the experience.

    "The biggest surprise by far has been the extent of the opioid issues," he said. "It is really saddening to see."

    Supporters of Issue 1 said the measure has the backing of a coalition of local groups wanting to solve local problems, not just the support of Zuckerberg and Chan.

    "This has been a three-year effort in Ohio started by faith leaders and community organizers and people who have just had enough of our incredibly high rates of incarceration and our incredibly high rates of addiction," said Amy Hanauer, the executive director of Policy Matters Ohio, a liberal think tank. "It's a homegrown effort."

    But a close look reveals a somewhat more complicated history.

    The measure got onto the ballot with the help of the national Alliance for Safety and Justice, a project of the liberal nonprofit Tides Center based in California that does not reveal its donors. The Alliance had previously spearheaded the passage of California's Proposition 47, which shrank many criminal charges from felonies to misdemeanors.

    In 2015, it approached the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, which was already working on shrinking Ohio's prison population, according to the Ohio group's deputy director Stephen JohnsonGrove.

    And Soros' Open Society Foundation gave more than $6 million in 2016 and 2017 to seven of the 26 nonprofits that make up the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, which also worked to get the measure on the ballot.

    The Collaborative members and partners have also taken in more than $10 million from the liberal, New York-based Ford Foundation since 2015.

    Once the Ohio measure was ready for the ballot, another $1 million came from a charity endowed by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, who also live in California.

    All told, according to the Center for Public Integrity's analysis of state records, Ohio donors have given just 6% of donations to the committee supporting the ballot measure.

    SEE ALSO: Here's what handwriting analysts say about the signatures of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and 13 more successful people

    SEE ALSO: Trump helped mislead investors about his involvement in real estate projects — and made money when projects failed

    SEE ALSO: The 25 most generous philanthropists in America today

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: There's going to be an 'enormous backlash' against Donald Trump's lies


    0 0

    Neiman Marcus Gift 8

    • Neiman Marcus' multimillion-dollar Christmas list is back, and it's more extravagant than ever. 
    • The "Fantasy Gifts" section offers billionaires and the ultra-wealthy the chance to buy one-of-a kind luxury items like custom art pieces, first-class travel experiences, and private yachts. 
    • See the most expensive gifts on the 2018 list. 

     

    Neiman Marcus' multimillion-dollar Christmas list is back, and it's more extravagant than ever. 

    The retailer has released its 2018 Christmas Book, an annual collection of suggested gifts from the luxury department store.

    One major highlight of the Christmas Book is its "Fantasy Gifts" section, which offers billionaires who have everything the chance to buy one-of-a-kind luxury items, travel packages, and experiences that cost thousands — and even millions — of dollars.

    Neiman Marcus is careful to highlight its philanthropic efforts alongside the decadence. Between $10,000 and $50,000 of every Fantasy Gift purchase is donated to The Heart of Neiman Marcus Foundation, which funds art programs across the United States.

    See the most expensive gifts on the 2018 Fantasy Gifts list:

    SEE ALSO: We went shopping at one of New York City's most famous department stores as it prepares to close for good. Here's what it was like.

    A larger-than-life animal sculpture by Bjorn Okholm Skaarup

    Price: $200,000+

    Internationally acclaimed artist Bjorn Okholm Skaarup, whose work is on display in New York City's Lincoln Center, will cast a family pet or favorite animal in bronze. You'll fly to Florence, Italy, to spend time with the sculptor at his foundry, see his most famous works, and finalize the details of your custom sculpture. 



    Yours & mine ultimate clubhouses

    Price: $250,000 each

    The ultimate clubhouse includes two 10' by 12' backyard retreats by Studio Shed and Christina Simon of Mark Ashby Design. There are two houses: The Virtue House and The Vice House. 

    The Virtue House has a white exterior and is a space for self-care, alone time, reflection, meditation, pampering, and centering.

    The Vice House has a black exterior and a clubhouse feel, with cigars and a humidor provided by Cornelius & Anthony, cocktail glasses, vinyl records, and more.

     



    Collaborate with costume designer Colleen Atwood on a one-of-a-kind outfit inspired by "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald"

    Price: $300,000

    Spend the day collaborating with costume designer Colleen Atwood on a one-of-a-kind outfit inspired by "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald." The package includes lunch and a collaborative design session with Atwood, a costume fitting, and a photo op to commemorate the experience. 

    You will also receive an autographed movie poster, "Fantastic Beasts" wands from The Noble Collection, and a collection of three HarperCollins "Fantastic Beasts" movie tie-in books.



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    Bill Gates Jennifer Gates

    • Billionaire children have privileges many will never know.
    • Some spend their parents' money on college tuition and hobbies.
    • Others spend their fortunes a little more lavishly — think: world travels, yacht vacations, and designer clothes.

    Children of billionaires have access to a world that many can't even begin to fathom. 

    Some, like Jennifer Gates, daughter of Bill Gates, and Eve Jobs, daughter of the late Steve Jobs, use their fortunes to pursue their passions — like schooling (both went to Stanford) and competing as equestrians.

    Richard Branson's daughter, Holly Branson, takes after her dad and loves to spend her money on experiences and adventures rather than material objects.

    Others use their fortunes a little more lavishly — think: vacations around the world, exploring the seas via yachts, closets stocked with designer clothes, and partying it up in the city. Tiffany Trump and Alexa Dell both have a taste for finer fashion and seeing the world, while Larry Ellison's son David loves to get around in style, whether it's via jet or snowboard.

    Below, see some of the outrageous ways in which the children of billionaires spend their parents' billions.

    SEE ALSO: 16 heirs to some of America's best-known brands who are poised to inherit millions

    SEE ALSO: Bill Gates is worth $95 billion and he plans to give most of it away — here's how he spends his money now, from a luxury car collection to incredible real estate

    Jennifer Gates, daughter of Bill Gates, recently graduated from Stanford University, where undergraduate tuition costs $50,703 for the 2018-2019 school year.

    Instagram Embed:
    //instagram.com/p/Bj-phGJg2jn/embed
    Width: 540px

    Sources:Business Insider, Stanford



    Gates loves to travel. Her Instagram feed shows she's been everywhere from Lake Como, Italy, to Barcelona to Australia.

    Instagram Embed:
    //instagram.com/p/BlqvSHsAsD9/embed
    Width: 540px

    Source:Business Insider



    Sometimes, she even charters a yacht during her trips.

    Instagram Embed:
    //instagram.com/p/BKvBBbphBau/embed
    Width: 540px

     



    See the rest of the story at Business Insider

    0 0

    Bill Gates

    • Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are some of the world's most famous entrepreneurs — and billionaires.
    • They also dropped out of college. One in eight billionaires on the Forbes 400 are college dropouts, according to a study by UK job site Adview.
    • However, experts suggest you stay in school. 

     

    Bill Gates is a college dropout worth $95 billion. Mark Zuckerberg, who also didn't graduate, is worth just under $70 billion.  

    Indeed, according to a study by UK job site Adview, one in eight of the Forbes 400, which are the 400 richest billionaires in the US, are college dropouts. They came to this conclusion by looking at the 362 billionaires with publicly available education information; 44 were dropouts.  

    That follows a similar analysis by Forbes. In 2017, they found that 16% of the billionaires on their list didn't have a bachelor's degree. 

    Quite a few wildly successful entrepreneurs managed to hit it big without a college degree — like Microsoft cofounder  Paul Allen, Dell founder Michael Dell, Apple cofounder  Steve Jobs, Oracle cofounder  Larry Ellison, Spotify cofounder  Daniel Ek, Nasty Gal founder Sophia Amoruso, DropBox cofounder Arash Ferdowsi, to name a few.

    From that list, it seems like having the guts to eschew the typical path of a college education, and the average debt of $17,126 per graduate, coincides with hitting it big in the business world.

    Investor Peter Thiel apparently agrees; he launched an on-going program in 2011 that awards $100,000 to young entrepreneurs who want to drop out of school. The Thiel Fellowship website summarizes the dropout ethos by positioning college as an impediment rather than an area of growth: "College can be good for learning about what’s been done before, but it can also discourage you from doing something new."

    And after all, taking risks and not fearing failure are key traits for success. 

    Still, you should probably get a degree

    Experts really don't recommend you drop out of college.

    "There are always going to be the Jay-Zs of the world. There's going to be the Kobe Bryants. There's going to be the Mark Zuckerbergs, the people that drop out of college," Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at NYU Stern, previously told Business Insider

    "You should assume you're not that person and go to college," Galloway said.

    While quite a few successful entrepreneurs and billionaires did drop out, the vast majority have degrees. What's more is that those degrees are from prestigious colleges. Harvard, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania are the top three alma maters for American billionaires, totaling 326 billionaire alum. 

    Researchers Jonathan Wai and Heiner Rindermann found that 94% of US leaders, including top journalists, politicians, and CEOs, attended college. Half of them attended what they defined as an "elite school,"compared to 2-5% of the overall US population.

    Wai and Rindermann emphasized in a piece for The Conversation that few of these US leaders came from disadvantaged backgrounds. Meanwhile, many of the most famous college dropouts happen to be white men with highly-educated parents who could be safety nets.

    "Perhaps in the future, college may not be as important to employers," the researchers wrote. "But for now, college dropouts who rule the world are rare exceptions – not the rule."

    Take Thiel for example. While his fellowship provides an alternative to "sitting in a classroom," he's a graduate of Stanford University — and Stanford Law School. 

    SEE ALSO: Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are worth more than $100 billion — see how they spend it, from trapeze lessons to a 600-foot 'air yacht'

    DON'T MISS: College Greeks are known for high GPAs and making more money after graduating — but new research says it's not as straightforward as it seems

    Join the conversation about this story »

    NOW WATCH: This company spent 10 years developing a product that allows humans to scale walls like a gecko


    0 0

    • GPA is one of the most important markers of success in school — but in the real world, that number has less of an effect on life achievement or wealth
    • Eric Barker, author of "Barking Up The Wrong Tree,says that becoming a millionaire or billionaire doesn't require an outstanding GPA or being class valedictorian. 
    • In fact, he says the average college GPA of American millionaires is 2.9. 
    • In the video above, Barker explains what impacts success more than GPA.

    The following is a transcript of the video.

    What we see is that the average GPA, college GPA of American millionaires is actually 2.9.

    So Karen Arnold did research at Boston College looking at the success levels of valedictorians. And, In general, high school valedictorians do well but they don't actually reach the highest level of success metrics. They don't become the billionaires. The people who run the world in general.

    And that's because what the research found was that school teaches you to comply with rules. So valedictorians often go on to be the people who support the system, they become a part of the system, they don't change the system or overthrow the system.

    And so what we see is that the average GPA, college GPA of American millionaires is actually 2.9. And while valedictorians generally score high in the personality trait of conscientiousness. What you see among the millionaires with their 2.9 GPAs is they're known for grit.

    Maybe they don't comply with rules that well but they stick with goals over the long term. And that how they do really well. And sometimes they don't play by the rules, sometimes they do things differently. Because in school rules are very clear in life rules are not so clear.

    So a certain amount of not playing by the rules is advantageous once you get out of a closed system like education.

    Join the conversation about this story »


older | 1 | .... | 47 | 48 | (Page 49) | 50 | newer