Trump running out of (gasp) money?!

[Thump553]

So . . . he's spending very little money, and what he is spending, he's spending in a bizarre fashion?

It's not really a bizarre fashion-it's pretty clear (based on past prior actors) that his campaign was and is designed not so much to become President as it was to generate money for himself. Personally I strongly suspect Trump's success was as unexpected to him as nearly everyone else, and gives him further bragging/ego stroking rights.

As for foreign policy, surely running a beauty pageant in Russia is more than enough experience. There is a huge difference in negotiating levels where people's lives and the future of your country depend on the outcome rather than other people's money.

 

[fskimospy]

The more I think about this, the more I think Trump is just giving Hillary space and comfort. I think he could pick up the phone and suddenly have 200m in his campaign account. The business man in him won't do that until absolutely necessary, but I have no doubt that he can fire that cannon, if needed. He certainly has the assets to back it up, and once again, it would be a loan to the campaign, which would be repayable.

That said, I don't have much confidence that big money buys the presidency, at least not this time around. Hell....look how much money Bush had and spent, then look what happened to him. I don't think there has been a candidate in recent history, who spent as much per vote as Jeb Bush.

One thing, however, that is assured.....we're gonna get screwed by either a Republican or a Democrat, but I think it's the latter.

If he didn't want to spend his own money until it was absolutely necessary why isn't he taking steps to make sure it isn't necessary by accomplishing fundraising that isn't so catastrophically bad?

I personally think campaigns and money don't matter that much usually but that's because usually both sides have adequate funding and a competent campaign. Trump seems to have neither at this point.

 

[sportage]

O...M...G... 😉

Trump IS NOT running out of $$$.
Trump is just too cheap to spend his money.
And this fits exactly his philosophy from the very start.
Pretend you are something you are not, pretend you will do things you have no intention of doing, fool as many people as you can, then pray no one figures it out.

This also fits into what I have been saying about loud mouth highly sensitive highly insecure New Yorkers. Some folks exactly like Donald Trump.
Im sure there are loud mouth highly sensitive highly insecure individuals from all parts of the country, but my experience have been with those from the east.
New Yorkers, Jersey, those I have dealt with from that part of the country.
And as Donald, many fit this same mold.

Trump will never spend his money, he is highly fearful of one day no longer having money, even though at this point he has a lot of it.
That is his insecurity showing through.
Donald will simply double down on his illusion that the people will love him and carry him into the whitehouse without the need for money or spending.
And should Donald realize the money makes all the difference, Donald will simply lash out at the republican establishment blaming them.

Don't people get it?
We're dealing with Donald Trump here.
I have personally dealt with a lot of Donald Trump personalities in my life and I can predict on a day by day basis what they will do next.

Donald is not going to spend his own money, no matter what he says.
He believes whole heartedly that people love him enough despite his money or the need for TV campaign ads.
And should Donald come to realize by some quirk of nature that Hillary is wiping his ass, outspending him on ads and exposure, Donald will do the one thing he knows best to do, lash out.
If Donald finds himself on the losing streak, when the panic sets in, Donald will definitely lash out and blame the RNC, and demand they step up and pay up.

The big unknown here, will the republican establishment fill that cash void? Or will they simply ignore Donald and turn their backs?
This all hinges on how badly the republicans fear losing the US Supreme Court, and whether they can trust president Donald Trump to do the right thing with the US Supreme Court.
Just like Lucy Ricardo once said, back to seven fifty.
😉

 

[fskimospy]

One thing he could probably do to encourage donations is to forgive all of his 'loans' to his own campaign. I would be pretty worried if I were a donor that he would just take my cash and put it in his own pocket to 'repay' himself for purchases made at his own businesses. This is doubly true considering his private sector history of...well... basically doing that.

 

[Jhhnn]

The tables have turned ... it used to be the Republicans could expect a pretty decent money advantage for POTUS and other national offices and that advantage could be 2x or more what the Democrats would get. No longer!

In 2012 Obama got about $750M compared to Romney's $500M or about $250M advantage to the Dems. We might see Hillary with a 3X to as much as 10X advantage over Trump.

Here's why...

The folks with money no longer need to worry about a Democrat spoiling there economic plans as both sides can be counted on to give the wealthy exactly what they demand in the areas that matter most to them -- strip mining the middle class. So, if there's nothing one way or another to favor an R over a D in the economic policy game then it's down to how sane the candidates are in other areas and its this factor that is crushing the R's. The R's are batshit crazy on way too many things.

So, when folks with money think about how best to spend there candidate buying money there's nothing favoring an R over a D but on social issues and just plain sanity the R's are and have been for a long time in a rubber room of there own construction. The folks with money will give an even greater advantage to the D's this cycle and there's absolutely nothing to indicate the R's will go back on there meds and straighten out.


Brian

Your "They're just as bad!" schtick is tedious in the extreme.

There are enormous economic policy differences between the parties. The only way Repubs have ever been able to sell theirs has been to piggyback them onto the social issues they use to keep the electorate nicely irrational.

 

[BxgJ]

One thing he could probably do to encourage donations is to forgive all of his 'loans' to his own campaign. I would be pretty worried if I were a donor that he would just take my cash and put it in his own pocket to 'repay' himself for purchases made at his own businesses. This is doubly true considering his private sector history of...well... basically doing that.

This is something I've heard. I'm not surprised potential donors are hesitant at giving to his campaign, given that it appears that not only is he not 'self funding', but potentially making a profit.

 

[werepossum]

I haven't followed your whole argument, but the people your family knows and connections they have could be worth much more than any wealth that was transferred.

This is true. Starting from his background, he'd have to be spectacularly stupid to utterly fail. Goes back to Paratus' example - someone starting out poor, black and in the hood cannot afford to make a single major stumble, whereas someone starting out in Trump's position can afford many. That's why we really can't tell how he'd turn out with a modest start - he not only likely would not have the education and connections he had, he would not have had anywhere near the same latitude to develop his famed negotiating skills. With money and connections, one can survive some big disasters; without those, it's generally one and done.

It assumes no such thing, as living expenses are incidental in a conversation about tens of millions of dollars. Unless you're arguing living expenses are required to be high to be a multi-millionaire/billionaire, which of course is disproven by the most famous of wealthy folks (Buffet, Gates).

Uh, who? I'm sure there are heirs who are bad with money of course, but your average trust fund kid with $100M would have to be quite poor with their finances if they never ended up a billionaire after 40 years.

Yeah, this is kind of like saying "Well, he's still worth a lot for someone whose expenses are horribly irresponsible". And I question how intimately you know his spending habits.

Forbes disagrees with your envy-based opinion of heirs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewi...every-american-billionaire-2016/#256409a25880

It was a rough year for the world’s wealthiest, who faced uncertain markets and the continued decline in oil prices, plus the ongoing Syrian Civil War that has disrupted European economies and created some 18 million Syrian refugees and people in need. In total 221 former billionaires fell off the list (though 198 newcomers joined) and the average billionaire’s net worth dropped $280 million, from $3.86 billion to $3.58 billion, last year. Americans were hit harder than average: The typical U.S. billionaire lost nearly $350 million, or about 7% of his wealth, falling from an average net worth of $4.79 billion to $4.44 billion within one year.

Most ten-digit fortunes — 68% — in America are self-made. Just 17% are heirs who are not active in business and another 15% inherited their wealth but are active businesspeople. A total of 65 U.S. billionaires are women, which accounts for about one-third of the world’s 190 female billionaires. Only 11 American women are self-made billionaires.

Which sector creates the most billionaires? Finance and investing, with 132 billion-dollar fortunes. Second place is technology (73 billionaires), followed by food and beverage (52), fashion and retail (48) and real estate (38). New York City is still the billionaire capital of America, with 74 billionaire residents. The Bay Area trails closely behind, with 70. Los Angeles and Palm Beach have 43 and 29 billionaires, respectively.

Fail. I gave Trump 10x more starting capital than he claims.

Using Donald's number of 200k, he would need returns of 50% every year for 50 years. There's no way he's that good. Nobody is that good.

At some point though, he would have inherited tens of millions, whether or not he was given anything like that early on. And as Subyman points out, his connections and education were massive advantages.

I honestly admire than man's grit and business acumen - and absolutely nothing else - but let's be honest: His climb to the top of the mountain was on a paved road.

 

[werepossum]

It's not really a bizarre fashion-it's pretty clear (based on past prior actors) that his campaign was and is designed not so much to become President as it was to generate money for himself. Personally I strongly suspect Trump's success was as unexpected to him as nearly everyone else, and gives him further bragging/ego stroking rights.

As for foreign policy, surely running a beauty pageant in Russia is more than enough experience. There is a huge difference in negotiating levels where people's lives and the future of your country depend on the outcome rather than other people's money.

Hmm, I don't remember Obama's total lack of foreign policy being an issue with the left. Odd, that . . .

There certainly is a huge difference in negotiating levels where people's lives and the future of your country depend on the outcome rather than other people's money, but one should also remember that the aforementioned beauty pageant didn't result in civil war and the rise of militant Islamic forces. Maybe when lauding foreign policy experience, we wait for something with positive results beyond bringing big money into the Clinton Family Foundation?

I don't think Trump's campaign was designed to bring in money, except maybe by increasing his brand popularity. (Which if so has been a dismal failure on all fronts.) I was one of the people who said Trump had no intention of actually running for President, so I'll not hazard a guess as to whether he's actually smarter than all the rest of us or got caught as flat-footed at his success as all the rest of us.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This is true. Starting from his background, he'd have to be spectacularly stupid to utterly fail. Goes back to Paratus' example - someone starting out poor, black and in the hood cannot afford to make a single major stumble, whereas someone starting out in Trump's position can afford many. That's why we really can't tell how he'd turn out with a modest start - he not only likely would not have the education and connections he had, he would not have had anywhere near the same latitude to develop his famed negotiating skills. With money and connections, one can survive some big disasters; without those, it's generally one and done.


Forbes disagrees with your envy-based opinion of heirs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewi...every-american-billionaire-2016/#256409a25880



At some point though, he would have inherited tens of millions, whether or not he was given anything like that early on. And as Subyman points out, his connections and education were massive advantages.

I honestly admire than man's grit and business acumen - and absolutely nothing else - but let's be honest: His climb to the top of the mountain was on a paved road.

and a lot less of a climb than a meander, and not so much a mountain but a gradual incline.

 

[Spungo]

At some point though, he would have inherited tens of millions, whether or not he was given anything like that early on. And as Subyman points out, his connections and education were massive advantages.

Believe it or not, most people really don't care who you are. They care about your numbers. If you're trying to put together a real estate deal, and the thing is ridiculous, the lenders will reject it. Insurers will reject it as well.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Believe it or not, most people really don't care who you are. They care about your numbers. If you're trying to put together a real estate deal, and the thing is ridiculous, the lenders will reject it. Insurers will reject it as well.

Do you think just anyone could walk through the same doors he walked through to present those deals and ideas? Was it easier for him to get the audiences he would have needed? Significantly easier?

 

[buckshot24]

It's not really a bizarre fashion-it's pretty clear (based on past prior actors) that his campaign was and is designed not so much to become President as it was to generate money for himself. Personally I strongly suspect Trump's success was as unexpected to him as nearly everyone else, and gives him further bragging/ego stroking rights.

As for foreign policy, surely running a beauty pageant in Russia is more than enough experience. There is a huge difference in negotiating levels where people's lives and the future of your country depend on the outcome rather than other people's money.

Alex Jones called, he wants his conspiracy theory back.

 

[Jhhnn]

Believe it or not, most people really don't care who you are. They care about your numbers. If you're trying to put together a real estate deal, and the thing is ridiculous, the lenders will reject it. Insurers will reject it as well.

Which explains Trump Baja how, exactly?

 

[First]

Here's a fun little retirement calculator everyone should play with.
http://www.mycalculators.com/ca/retcalc1m.html

According to Wikipedia, The Donald claims he was worth $200k when he finished college. I'll go ahead and assume he's lying about that because everybody lies about how great they are - everybody in ATOT makes at least 7 figures and drives a Ferrari. Let's round Donald's number up by a factor of 10 and assume he started with $2M. He's about 70 right now, and we'll assume he started his retirement career when he was 20, so that gives us 50 years to create $4B. I'll assume he always lived like a playboy since he was born into a rich family. Average income back then was around $3,000, so we'll give him 20x that much to maintain his awesome lifestyle: $60,000/yr in 1966. Now fill in these numbers:
How many years until you retire? 0
Number of Years in Retirement: 50
Average Annual Interest Growth Rate you can earn? Enter the number you think is required.
Compounded: Annually
Average Annual Inflation Rate: 3%
How much $ will you have when you retire? $2,000,000 (what he started with)
Do you want to have any money left? $4,000,000,000 (number he has now)
Adjust for inflation? yes.

After trying different numbers, the required rate of return I'm coming up with is 20.5% annually to be able to maintain that playboy lifestyle (~60k/yr) and grow your net worth at the same time. That needs to be maintained every single year for 50 years in a row. That's pretty good. That's in the same league as Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn.

Please stop. His Wikipedia page also states he split $250M-$300M with his siblings when his father died in 1999, and that of course does not include the many millions most people believe he received very early in his career in the 70's (some confirmed by Trump said himself, daddy gave him a "small" $1M loan at the beginning of his career).

But really, who cares, everyone honest knows the guy is a terrible businessman.

The problem with those estimates is that Elizabeth Warren is special. She's the person who claimed to not understand how revolving credit works. The credit card interest rate is 11% this month and then it's 15% when it is renewed next month? What kind of sorcery is this???

Sorry I have no idea what this screed is about.

 

[First]

Forbes disagrees with your envy-based opinion of heirs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewi...every-american-billionaire-2016/#256409a25880

Did you know you quoted a statement about a single year of returns, and also something about where ten-digit wealth comes from (which I don't know the veracity of and was never disputing)? Just checking, cause I'm curious what you think your quote says about my ascertion that Donald Trump could have invested his tens of millions in the 70's into index funds and gone to sleep for the next 40 years and have been far better off. Hell, assume he only had a few million in the 70's, combine that with his inherited wealth in 99 and he'd still have done better in index funds.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Your "They're just as bad!" schtick is tedious in the extreme.

There are enormous economic policy differences between the parties. The only way Repubs have ever been able to sell theirs has been to piggyback them onto the social issues they use to keep the electorate nicely irrational.

Your reflexive defense of the money game the Dems have played since 92 is mind numbingly pathetic! The shift in money from the wealthy to the Dems, beginning with Bill Clinton isn't a fabrication or coincidence -- it's a direct consequence of the Dems deciding they're really Repubs with a bit of difference at the margins. The main difference is that the R's are so ate up with the social agenda that they've painted themselves into a corner.

Continuing to support the money grab by the D's is the main reason the middle class is in decline -- there's no one at there back that isn't sticking it up there ass...


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

Your reflexive defense of the money game the Dems have played since 92 is mind numbingly pathetic! The shift in money from the wealthy to the Dems, beginning with Bill Clinton isn't a fabrication or coincidence -- it's a direct consequence of the Dems deciding they're really Repubs with a bit of difference at the margins. The main difference is that the R's are so ate up with the social agenda that they've painted themselves into a corner.

Continuing to support the money grab by the D's is the main reason the middle class is in decline -- there's no one at there back that isn't sticking it up there ass...


Brian

Wage stagnation and the decline of the middle class started about 15 years before Bill Clinton got into office.

Anyone who thinks Democrats and Republicans are only different at the margins should ask themselves a few questions:

1. Do you think President Gore would have invaded Iraq?
2. Do you think President McCain would have signed the ACA?
3. Tax rates on the top 1% are roughly back to the levels before Ronald Reagan. Do you think Presidents McCain and Romney would have done this?

 

[Spungo]

Please stop. His Wikipedia page also states he split $250M-$300M with his siblings when his father died in 1999, and that of course does not include the many millions most people believe he received very early in his career in the 70's (some confirmed by Trump said himself, daddy gave him a "small" $1M loan at the beginning of his career).

Are you aware of what year it is? That's 17 years ago. I want you to calculate what the annual rate of returns need to be before someone can turn $0.3B into $4B.
Even if you assume he started with $1B instead of $0.3B and had absolutely no cost of living for the past 17 years because he lived in a dumpster and ate donated food, he would still need an annual return of 8.5%

Now let's compare that against the the guy who is generally considered one of the best investors of all time. Warren Buffett. Buffett's investment company is called Berkshire Hathaway.
1999-01-01: $47.00
2016-06-22: $143.94 (and the company has no dividends)
Annualized return: 6.8%

Similarly, the stock market as a whole hasn't really done much in the past few decades. Ticker SPY:
1999-01-01: $123
2016-06-22: $208
Annualized return: 3.1%
But it also pays dividends. It's currently 2.6%, but it probably averages closer to 3%. That would bring the total return of the stock market up to about 6-7%, give or take. So basically Buffett and Trump match the index or slightly exceed the index.
It gets harder to beat the index as you get larger because your opportunities shrink. Making 10% on $100 is piss easy because there are so many great opportunities at that level. Trying to get 10% on several billion is quite difficult.

Sorry I have no idea what this screed is about.

On the show 60 Minutes, Warren claimed to not understand how credit card companies could change the interest rate on money that has already been borrowed. I know she's not this stupid, but she does lie when it's convenient.
The way credit works is very simple. The maturity date of the credit card is 30 days. On that day, the full balance of the debt is due. This is how almost all credit works. This is why publicly traded companies always released debt repayment schedules, and they put effort into laddering their debt repayment dates so they don't all come due at the same time.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rollover.asp

 

[fskimospy]

Are you aware of what year it is? That's 17 years ago. I want you to calculate what the annual rate of returns need to be before someone can turn $0.3B into $4B.
Even if you assume he started with $1B instead of $0.3B and had absolutely no cost of living for the past 17 years because he lived in a dumpster and ate donated food, he would still need an annual return of 8.5%

Now let's compare that against the the guy who is generally considered one of the best investors of all time. Warren Buffett. Buffett's investment company is called Berkshire Hathaway.
1999-01-01: $47.00
2016-06-22: $143.94 (and the company has no dividends)
Annualized return: 6.8%

Similarly, the stock market as a whole hasn't really done much in the past few decades. Ticker SPY:
1999-01-01: $123
2016-06-22: $208
Annualized return: 3.1%
But it also pays dividends. It's currently 2.6%, but it probably averages closer to 3%. That would bring the total return of the stock market up to about 6-7%, give or take. So basically Buffett and Trump match the index or slightly exceed the index.
It gets harder to beat the index as you get larger because your opportunities shrink. Making 10% on $100 is piss easy because there are so many great opportunities at that level. Trying to get 10% on several billion is quite difficult.

Sorry, this is all wrong. Trump got an inheritance of about $40 million in 1974 when he was given control and ownership stake in his dad's company, not 1999. He didn't have 17 years, he had 42.

Depending on how you valued the company and what you think his net worth is today it looks reasonably likely that he would have been better off with an index fund and that's not even counting his dad's connections. Again, there are credible indications that he's potentially worth considerably less than $4 billion too, so it's certainly possible his performance has been even worse than that. All together it's really not possible to say he was a good businessman or even an adequate one. It's reasonably likely he's pretty shitty at business, actually.

Regardless, it's an impossible calculation to make without knowing what he inherited and what he is worth now and obviously you can't believe what he's saying due to his history of lying about it. His actions do seem to indicate someone who does not have the type of liquidity you would expect from someone worth several billion dollars though.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Wage stagnation and the decline of the middle class started about 15 years before Bill Clinton got into office.

Anyone who thinks Democrats and Republicans are only different at the margins should ask themselves a few questions:

1. Do you think President Gore would have invaded Iraq?
2. Do you think President McCain would have signed the ACA?
3. Tax rates on the top 1% are roughly back to the levels before Ronald Reagan. Do you think Presidents McCain and Romney would have done this?

Actually the inflection point was probably closer to 20 years before BC. What the Republicans in that earlier period did the Dems fought -- until BC, from that point on there's been one view of outsourcing and free trade and that's the view the wealthy have paid for and benefited from.

I doubt Gore would have invaded Iraq and had that fiasco not happened the world would be in a much better place from a geo-political standpoint and also terrorism, but my argument is that in the large economic issues the D's and R's are playing from the same playbook and that playbook has been authored by the wealthy.

I had been a life long Democrat but in 1992 BC turned me into an independent. There's no way I could go Republican and I've never in my life voted for a Republican for POTUS, but BC and the Clinton era Democrats have made it clear they no longer feel a need to defend the little guy.

One of the reasons I think the DNC has been on board with Hillary and working to hurt Bernie is that Bernie represents the old Democratic party that found it difficult to compete at the national level with the huge money advantage the Republican's had historically benefited from. Hillary represents the new face of the party as defined by her husband -- a face that's cozy with big money and willing to set adrift the middle class to get a share of it.

Yeah, there are issues that differentiate the parties and the obvious ones are why an increasing number of wealthy people are donating to the Dems and are now doing so at levels the R's can't compete with. The R's have made there bed with sicko's on the right that hate everyone that doesn't look and speak like them and the religious types that hate a similar subset of the population. For people with money they no longer need to worry about the D's reversing the trajectory of middle class decimation and can focus on the atmospheric aspects that clearly favor the D's

As I said, we may soon see a run for the White House in which the D's outspend the R's by a factor of 2X or more and that didn't start 15 years before BC...


Brian

 

[Spungo]

Depending on how you valued the company and what you think his net worth is today it looks reasonably likely that he would have been better off with an index fund and that's not even counting his dad's connections.

I could just as easily say that about Warren Buffett. Should Warren shut down the company and just buy index funds as well?

 

[First]

Are you aware of what year it is? That's 17 years ago. I want you to calculate what the annual rate of returns need to be before someone can turn $0.3B into $4B.

*facepalm*

Firstly, I didn't say the tens of millions he inherited in 99 should be $4B by today, that's obviously not reasonable. Second, it's highly dubious Trump is even worth $4B, but I'll give you leeway on that one since who really knows. Though it is well known he is cash poor based on publicly available information at least.

Even if you assume he started with $1B instead of $0.3B and had absolutely no cost of living for the past 17 years because he lived in a dumpster and ate donated food, he would still need an annual return of 8.5%

An nominal annual rate of 8.5% i.e. not adjusted for inflation would be the market average, actually. An 8.5% rate is not spectacular, anyone can earn a nominal 8.5% return in the markets over the long term, which is my entire point of course.

Now let's compare that against the the guy who is generally considered one of the best investors of all time. Warren Buffett. Buffett's investment company is called Berkshire Hathaway.
1999-01-01: $47.00
2016-06-22: $143.94 (and the company has no dividends)
Annualized return: 6.8%

Similarly, the stock market as a whole hasn't really done much in the past few decades. Ticker SPY:
1999-01-01: $123
2016-06-22: $208
Annualized return: 3.1%
But it also pays dividends. It's currently 2.6%, but it probably averages closer to 3%. That would bring the total return of the stock market up to about 6-7%, give or take. So basically Buffett and Trump match the index or slightly exceed the index.

*facepalm*

Hard to know where to begin.

First of all, I know of no one who evaluates Buffett based on his non management common stock, he is always evaluated on his Class A shares, where his actual return since 1999 has been 18.11%.

Secondly, using one single S&P ETF, even if it is the SPY, does not aggregate total returns for all or even most (and more popular) index funds. Index fund performance since 1999 is also, of course, still relatively short-to-medium term in years; obviously 17 yrs /= 40 yrs I was referring to. It also doesn't weight the vastly superior exponential effects from compound interest that 40 yrs of index fund investing would have (where dividends and gains are reinvested) vs. the 17 yr period you're talking about.

It gets harder to beat the index as you get larger because your opportunities shrink. Making 10% on $100 is piss easy because there are so many great opportunities at that level. Trying to get 10% on several billion is quite difficult.

Warren Buffett has continued to do so, but of course he's a rare exception and it's not fair to hold Trump to the standard of the greatest investor of all time. And anyway, there's nothing hard about reinvesting your gains and dividends, that requires nothing but stomach and patience (which, granted, is difficult for folks without impulse control, like Mr. D Trump).

Bottom line, though, there's little question Trump has not performed at the level of your average trust fund kid.

 

[First]

I could just as easily say that about Warren Buffett. Should Warren shut down the company and just buy index funds as well?

Uh, no, you can't. Warren Buffett and Berkshire are very much an open book. He's worth $63B and while he obviously doesn't have $63B, he does still have billions in actual liquidity, unlike a real estate investor such as Trump, where virtually all his wealth appears to still be tied up in real estate.

 

[MongGrel]

I could just as easily say that about Warren Buffett. Should Warren shut down the company and just buy index funds as well?

Warren Buffet has always been one of the biggest backers of people investing into index funds I had always thought.

Not that he personally has not done otherwise himself long ago of course.

 

[fskimospy]

Uh, no, you can't. Warren Buffett and Berkshire are very much an open book. He's worth $63B and while he obviously doesn't have $63B, he does still have billions in actual liquidity, unlike a real estate investor such as Trump, where virtually all his wealth appears to still be tied up in real estate.

I'm kind of worried about Spungo's investment portfolio after this exchange, haha.