Which could very well be true. Trump was worth about $1.5 billion in 1999. He puts the inheritance ($50-$200 million) into index funds (which almost double), does whatever he does with the $1.5 billion, and is now worth $3-$4 billion.
If you were trying to disprove that statement, you failed utterly.
The point is, the inheritance itself was a small portion of his total worth both then and now. Harping on it is disingenuous.
If that’s what you think, why didn’t you say so in the first place, instead of citing numbers that made for a bogus argument?
The numbers show that the inheritance, invested in index funds, would not be a hugely significant portion of Trump’s net worth.
That depends on his TRUE net worth.
So if he’d invested the inheritance in index funds he’d be worth about the same as he is now?
Less.
1999 Forbes estimate $1.6B (Trump’s estimate: $4.5B).
2016: Forbes estimate: $4.5B (Trump’s estimate: $10B)
According to Forbes, the wealth tripled. According to Trump, it more than doubled. If it was in index funds, it at most would have doubled.
But in any case, the ~100M back then (and potentially-index-fund-grown ~200M today) would be a tiny portion of Trump’s fortune.
I think Bill Gates and Anthony Kennedy, at least, did much better than other people with the same advantages. Lots of people inherit law practices. Bill Gates Sr was well off (successful lawyer) but not the equivalent of a modern billionaire. Even for Trudeau, what other son of a PM of Canada become one himself?
The more meaningful question is, did Donald Trump do much better than other people who were in a position to get ~$200 million from their parents?
Exactly my point. The 1999 inheritance is a small portion of Trump’s fortune, and he be worth the same amount now (since all we have are estimates, anyway) having put that money in an index fund or anywhere else.
By the time Gates got the IBM deal Microsoft was already the main power in the PC BASIC market, with his interpreter being, IIRC, IBM’s initial interest for their own PC. When IBM came knocking, having been rebuffed by Kildall, they didn’t meet him in his mom’s basement.
Early on the the campaign someone on TV or radio said that, if Trump took the initial loan and put it in an index fund (if they existed at the time) he would be worth far more than he is today, whatever that might be. Therefore, he did less than average over time and that makes him a less than average businessman. I have no idea if this is accurate or not.
The initial loan was $1M in 1975. Dow Jones was 802. Let’s say the top is 20000 (although it was achieved only very recently, but just for argument’s sake). That would grow the $1M to $25M. That’s a bit short of what Trump’s worth today, wouldn’t you say?
Let’s say a different loan - there is a claim that Trump’s father loaned him $14M in 1985. Put into an index fund, it’d be worth a whopping $180M today. A nice sum, but again, not anywhere near Trump’s net worth.
Stop with the “index fund” crap.
You’re ignoring that index funds pay dividends, which can be taken as income or reinvested, so you can’t just use the daily DJIA as a way of tracking the value of the investment.
For those interested, here seems to be a pretty balanced viewof the question of Trumps net worth vs S&P500.
So in my opinion, outside of the self promotion which I admit he’s a master at, he probably did about as well as an average MBA would have given similar circumstances.
Right, that’s not anywhere near his net worth, because unlike his net worth, that $180M is a positive number. Donald Trump is underwater.
This is kind of key. Comparing his financial performance to index funds as some have done is a very low standard for investing truly large amounts of money. It’s a great way to be diversified at low cost, but that’s not what, say, well-managed pension funds do. They always seem to turn up as partners in highly profitable private enterprises.
Suppose, for instance, that he had used his inheritance and/or his father’s backing to do nothing more than quietly buy commercial and residential real estate in major urban markets and leveraging it with mortgages sustained by lease income. If you look at the trajectory of real estate in most big urban markets from almost any starting point in the latter part of the 20th century, you’d have to be a special kind of idiot to NOT make a fortune from the capital appreciation alone. He’d probably have been much better off than his string of ill-advised failed ventures and scams.
Even if Gates started in a relatively affluent family, they weren’t “richest man in the world” rich. Plenty of rich kids end up as total fuckups.
I realize it’s a bit of an affront to this board’s liberal sensibilities, but it’s entirely possible for Trump to be a complete jerk AND have made a lot of money in Manhattan real estate. Having spent the past 17 years working in New York, I kind of feel like one of the best ways to be successful in Manhattan real estate is to have the ability to afford to buy real estate in Manhattan.
Or in any very highly demanded urban central market, the skill of being the real estate promoter / developer is something narrow and indeed tied to the capital access.
The ‘debate’ about if he could have done better by the index fund investment since there is no good data, is very sterile.
What is possible to do is to look at the public record and see a performance in comparison to the peer businesses. In the real estate in Manhattan, in the operational businesses like the casino business, the airline, etc., and in the branding / marketing businesses. Each of these, it is a different aspect of “businessman” in the common language.
He has done well in the last, and should be said to be truly very skilled, objectively a master.
He has very clearly done very badly in the operational businesses requiring the operational management skills of at least the moderately complex operations - so badly to say he was the complete failure, and not even only mediocre, but truly beyond his skills and capacities.
I do not know about the first.
So the area where perhaps there is the most relevance to being the President, which is the second, the objective track record is not success, it is not even not being good. It is the complete failure.
Yes, Donald was born on third base, took risks and was fortunate. According to the following article, the father is the more interesting story. The son merely went from “rich to even richer, which is more easily accomplished.”
The guy likes to take risks. Always has. Sometimes he goes bankrupt. Othertimes he gets to be elected President of the United States.