How did Bill Gates actually make his money?
Bill was the founder of Microsoft, so he did indeed have a large number of shares as the company was growing exponentially.  He has previously donated a large share of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, so his fortune would be even greater were it not for the philanthropy.  He is still a large holder of Microsoft stock at about $12B according to your link, but it wouldn't be wise to hold his entire fortune in one company, so he has diversified.   You can see that his investment portfolio at Cascade includes ~$28B in Televisa and ~$7B in Berkshire Hathaway. http://www.tickerspy.com/pro/Bill-Gates---Cascade-Investment And you can keep track of whether he stays at the top by watching the bloomberg billionaires list. http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/ Bill gates is founder of microsoft along with his friend allen.in microsoft as its vast empire increasing the wealth and enormous property of bill gates is increasing
"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks).  In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such.  Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds?  Then he should probably draw from Fund #2.  If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time).  The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$).  Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile.  The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion.  If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are.  In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value.  ""Past performance does not predict future results.""  Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher.  It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was!  In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds.  In this case, the stocks may have ""underperformed"" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them.  The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument.  So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so.  Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.).  Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south.  The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money.  Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying ""you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement."" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing!  (I've seen arguments that they don't!)  Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008.  Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places.  So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to.  Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution.  Bob should think about more than just simple dollars.  Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear.  If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now.  He may win, he may lose.  However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away.  He may win, he may lose.  However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement.  There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision.  Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not.  Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording.  Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired." Just to be clear, you didn't find a flaw in the logic but you did disagree with the premise by providing a counterexample.  But I'm not sure your example is valid; Buffett is smart enough to know that his name is as important as his money.  While he mouths support for increased taxes, he goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid actually paying them.  I suppose taxes aren't as cheap as talk, huh.  &gt; If John selling Jim ten thousand cows introduces systemic risk to the economy, then yes, the rest of the market players should be compensated.  Pray tell, what angel do you trust to make the decision of whether and to what extent systemic risk is introduced? "Yeah, so in other words, democracy is a sham because voters are stupid enough that the amount spent on a campaign actually can change voter opinion sufficient to sway elections.  The alternative is to end political democracy and replace it with an entirely voluntary-funded democracy, where you vote with your money. This system already exists, the arch nemesis to politics, and its leaders are ""elected"" by their ability to provide customers with better value, leaders like Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk (tesla), Sergey Brin and Larry Page (google), Jeff Bezos (amazon).  In political democracy, everyone can be forced to fund the choices that only 25% of adults actually supported. Obama, for instance, won just 25% of adult votes. In most elections it's similar low % of actual support. In the economic democracy, you buy what you want and that doesn't hamper someone else's ability to buy what they want. Multiple service providers can exist together. All we need to do is privatize and distribute ownership of roads to property owners who have paid for them all of this time, privatize schools so kids learn actual skills that others will pay them for, private police and let each property owner establish their own rules to be enforced on their own property... let others then ostracize and avoid those with stupid rules.  The move to a completely voluntary society is a worthwhile goal, though nothing can possibly end wealth inequality, since every time something new is invented the inventor becomes wealthy through voluntary trade, at no loss to others." I actually did this once. I wrote a large check along with a letter indicating that I would not be around to receive the next bill so I was prepaying. Not only did they credit the entire check, they didn't send that bill and listed the charges on the next month's bill. They must have done that by hand because there's no way the machines would have understood. "Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, ""I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café."" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it).  You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, ""Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought)."" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not.  I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies." CEOs are compensated with stocks and options on top of their salary. Most is in the form of stocks and options. You may see them with a fancy car, but they don't necessarily possess the car, house, etc. They merely control it, which is nearly as good. You may lease it, or time share it. It might be owned by the company and provided as a perk.  To earn a million, there are 4 ways: a job, self-employed, own a business, and invest. The fastest way is to own a business. The slowest way is a job or self-employed. Investing is medium. To learn more, read Rich Dad's Cashflow Quadrants. Their argument is mostly nonsense. Take someone like Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. He has a not very large salary, and makes a lot more money through stock bonuses. You would never, ever expect him to buy Apple shares. And assuming that he doesn't want to end up one day as the richest man in the cemetery, you would expect him to sell significant numbers of shares, independent on whether he expects Apple to go up or down. "The basic way that these ""work"" is this: Every year I have to deposit 3500 to remain active in the company, else my account gets expired. You are paying money into the system. The only way you make any money is to: By my calculation I(or my child nodes) have to get 18 people to join to break-even my investment. Intuitively this should tell you that: What normally happens in this sort of thing is that people get conned/excited/tricked/whatever and sign a few of their friends up, but then quickly run out of people to bother/annoy/hassle/harass into joining and then they lose money on the whole thing."