85 ricos têm tanto dinheiro como 3,5 mil milhões de pobres Relatório da Oxfam vai ser

[Obtuso]

Tem piada?!
O gajo é gozado pelos outros... e nem percebe!

o gajo percebe muito bem, e enquanto é gozado vai bebendo uma garrafa de 1000€ e vai gozando também...

[Nuno156]

Estás a ver a situação de uma maneira muito estranha

Para é que ele vai arriscar mais se ele já é bilionário?

Ele já ganhou o jogo do monopólio.. Agora é só gerir o que tem e tentar fazer mais algum, não tem nada a ganhar em arriscar demais.

Alias, como já deves ter percebido quando pode ainda tenta receber royalties ou licenciar o produto. Objectivo? Ganhar dinheiro sem ter o trabalho que têm os empreendedores que vão ao programa.
Quando tens 2 biliões de dollars as prioridades mudam.

Quanto á comparação do iPhone, não tem nada a ver. Estás a comparar uma empresa com uma identidade pessoal.

Porque é que ele continua a investir, se já é milionário?
(e não é bilionário)

Porque é que trocas de carro, se já tens um?
Porque é que trocas de computador, se podes instalar Linux?


Quanto ao iPhone, não estou a comparar uma empresa com pessoas.
Estou a falar do Steve Jobs. Mais, mesmo sem Steve Jobs o resultado é o mesmo.
As empresas não fazem nada. As empresas são pessoas. Valem o que as pessoas
valem. Por isso é que algumas crescem, e outras não.
Compara Apple e Google com Microsoft.
Melhor, compara a Microsoft de Bill Gates, com a Microsoft de Steve Ballmer.
Oops! Five CEOs Who Should Have Already Been Fired (Cisco, GE, WalMart, Sears, Microsoft) - Forbes

O gajo é apenas um totó...
Kevin O'Leary: He's not a billionaire, he just plays one on TV - The Globe and Mail

(...)

One person who caught the segment on BNN that afternoon was Mark McQueen. He didn’t like what he saw.To McQueen, O’Leary was an interloper, someone without experience as a money manager—but someone who knew he could tap in to a vast pool of retail investors due to his television profile. McQueen has since used his blog to maintain a critical eye on O’Leary Funds. And of late, his skepticism has been seconded by a chorus of investment advisers who say Daddy isn’t looking after them.
“Just because you’re on television doesn’t mean you’ll be good at managing money,” says McQueen, the CEO of Wellington Financial LP. “When a non-trained money manager shows up in the market…if it goes badly, what does this mean to everybody else whose stock-in-trade is this industry? If it brings the industry into disrepute, you bring a pox on all of our houses from investors.”
Of course, O’Leary doesn’t literally manage the funds himself—he’s too busy, and he’s not licensed. Yet when O’Leary promotes himself—which he does endlessly—he’s also, like Trump and Branson, marketing his businesses. As the man promotes himself from multiple platforms, O’Leary’s audience may not discern the distinction between O’Leary and O’Leary Funds. Nor do they likely know about the inconvenient details that complicate the founding myth of the guy who sold his software start-up for billions.

(...)

Stanton morphed into an asset manager, and in 2004 it launched two hedge funds, managed by O’Brien. The fate of the Stanton International Equity and the Stanton Diversified Strategies funds, which has not been widely reported, may come as a surprise to investors in O’Leary Funds. Stanton’s Diversified Strategies Fund blew up in late 2008, with massive losses amplified by the fund’s use of leverage. Investors who had bought in 2007 or 2008 lost up to 70% of their money, according to a broker who put clients into the fund. Documents obtained by Report on Business magazine show that redemptions were suspended in January, 2009.

(...)

Some people aren’t buying the official story, including five investment advisers who manage billions of dollars of assets and spoke to Report on Business magazine on the condition of anonymity because they work for Big Six banks that have strict media policies. Worried that O’Brien isn’t doing what O’Leary preaches to retail investors, some of them have dialled the dragon directly to relay their fears. One member of this group recalls, “I said to Kevin, ‘You’re supposed to be the smartest businessman in the world. How’d you end up in this situation?’”
Former employees of O’Leary Funds who have intimate knowledge of operations say that complaints over inappropriate investments aren’t the only frustrations voiced by a plethora of advisers who have called in the past year. Performance is an even bigger issue. Two funds launched in the first half of 2011, the Yield Advantage Convertible Debentures Fund and the U.S. Strategic Yield Advantaged Fund, have lost more than 20% each, before distributions. The advisers want to know how O’Leary’s supposedly safe funds can lose so much money so quickly.
Their frustrations have hurt sales. The Floating Rate Income Fund sold only $67 million in August, 2011, and the Canadian Diversified Income Fund only $26 million last December—while O’Leary funds launched in 2009 and 2010 easily sold over $100 million each. O’Leary argues that the closed-end market in general has slowed, and that the firm has seen solid success with some mutual funds, such as its Canadian Bond Yield Fund.
But over all, advisers are clearly pulling their money. Earlier this year, McQueen wrote on his blog that redemptions seemed high at O’Leary Funds, based on last year’s publicly available financial reports. He was right: It turns out that investors pulled $253 million last year, amounting to about 21% of all assets under management. This trend appears to have continued since January. The firm’s assets under management stood at $1.2 billion at the end of 2011. The figure had slipped by early September to a little over $1 billion, even though the market had moved higher in the interim. (That said, assets under management can be a tricky indicator because the number rises when the market does, even though no new money may be coming in from investors.)

(...)

Wellington Financial Blog – News, Views & Purviews - Decade of Daddy Mirror Fund Q4 Report

Five and a half years of “investment guru” Kevin O’Leary’s prowess has generated a gain of just 4.3% in total. Not annually. 4%. In total. Before tax. About 1/11th the basic return of the S&P500, before dividends, over the same timeframe.

[Nuno156]

Provocação: então e tu (ou eu) não consegues porquê? (Espero que leves isto na brincadeira.)

Mas sim, tens razão: o Forrest Gump já o tinha demonstrado

Muitos factores.
Um deles é nascer com o 3º olho virado para a Lua.
Outro é não ter puto problema em enganar as pessoas.
Depois há pessoas que gostam de construir coisas com outras pessoas, e há
outras cujo objectivo principal é fazer dinheiro, custe o que custar.

Gostava de saber se o gajo devolveu os $10.000 que a mãe lhe financiou (e
com juros).

[Nuno156]

o gajo percebe muito bem, e enquanto é gozado vai bebendo uma garrafa de 1000€ e vai gozando também...

Garrafa de $1... provavelmente é das dele a preço de custo.
E duvido que o gajo tenha inteligência suficiente para perceber que está a ser gozado.
Excepto quando o fazem à descarada, que é quando o gajo dá o "toque" e fica
incomodado.

[paulo3ooo]

o gajo não gostou da pergunta e respondeu mal... Não é difícil saber porque.
acho que fazia saltar a tampa a qualquer um dependentemente da lua.