The Homeless Billionaire

The Homeless Billionaire


When I first met Nicolas Berggruen, I was struck by two things. First, he was a multi-billionaire I’d never heard of — the most interesting kind. Second, he didn’t own a home.
“I stay in hotels,” he told me.
A billionaire without a home? This, I figured, was worth a story. My article about Mr. Berggruen in today’s Journal focuses mainly on his investing life and his push toward socially responsible investing. But what interested me most was his unconventional personal life.
After making his billions, Mr. Berggruen, 46, lost interest in acquiring things: They didn’t satisfy him, and in fact had become something of a burden. So he started paring down his material life, selling off his condo in New York, his mansion in Florida and his only car. He hatched plans to leave his fortune to charity and his art collection to a new museum in Berlin.
For him, wealth is about lasting impact, not stuff.
“Everybody is different and I think that we live in a material world,” he told me. “But for me, possessing things is not that interesting. Living in a grand environment to show myself and others that I have wealth has zero appeal. Whatever I own is temporary, since we’re only here for a short period of time. It’s what we do and produce, it’s our actions, that will last forever. That’s real value.”
When I pressed him on why he no longer got much enjoyment from acquiring more “things,” he said this: “First, I don’t need it. Secondly, maybe in a bizarre kind of way, I don’t want to be dependent on it or have the responsibility. I don’t get that much enjoyment out of saying ‘I own it.’ ”
Mr. Berggruen makes clear that his philosophy is his own, and he has nothing against those who want to enjoy their wealth by having big homes, cars and all the rest. And of course it’s easy for a billionaire to say “money and things aren’t important.”
But his perspective seems to be increasingly common among today’s superwealthy — and even wealthy — who are looking for more lasting meaning in their lives beyond their possessions. I’m not saying they’re right or wrong or that possessions are inferior to other measures of wealth — people should use their wealth however they choose. Yet for all that, Mr. Berggruen’s personal downsizing may be a sign that the voluntary simplicity movement could be moving up the wealth ladder.

I loved this article. Not much in the way of pratical advice or on how he actually built his fortune but still it was very inspiring.

I totally agree with his view. I often feel that the more stuff you have less free you become

Nice story.
It shows how people's needs change as they move higher up the Maslow pyramid.
Obviously Berggruen has arrived at the top section of self-actualization, which is not all that much of a surprise with billions in the bank.
Most of us, at least I, did not reach that stage (yet).

Reminds me of Howard Hughes- he lived in a hotel to avoid paying property tax

Hehe...yes, I remember reading a biography about him last year. Howard Hughes had put this one thing in system. He moved around in order to confuse the tax collectors. Because it is very hard to tax a man who has no real residence. If you move around you are not really considered a resident (unless you have lived in that place for a longer time period).

I recall the author wrote something like "you need to live in one place for a certain time period in order to be considered a resident in that country or state your in". Howard Hughes just moved around and made it a habit.

Howard Hughes was an interesting man. Unconventional to say the least. He knew how to take risks with both feet and head. Most of todays entrepreneurs are real "skinnies" in comparison. This guy jumped right in and hoped for the best..hehe, and he usually made it out with spectacular results. Awesome sense for timing and calculated risk taking.

The only thing I don't understand is, why not giving it all (or lots of it) to charity now if that is what he wants to do? He wants to have a lasting impact and leave his fortune to a charity, but I still don't get why not do it now, while you can see what you are accomplishing and improve/change if see something is not the way you want. I just don't get it.

I totally understand this man's philosophy. If I do a rehash on all the *drama* in my life over the past 2 years, it is due to *stuff* -- mainly my big house and my cars. The process of making my residence into my dream house has turned into a nightmare -- not that things are going wrong -- but that it has taken focus away from other things as well as sucked up my favorite asset .... TIME.

Similarily, all my fun cars are drama -- the Vettes, Vipers, Lambos -- all add drama and suck up time and money. I lost track how many hours I've lost nannying to a car that needs to be repaired or maintained. My current car is the first *fun* car that has driven without flaw and actually added enjoyment to ownership vs contributing to the drama pool.

The simple life in the Fastlane does have its allure!

I have a friend (actually my mentor) who makes 9 figures a year. Her business is in about 40 countries and so she travels a lot. For every business in a developed country (think European) she starts one in a developing one and donates her salary to projects in that country. She built a hospital in Calcutta, for example. Another year, I remember when she rushed off to wire $30,000 to buy 10 girls out of sexual slavery in Mumbai.

But with all that, she really doesn't own much. She always says her place of residence is Seat 1A. When she dies, her wish is to have that seat bought for all flights for her favorite airline and put a red rose on it.

If she stays in any one place very long, she will sometimes buy a house. But they tend to be 2500 SF or so and in very secure places.

A store in Chicago sends her clothes every few months. If she doesn't like them, she sends them back. She's been known to just hop on a plane to go somewhere and get her hair and makeup done and buy new clothes when she gets there. Every time she goes to Africa, she just leaves all her luggage and everything she has.

It's a pretty cool lifestyle.

It seems to be a great way of living ones life.

a very interesting read and I'll add my .02...

it goes to show that success and enjoyment isn't necessarily in what you own and as MJ stated, sometimes those toys are more hassle than fun(remember big ticket items also come with big ticket maintenance and repair) and true wealth is being able to share with those less fortunate.

At the same time the Howard Hughes thing made me think of the Warren Buffett thread and how people see his $100k "salary" as him living a modest lifestyle, when in reality it's just a stunt to avoid paying higher taxes on income vs. dividends and it's possible that this billionaire is just trying to save money on not paying the ridiculous property taxes that probably came with his NYC condo and FL mansion. At the same time though living in a hotel, since I'm sure he's not staying at Motel 6's costs a pretty penny that would be much better in the hands of the needy than the greedy who run such establishments(well maybe a lil' out of line, since most of those Choice Hotels are franchises and run by modest level owners as opposed to the greedy CEO fatcats who run such establishments as the W, Four Seasons, and other luxury hotels that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars/night)

As for the charity, while it's good to see those with money giving to those less fortunate there's two problems I see with charity and it's 1) with those receiving and 2) with those giving.

With those who receive, in most cases when you're just handed something you don't appreciate it and I do understand that the people they are aiming for are those who aren't receiving proper education or medical care and will never have the same opportunities as those who did become super successful, but at the same time there are plenty of stories of those who came from nowhere to become millionaires/billionaires mostly because their surroundings were enough of a motivation to succeed at all costs since their life literally depended on it!

What I would really be interested in seeing, is real-life progress in relation to the charitable donations of such billionaires or if people are still living in the same situation and not really doing what they should with the handouts they've received(is it like welfare OR a grant... are ppl just abusing what they receive OR are they generally working on making a better living with what they've been handed?)


As far as those who give, if you look at the biggest philanthropists in history, Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller, while they did try to make the world a better place it wasn't all about the charity and was more of a "popularity contest" as to who could get the most recognition for giving the most as opposed to just giving for the sake of giving. While I do understand that those who give, especially on the scale that those gave do deserve something for their efforts and if that's what they consider wealth it's better than giving their money to some French designer for a purse that was hand sewn by some sweatshop workers in a developing country that someone else is profiting off of instead of doing the opposite and giving the money to the people who need it.

To finish things off here, when it comes to giving to developing nations, it's another sensitive subject since I learned in a class that I took on developing nations which was taught by a professor who himself was from one(Malawi), that really what we're doing is trying a "anglicize" these ppl and Brad and Angelina OR Madonna are a perfect example that taking a child from its home and showering him with material possessions doesn't necessarily make for a better lifestyle(back to MJ's post about possessions not necessarily equaling happiness).

What he said was "when you say we're poor, we don't understand you, we have everything we need in Malawi" and despite the fact that they live in "impoverished" conditions it is by OUR standard and not THEIRS... even though they get AIDS and have a 40-45yr life expectancy... it is the way they decide to live and expecting them to live our way of life doesn't necessarily make it better, take a look at all the problems in African nations, it's not due to unclean drinking water or malaria, it's due to Western(mostly European) colonists who arbitrarily divided these ppl into tribes and developed a class structure that these people did not know of and thus we had such atrocities as those shown in Hotel Rwanda and Blood Diamond where the same greed for resources that "civilized" people such as us have transferred over to there and the result was mass genocide and suffering when these ppl would've been better off throwing spears than having children fire AK47's and RPG's... while I don't consider myself a bleeding heart liberal, I understand how this paragraph can come off that way, what I'm trying to say is not that we should feel bad for how these people live and that we need to stop living our fancy lifestyles at their expense and do all we can to help them, but rather that we need to just leave them alone and stop trying to turn them into US.

EDIT: sorry for the thread jack but the Diane Kennedy post made me think about this, since giving to developing nations and trying to provide them with the lifestyle we live doesn't necessarily make them better.

Great ideas! What are you personally doing to make this happen?

I'm with Diane-- you put a LOT of time into thinking (and responding) to this.

What is YOUR PLAN for implementing the things you outline as important?

Looking forward to hearing about it!

-Russ H.

personally I'm doing nothing and sometimes that's the best thing to do. I had this discussion with my roommate who is from India and he added that Gandhi used to laugh at those Westerners who visited and would comment in disgust about how the conditions were such as the "drainage pipes" and that people would tell him "I can't believe you live in such filthy conditions" and he would say, "well what do you expect, that's where we sh@#%#$%", what he meant, was that it was just a part of life and that the stuff that us Westerners keep as important are not the same as them and that the most valuable things are what nature has to provide, even if it's an unpleasant condition.

you can liken this to how the Native Americans felt about the forced points of view that were placed upon them and how they were labeled as "savages" when they never burned ppl at the stake, used guns or canons to try to convert ppl to THEIR religion, or killed someone for their property/possessions....

bottom line, I don't want to start any arguments here, just adding my .02 without trying to become too "political" and definitely did not mean to ruffle any feathers with this just show a different point of view, but sometimes even the best of intentions to help others comes with the ugliness of human greed/ego and makes situations much worse, which can be seen in these developing nations where the ultimate motive is to exploit them for their resources through helping them to become like us Westerners, just an example that we do not live in a perfect world and if we did, people would be donating their time and money to helping these regions and not trying to leave their mark in influencing their way of life such as investing in their economies to ultimately profit from them, it is here that greed comes into play.

so after going around in a circle here, long story short... I'm doing nothing now and I feel it's the best thing I can do!

PS wanted to PM you Diane so I can explain my POV without taking this thread too far off topic and to let you know that I meant nothing offensive by what was stated, just a different point of view in what helping those less fortunate means. What your mentor is doing is great, but unfortunately there are others who do such things for their own selfish reasons and it's what makes actions like those of your friend not have the same effect that they should and is why there still is such atrocities in developing nations like the sex trade and child labor.

A case in action of the extremes of what someone will do and say to justify doing nothing to change the world and criticize the action takers.

HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY OUT THERE DOING SOMETHING HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SEX TRADE AND CHILD LABOR!

There is no way that I have any interest in having a conversation with you personally. I run into people who love to justify inaction and all I can say, success brings its own reward. Critics are a dime a dozen. I hope some day you discover it.

<rant>
I have nothing against you personally Vr, but two things you mention above are total bullshit. And for not wanting to make things "too political" you sure make some strong points up there. But most of all, what pisses me off is what good is it for? You want to do nothing. So why is even being mentioned on a forum that is about DOING!? FAST! It's just not constructive.
</rant>


Vr, I'm not trying to gang up on you here, but put all technical aspects of what you're discussing aside and check this out.

If you really think no one is making an impact and you recognize what needs to be done, you really think watching is the best way to lead your life? Stop kidding yourself. You don't want to be sitting around in twenty years realizing what you could have done.

Second, it's not all about profit, though it may seem like that at times. For some yes, I won't dispute that. BUT, think of it like this. If you really want to change a world wide problem, don't you think that you'll need as much leverage as possible?

Profit, success, money, power, or however you want to put it IS totally necessary to have an effect on such a scale. The more change you want to put into effect, the more leverage you need to apply. These things don't come with your ass on the couch watching things unfold through the news.

Agree with Diane, it is so easy for lazy critics to critise the people who are actually trying to create a better tomorrow. Let me say: It is not easy being a doer.

As a start-up entrepreneur (to show my view on this) you seem to always work against the grain or status quo. You almost always need to change peoples views of the world. Trying to sell another vision of how the world should live it's life more or less. It's hard.

The reason I dislike taxes so much is because very much of the taxes we pay (I am especially aiming for Sweden in this case, because I do not know how much of the taxes go to social security in the US) go to paying for lazy people.

Most of the people in Sweden, for example, goes directly to lazy people who are not interested in either taking a job or starting a company and improving the society. Taxes do go to good causes as well, but you can never ignore the social security costs associated with lazy critics.

To all critics with the entitlement mentality: Do something instead of being such morons. Be constructive, productive and a good supplier to the society. Why shouldn't you? It benefits you in the end as well.

On "Doing Nothing"

Certainly there are times when doing "something" leads to harm... The classic example is the difference between enabling and empowering. If the choice is to enable or to do nothing, then certainly - - do nothing.

Fortunately, that is not the choice. There is also the option of empowering. The world will be a better place as more and more people make the choice to empower.

Sorry, vr4playa, this just sounds like a lame excuse for being lazy to me.

YOU are the one who is criticizing here. Not Ghandi.

Equating your whiny accusations
with Ghandi's philosophy of non-violence is delusional.

******

Point 2:

You are on the FASTLANE forums.
We are a group of DOERS.
What happens to someone who
gets into the fastlane and does NOTHING?
(see video)


-Russ H.

I never once said that your mentor is an enabler of such an atrocity, on the contrary, what I was getting at is that it is a wonderful thing that she helps those who have nothing and are in such a position, but doing something you must also follow through, while those women have now received their freedom they must also receive education and training otherwise they end up in the same place in just a few years. It's basically the "give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for life". In that situation obviously you need to give the fish since there is nobody else who is doing anything to give them their freedom, but the "teaching to fish" is the education these women need to live the fulfilling life they deserve and sadly, if all they've ever known is how they've been raised, then they will ultimately go back to that way of life.

I never once tried to start a flame war and I understand that you and Russ H are longtime contributors and respected members of these boards and I do not want to get on your bad side, I apologize if I have.

bottom line is I am NOT insulting anyone, I never once said that charity is a bad thing, only that there is more to the story and as is the case with religion and government, it is an idea that is perfect in theory but not so perfect in practice, sadly for every one of your mentor there is a corrupt charity out there and profiteers who are donating only to get something in return... is it an accident that most of these developing countries are not only receiving support from all these major corporations in the US while also receiving jobs at a highly discounted rate?

i understand that having everything and nobody to share it with is the greatest tragedy in this life and that the most important thing you can do is have a positive influence on others.