Investing seems like a domain where charisma is particularly misleading. If you ranked billionaires in 2 ways, by how much their net worth has increased since the start of their careers (factoring in inherited wealth), versus how much they get talked about, what would you see?
Conversation
Replying to
In (say) literary achievement or academia, the divergence between visible charisma and actual impact seems much less extreme, especially if you weight by critical discounting. So Gladwell is big, but is also more strongly discounted by critical perceptions than say Pinker.
1
4
I guess the existence of a publicly active in-group serves as a check and balance against public charisma. What other writers or academics think of you matters in a way what other billionaires think of you doesn't. The "community of billionaires" is much more opt-in.
1
3
And financial wealth, as opposed to intellectual capital, can be enjoyed much more easily in complete privacy. You can go billionairing on an island by yourself in a way you can't be a writer or scholar on an island.
2
1
Replying to
Seems right. Certainly less useful than in literary pursuits.
I think there is some variation between asset classes though.
VC seems to matter more b/c deal flow is so huge so Charisma/political ability to get the deal flow generates alpha.
1
1
HF types not as much. There are 7k publicly traded companies so deal flow less important.
1
Show replies
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Yeah, he's wealthy, but his charisma is more as a tech leader still, not as a wealthy person
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
If by top right you mean super high net worth, high media, then no. He is 2.3B but gets media comparable to say Bezos or Gates, who are an order of magnitude higher. So he'd be in the low end of the wealth axis, high end of the media axis. He's highly charismatically leveraged.
2

