PDA

View Full Version : Lindner Climbs Forbes' Richest List ($2.2 billion) 3/10



TeamBoone
03-10-2006, 01:17 PM
Publication date: 03-10-2006
Lindner worth grows to $2.2 billion
He's 350th on Forbes rich list
Staff and wire report

Carl Lindner Jr. got richer in the last year, while the net worth of Cincinnati's other billionaire, Cintas founder Richard Farmer, fell, according to Forbes magazine's 2006 rankings of the world's richest people.

Lindner's worth grew by $400 million to $2.2 billion as shares of Lindner's American Financial Group rose by more than 35 percent over the last year. That was enough to rank him 350th on the list and second in the state of Ohio. Leslie Wexner of Limited Brands ranked first in Ohio.

Farmer's worth dropped to $1.3 billion from $1.5 billion a year ago, as shares in his uniform rental company are down more than 4 percent from a year ago. He ranked 606th overall and seventh out of seven in Ohio.

There were no billionaires in Kentucky.

As emerging stock markets surged during the past year, 102 wealthy people around the world joined the list of billionaires. But tepid returns in the United States ate into the fortunes of some of the richest Americans, including the founding family of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The number of billionaires around the world rose by 102 to a record 793 over the past year, and their combined wealth grew 18 percent to $2.6 trillion, according to Forbes magazine's 2006 rankings of the world's richest people.

Forbes editor Luisa Kroll noted that Russia's stock market jumped 108 percent between February 2005 and February 2006, while India's market rose by more than 54 percent during the same period. Brazil "was another bright star" with a market gain of 38 percent, she said.

Kroll said the changes on the list weren't driven by U.S. investments.

"The more exciting story is these emerging markets," she said. "The U.S. stock market was quite a laggard with only a 1 percent increase."

The growth in emerging markets also meant the Czech Republic placed a billionaire on the list for the first time: Petr Kellner, who debuted at No. 224 with $3 billion. And while China's market grew just 3 percent, the country added eight more billionaires, up from two last year.

Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates was again the world's richest man for the 12th year running. Gates grew wealthier, with his net worth rising to $50 billion from $46.5 billion. Investor Warren Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., again ranked second; his fortune fell by $2 billion to $42 billion.

The rest of the top 10 underwent a major reshuffling, with three familiar names dropping out of that select group: German supermarket company owner Karl Albrecht, Oracle's Lawrence Ellison and Wal-Mart chairman S. Robson Walton.

Mexican telecom mogul Carlos Slim Helu moved up to No. 3 with $30 billion, replacing Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, who fell one place to No. 5 with $23.5 billion.

Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad of Sweden rose two slots to No. 4 with $28 billion.

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen edged up to sixth place from No. 7, with a net worth of $22 billion. He was followed by France's Bernard Arnault, chairman and chief executive of LVMH and the Christian Dior Group, with $21.5 billion; Arnault was new to the top 10.

Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud fell to eighth from No. 5, with $20 billion; and Canadian publisher Kenneth Thomson moved into the top 10, ranking No. 9 with $19.6 billion.

The Walton family, which dominated the Forbes list, tumbled in this year as stock in the world's largest retailer dropped more than 10 percent last year.

Martha Stewart, who was new to the list last year, dropped off completely this year. Her fortune shrank from $1 billion to an estimated $500 million following her conviction for lying about a stock sale.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060310/BIZ/603100333/1001

savafan
03-10-2006, 01:24 PM
I'm glad he didn't lose any money on the Reds

GAC
03-11-2006, 05:02 AM
I'm not up on MLB rules; but isn't there some sort of guideline by MLB that severely restricts the amount of personal monies that an owner(s) can invest in their team (such as in payroll, etc)?

Redsland
03-11-2006, 10:53 AM
There is a limit to the amount of debt a team can have. That may be what you're thinking of.

The D-Backs in particular have had to keep a fairly steady eye on their bank statements over the past few years.

WMR
03-11-2006, 03:00 PM
So you're saying that Carl Lindner couldn't have increased the Reds payroll to, say, $120 million without being able to legitimize such a payroll through showing that the Reds' revenue was sufficient to support said payroll???

That seems incredibly lame to me.

The Yankees are "allowed" to have their 200 million dollar payroll b/c of the size of the market they play in???

Redsland
03-11-2006, 04:47 PM
I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that there's a certain amount of debt teams are allowed to have. (I believe it's 40% of the team's "value," however that's determined.) I leave it to tr and others to clarify whether that means owners can pay off their clubs' debts out of their personal funds. If so, then owners can use as much of their own money as they want. However, there may be legal limitations regarding the amount and kind of "donations" an owner can make to his club. Alternatively, there may be accounting principles that limit or prohibit such a thing. I don't know.

WMR
03-11-2006, 04:49 PM
I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that there's a certain amount of debt teams are allowed to have. (I believe it's 40% of the team's "value," however that's determined.) I leave it to tr and others to clarify whether that means owners can pay off their clubs' debts out of their personal funds. If so, then owners can use as much of their own money as they want. However, there may be legal limitations regarding the amount and kind of "donations" an owner can make to his club. Alternatively, there may be accounting principles that limit or prohibit such a thing. I don't know.


Wasn't trying to come at you or anything. That just seems an incredible inequity if true.

GAC
03-12-2006, 04:57 AM
The Yankees are "allowed" to have their 200 million dollar payroll b/c of the size of the market they play in???

No. They have a 200 Mil payroll because of the size of the cable deal they have, and the revenues it generates for the Yanks. Georgie isn't throwing his own personal fortune into the Yanks.

The reason I asked the question above was because I thought I read somewhere (maybe it was on here by someone), that there was such a stipulation by MLB to prevent an owner, who has a vast fortune, from pouring large sums of money into a team, creating a disparity/unfairness that other teams cannot compete with (not that they current system is fair equitable either).

And then again - maybe an owner can up the payroll to whatever he wants it to be, and then just gets hit with the luxury tax.

WMR
03-12-2006, 06:57 AM
No. They have a 200 Mil payroll because of the size of the cable deal they have, and the revenues it generates for the Yanks. Georgie isn't throwing his own personal fortune into the Yanks.

The reason I asked the question above was because I thought I read somewhere (maybe it was on here by someone), that there was such a stipulation by MLB to prevent an owner, who has a vast fortune, from pouring large sums of money into a team, creating a disparity/unfairness that other teams cannot compete with (not that they current system is fair equitable either).

And then again - maybe an owner can up the payroll to whatever he wants it to be, and then just gets hit with the luxury tax.

So the disparity can be created only through market inequities rather than a billionaire owner who wants to spend cash?

I'd like to find out the actual answer to that question.

GAC
03-12-2006, 08:25 AM
So the disparity can be created only through market inequities rather than a billionaire owner who wants to spend cash?

I'd like to find out the actual answer to that question.

So would I. As I stated - the current system is a sham also. The luxury tax system is a joke. it was approved by an owner who knew from the start he could easily afford and tax they imposed (pocket change).

TeamBoone
03-12-2006, 01:11 PM
No. They have a 200 Mil payroll because of the size of the cable deal they have, and the revenues it generates for the Yanks. Georgie isn't throwing his own personal fortune into the Yanks.

GAC, how does this equate to the Yankees' payroll prior to YES tv? In actuality, it hasn't been around all that long... 5 years at the most.

Ravenlord
03-12-2006, 05:48 PM
GAC, how does this equate to the Yankees' payroll prior to YES tv? In actuality, it hasn't been around all that long... 5 years at the most.
i don't know what the exact figure is, but i do know the Yankees had the largest TV and radio contracts before they launched YES. even with the Braves having TBS, i still think the Red Sox and possibly the Dodgers generate more TV reveneue.

GAC
03-12-2006, 07:19 PM
GAC, how does this equate to the Yankees' payroll prior to YES tv? In actuality, it hasn't been around all that long... 5 years at the most.

I think it was sometime last year where I read that the YES deal generates something around 270 Mil alone for the Yankee organization.

Your above question is something someone else, with far greater insight into this particular area, is gonna have to answer. But I think that it has only been within the timeframe of those years that we've seen the Yankee's spending on payroll skyrocket like it has.

I am certainly not an expert in this area; but respectfully, I have always shown skepticism at people who went after Lindner, because he is a billionaire, and was not pouring his personal fortune into the Reds. Again, I could be completely wrong on this, but I don't think any baseball owner(s) do. They rely on revenue generated by the team/market, and such things as cable deals, advertising rights, marketing, etc (revenue sources outside of their personal wealth).

Yes, I believe owners have to spend money in order to compete. But I also believe there is a "balance" that needs to be achieved. If one canot scout, develop, and evaluate talent, then you could be spending all the money in the world and still be fielding a loser. Look at teams such as the Orioles and Mets for example. Yet teams like the A's, Marlins, Twins, and Indians, have had far greater success in recent years with far lesser payrolls.

These types of teams canot afford to make mistakes. While teams like the Yanks and Boston, with such a huge revenue pool, can when it comes to bad contracts/investments. The current system is a joke; but it will be a cold day in hell before we see any kind of parity brought to MLB thanks to both the owners and the players union.