all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (16 children)

What's "it"? His products? I couldn't find the number in the wiki.

Edit: thank you guys! It didn't occur to be that it's actually the cash, that's crazy!

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    In reality it was actual cash money. He couldn't use banks due to his money being gained through illegal means. He had stacks of money just laying around so much he couldn't really secure it. Columbia is generally warm and humid so a lot of pests like rats and insects. I heard he was spending around 10k a week just on rubber bands to wrap the money into stacks of a thousands.

    If you don't know he made most of his money by selling cocaine though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Chap never heard of tupperware apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Rats can chew through cement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    No way. Really? That can't be much softer than their teeth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Their teeth continually grow, and cement (not concrete) is not that hard to abrade away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, sand definitely is much harder than teeth (which in a normal vertebrate are based on apatite, at a Mohs hardness of 5). If it's abrasion, that explains a bit, although it's going to be much slower than an actual cutting action. A quick search indicates cement is at Mohs 5-7, so you theoretically could chew through an unusually soft sample.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 25 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Cash. His business was illegal (naturally), and it was the 1980s, so most of his profits were in literal cash that could not really be safely put in banks in the amounts he was bringing it in. So much of it was physically stored and hidden in various safehouses... and sometimes, vermin and the elements would get at it, destroying or rotting the paper money beyond usability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    To be fair, that’s 10%. That’s nuts.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    $2.1B a year

    $420M a week

    I don't think that's 10%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    420M*52 weeks =21,840M =21.84B

    Is it not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    You're technically correct. The best kind of correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    I think this is technically more correct:

    365.25 / 7 = 52.178571429
    52.178571429 * 420,000,000 = 21,915,000,000
    (2,100,000,000 / 21,915,000,000) * 100 = 9.582477755
    

    Which means it's 9.58% rounded down to 2 decimals.

    (This is using the common definition of a year and not a "tropical year")

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    He cumulated the money for more than 52 weeks

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    But he lost 2.1B every year, so for every 52 week period

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    Yes, but losing 10% of an asset typically refers to total asset value, not revenue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    We’re not even including losses on the cocaine itself, this is all just about the revenue. He didn’t lose 10% of his business every year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I read it that he lost a significant part if his cash assets. Revenue is a different concept. In your calculation you made the comparison with revenue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I compared the size of the two numbers I was given. I didn’t call them equivalent, I didn’t say they described the same thing. I only even used the word revenue after you did, because I was using zero context to compare the numbers (I just like numbers and it popped out to me that it was 10%)- it wasn’t until you said revenue that it occurred to me that he probably would have reinvested much of that money and it wasn’t just profit.

    That said, now that I am thinking about it, he didn’t exactly have access to non cash investment or value storage options. I wonder if there was much of a difference between the total money coming in and the total cash coming in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Yes I know, you divided number one with number two and did the math right. I’m just saying that in the general world of business metrics comparing those numbers is not really a common practice.

    Edit. For comparison, you might have a car that loses 5k of its value in a year and you work and get paid 50k a year. Surely that 5k depreciation is 10% of your yearly income, but typically you count that per cent from the value of the car instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 13 points 6 months ago
    [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    This is, to be fair, most billionaires.

    Assholes the lot of them.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Imagine making that sort of money and just buying hippos with it

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    What got eaten by rats? Were those rats living on pure cocaine somehow?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Cash, delicious, delicious paper

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Ah. I'm surprised there's any calories in that for a non-ruminant.

    Bro, get some Tupperware or something. Sure you're still unimaginably rich, but there's a principle to it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Nah, that shit was stolen.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • That's about 21 billion a year (assuming 2 weeks for holidays because 50 is easier to multiply than 52, and 21 is a nicer number than 21.84).

  • source