Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, but even so, the (fictional) RoI on the start money is a few orders of magnitude. Which is not quite ordinary.



It's interesting how much of that happened post-acquisition, though. Holding NeXT from 1987 - 1996 = max 3x return. Holding AAPL from 1996-present = 340x return. This return was available to ordinary people on the public stock markets, too - if you were an average Joe who put $60K into Apple in 1996, you would now have Ross Perot's initial $20M investment sitting in your pocket.


I get your point, but let's take a minute to remind ourselves that the average person does not have 60k lying around to invest.


The average hypothetical alternate history investor seems to have that kinda money.


Sure, but how much was Perot being lucky vs. him being smart? If Apple had gone with acquiring Be instead of NeXT (which I think was a distinct possibility), Perot's investment could quite possibly have ended up a write-off.


He was basically betting on Steve Jobs so for me Perot was being smart.


I'll take a 50% chance of a X1000.

Less flippantly, it was a smart bet to make at the time even though things could have gone differently, since we (now) know there was a possible world (ours!) in which it went X1000.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: