Entire Walton family lose almost all their wealth in less than 50 years, is it believable??

[KelleyKramer]

Ok, now that I have your attention, here is what I am really talking about.. the Rockefeller family.

One hundred years ago John D Rockefeller was the richest man in America, after cornering the oil market his wealth was so vast it was measured as a percentage of the entire US gross domestic product.

During the next few decades he continued his oil earnings in subsidiaries of his broken up oil company and also made huge gains by diversifying into banking, fruit produce, securities and insurance, and many other industries.

By the end of WWII when his sons controlled the empire, after the massive war boom it included those core industries as well as spanning hundreds of corporations.

I was able to trace things up to somewhere in the 1960's where the empire is churning like a freight train and then, with a very few exceptions.. they just seem to drop off the map.

And less than 50 years later... today not one single Rockefeller is on the Forbes top 100 richest list

That just doesnt seem possible

And unlike the Walton family, they were very diversified, and their core businesses were basically recession proof. One of the largest banks in the country, food, utilities and insurance would be considered necessities. And at the very core is big oil, which is not an up and down industry, its an up and way up business.

Either they are hiding their wealth, or it is the biggest financial disaster in the history of the planet

Any savvy DUers know how to research this kind of stuff and find out what the deal is?

[Lithos]

1. They had kids

Those kids had kids... Divide the wealth by 2, 3 or more.

The succeeding generations were not as good at business or investing as the earlier generations so the wealth didn't keep up with inflation. Some put their money in trusts which effectively took it out of the pool, though with the promise of perpetual income/wealth for the succeeding generations.

Many old families are not as individually wealthy as before. However, if you tally up the total wealth, you'll see there is still a respectable valuation - far more than what you or I will ever have.

I wouldn't shed any tears.

L-

[KelleyKramer]

11. Its only 2 generations, and massive compared to the Waltons wealth ..

I understand your point and have already considered what you are saying.

Combining the Waltons wealth in the top 10, its a total of 75 billion which currently would shatter the top of the list

As recently as the 1960's, with inflation it was something like $500 billion for the Rockefellers

No matter how many offspring, in 2 generations you cant make that much money disappear from public view

And they were not like the Waltons sitting around cashing trust fund checks.

The Rockefellers were tied directly into the US economic machine.. with controlling or at least highly influential interests in total US oil sales, banking, financing, utilities, insurance.. and in addition to that 100's of other major corporations.

Then, almost overnight... all the power and huge wealth just completely and magically disappears?

For some reason, I dont buy it

[hfojvt]

14. the inflation is the key or part of it

their fortune was worth $500 billion in 1960 with inflation, but in nominal dollars it was something else. Well, in order to keep up with the Forbeses, their wealth had to grow not only faster than inflation, but faster than the fortunes of the up and comers - Bill Gates and Sam Walton et. al.

Also, are you sure that a few people on today's list do not have a Rockefeller grandparent?

[babylonsister]

2. LOL! Nice hook. I haven't the foggiest, but you make me curious.

I noticed lots of 'were's' in your op. The trail falls off, and no one knows nada about their oil connections? Hmmm...:popcorn:

[TomInTib]

3. Exponential growth

Once any "dynasty" (or whatever) goes into the 4th generation, the funds are spread pretty thinly.

[zeemike]

4. Yes, research how many Rockefeller trust funds there are

And you will find thousands of them. and remember they will not all have the Rockefeller name.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Being surpassed on rich lists doesn't remotely suggest they lost money...

... Any more than being surpassed on the mile sprint time list means that the surpassed-person's time became slower.

[barb162]

6. There is still enormous wealth and the family gave away

enormous amounts over decades
http://www.answers.com/topic/rockefeller-family

[leftofthedial]

7. the wealthiest of the wealthy aren't on any lists

[Ken Burch]

8. Oh...SAM Walton's family...

For a minute there I thought you meant John Boy and Mary Ellen and Jim Bob and the rest of them.

[LeftyMom]

9. There's a reason the rich have inbred for most of history

It keeps the family money concentrated in a small pool of people.

If you've got people wealthy enough to have a lot of kids and raise them to adulthood and they turn around, have kids with unrelated people and split the family fortune, pretty soon the family fortune is pretty well diluted. Which is why the wealthy traditionally either marry relatives or other people of substantial means.

[Ken Burch]

15. ...until, of course, your family Christmas card picture looks like it was painted by Goya

n/t.

[OxQQme]

10. Seems like there's a Rockefeller

as a share holder in the Federal Reserve Bank.

[AndyTiedye]

12. The Rockefeller Family Put Quite A Bit Into Charitable Foundations They Control

That reduces their on-the-books wealth without reducing the amount of money they control --
in fact it allows it to grow even faster, since it is no longer taxable.

[sandnsea]

13. They still have money

The Rockefeller Foundation is worth 3 billion.

The Rockefeller Bros Fund manages nearly a billion.

http://gen.culpepper.com/interesting/business/charles_e.htm

And that doesn't count all the money in trusts and private investments that don't require public reporting. If it's not publicly reported, it's kind of hard for a magazie like Forbes to calculate it.