The Anti-Forbes List: Ranking Founders by Wealth Created for Others
The Anti-Forbes List: Ranking Founders by Wealth Created for Others
Quick Take
The Anti-Forbes List ranks founders by the net shareholder wealth their companies created for index funds, pensions, employees and co‑founders, subtracting the founder’s current net worth. Jensen Huang tops the list with $4.98 trillion created for others, while several founders show negative values, indicating their companies have destroyed shareholder wealth since IPO.
What the List Measures
- For others: The total market value created for outside shareholders, measured as the company’s market cap minus a baseline T‑bill return (the Bessembinder benchmark) and adjusted for the founder’s original equity stake.
- Kept: The founder’s current net worth attributable to the same company.
- Multiple: Ratio of wealth created for others to wealth kept (For others ÷ Kept).
- Given away: Explicit charitable donations reported by the founder.
The methodology (v 1.1.0) attributes wealth creation proportionally to the founder’s founding stake and excludes any wealth the founder still holds. Negative rows mean the company’s post‑IPO performance has been below the T‑bill baseline, eroding shareholder value.
Methodology note – The calculation uses H. Bessembinder’s “baseline” for expected market returns and subtracts it from actual market performance. All numbers are sourced from SEC filings, Forbes Real‑Time Billionaires, and the Bessembinder study. Full methodology
Top 10 Founders by Wealth Created for Others
| Rank | Founder | Company | Wealth created for others | Founder’s retained wealth | Multiple |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jensen Huang | NVIDIA | $4.98 T | $182 B | 28.3× |
| 2 | Bill Gates | Microsoft | $3.19 T | $106 B | 31.2× |
| 3 | Jeff Bezos | Amazon | $2.17 T | $255 B | 9.5× |
| 4 | Sergey Brin | $1.78 T | $269 B | 7.6× | |
| 5 | Larry Page | $1.76 T | $292 B | 7.0× | |
| 6 | Mark Zuckerberg | Meta | $1.18 T | $229 B | 6.2× |
| 7 | Warren Buffett | Berkshire Hathaway | $960 B | $146 B | 7.6× |
| 8 | Walton family | Walmart | $772 B | $452 B | 2.7× |
| 9 | Larry Ellison | Oracle | $389 B | $184 B | 3.1× |
| 10 | Elon Musk | Tesla / SpaceX | $357 B | $917 B | 1.4× |
Notable Negative Entries
- Drew Houston (Dropbox): –$3 B created for others, $2 B retained, resulting in a –0.2× multiple.
- Thomas Peterffy (Interactive Brokers): –$71 B created for others, $108 B retained, multiple 0.3×.
These negatives illustrate companies whose post‑IPO market performance lagged the risk‑free benchmark, effectively destroying shareholder wealth.
Community Reaction on Hacker News
The list generated a lively discussion, with commenters raising both methodological concerns and philosophical objections.
Critiques of Scope and Definition
- @adverbly argued the list is “super wrong” for ignoring non‑stock contributions such as agricultural innovators like Norman Borlaug and for treating a company as a single founder’s creation.
- @felineflock suggested a more meaningful ranking would prioritize scientists, engineers, and public‑health innovators whose work benefits billions at low cost.
- @toolslive expressed surprise that figures like Deng Xiaoping, who lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, are absent because the methodology is purely equity‑based.
Methodology‑Specific Concerns
- @hn_throwaway_99 pointed out that the calculation only counts post‑IPO stock returns, ignoring pre‑IPO investors who may have profited, and that companies with declining post‑IPO prices (e.g., Dropbox) receive large negative scores.
- @malshe asked for clarification on the “Multiple” column, noting that Elon Musk’s 1.4× seems inconsistent with his $357 B created vs. $917 B kept.
- @jpcom sought an explanation of the negative numbers, which the methodology defines as wealth destruction relative to the T‑bill baseline.
Philosophical and Political Commentary
- @squidbeak called the list “bullshit,” arguing that wealth creation should account for employee contributions, scientific breakthroughs, and the negative externalities of monopolistic practices.
- @Yoofie criticized the comment section for low‑quality responses, emphasizing that the site’s methodology is clearly described and that participants should read it before debating.
Suggestions for Alternative Metrics
- @actinium226 proposed a version of the list based on jobs created.
- @abdusk suggested including open‑source contributors like Linus Torvalds, estimating his impact at $8.8 T.
- @felineflock outlined a broader taxonomy of wealth creators, from agricultural innovators to open‑source standards.
How to Interpret the Rankings
- Equity‑centric view – The list measures only publicly traded equity performance relative to a risk‑free benchmark. It does not capture non‑financial societal impact, patents, open‑source contributions, or philanthropic outcomes beyond the “Given away” column.
- Founder‑centric attribution – Wealth is allocated based on the founder’s original stake, assuming proportional responsibility for the company’s later market performance.
- Negative values are intentional – A negative “For others” figure signals that the company’s shareholders have, on average, lost money relative to a safe‑asset baseline.
- Multiple as a ratio, not a moral score – A high multiple indicates a founder retained a small share of the total value created; a low or negative multiple indicates the opposite.
Why the List Matters
- Transparency – By separating wealth created for outside investors from wealth retained by founders, the list offers a clearer view of how much value public shareholders have received.
- Debate catalyst – The methodology forces a discussion about what constitutes “wealth creation” and whether equity markets are the appropriate yardstick for societal impact.
- Data‑driven critique – The negative entries provide concrete evidence that some high‑profile founders have overseen companies that underperformed relative to risk‑free assets, challenging the narrative that all tech founders generate net positive wealth.
How to Contribute or Extend the List
The project is open‑source on GitHub. Contributors can submit corrections, add new founders, or propose alternative metrics via pull requests.
GitHub repository – https://github.com/Sakshyam-Patro/anti-forbes-list
Bottom Line
The Anti‑Forbes List reframes billionaire rankings by focusing on shareholder wealth created for the broader public rather than personal net worth. While the equity‑only approach yields striking numbers—Jensen Huang’s $4.98 T created for others, several founders with negative contributions—it also sparks legitimate criticism about scope, definition of wealth, and the exclusion of non‑financial societal contributions. The conversation on Hacker News highlights both the utility of a transparent, data‑driven metric and the need for broader, more inclusive ways to assess true wealth creation.