Why They're Billionaires, and You're Not

Two reports came out this week: Forbes' annual World's Billionaires list, and the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds, which tracks average household net worths. Compare the two, and you get a nice snapshot of how billionaires fared in 2009 versus us mere mortals.

And to put it mildly, they gave us a pants-down spanking.

Big year for big money
The combined net worth of the world's billionaires rose to $3.6 trillion, up from $2.4 trillion the year before -- a 50% surge. Meanwhile, the Flow of Funds report shows total household net worth in the fourth quarter of 2009 rose to $54.2 trillion, up from $51.5 trillion the year before. That's a whopping gain of just 5.4%.

Now, this comparison isn't perfect. For one, there were more billionaires this year than last. So someone worth $950 million in 2009 and then $1 billion in 2010 wasn't counted in last year's Forbes report, but gets all $1 billion thrown into this year's calculation. Second, let's be fair: Scads of the world's billionaires are financiers that would have been shirtless bums had it not been for bailouts of the financial system. Money seems to buy these people a lot of luck.

Even so, most billionaires legitimately ran circles around us commoners. Why? Give a big thank you to global stock markets, which surged 60% or more since early 2009. Run down the list of billionaires, and you'll be hard-pressed to find one whose net worth isn't largely (if not entirely) tied up in a company's equity. From Bill Gates with Microsoft (NYSE: MSFT  ) to Warren Buffett with Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A  ) (NYSE: BRK-B  ) to Sergey Brin with Google (Nasdaq: GOOG  ) , the wealth of most billionaires is married to the stock market in one way or another. The top 50 billionaires include those overwhelmingly linked to the performance of Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT  ) , Dell (Nasdaq: DELL  ) , and Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN  ) stock, to name a few.

Most of these people rarely sell shares in meaningful amounts -- they're permanent owners. That's how they got rich in the first place. And since they were heavily invested last year, they got rich[er] real quick when stocks surged.

That was hardly the case with us average folks. Late 2008 and early 2009 was a time of dumping stocks and diving headlong into bonds and cash. When stocks went skydiving in 2008, $233.8 billion was yanked out of stock mutual funds. Then just as stocks began one of the biggest rebounds in history, $376.3 billion was plowed into bond mutual funds, some yielding close to nothing. So even as stocks surged last year, plenty of small investors didn't notice. They were long gone. Their timing couldn't have been worse.

Well, DUH!
I know it's not terribly enlightening to tell you that those who owned the best-performing asset class outperformed those who didn't. And you could also note that most of us have way more of our net worth tied up in housing than billionaires, and real estate stunk last year. Oh, and how about the fact that the stock-loving billionaires got slaughtered in 2008 when markets imploded? Can't argue there.

But there's a deeper point here. The billionaires who keep their emotions grounded and stick with great companies end up crushing those who faint when they hear Peter Schiff talk and manically jump into whatever investment feels best at the moment. I looked; there isn't a single billionaire whose fortune is attributed to "dumping stocks when everyone else was and buying bond funds yielding 0%." That's what they've avoided. But that's what so many of us have done.

And maybe that's why they're billionaires, and we aren't.    

How did you fare in 2009? Let us know in the comments section below.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, and Wal-Mart Stores are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. Google is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers selection. Amazon.com and Berkshire Hathaway are Motley Fool Stock Advisor picks. Motley Fool Options has recommended a diagonal call position on Microsoft. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, and has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (32) | Recommend This Article (57)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 12, 2010, at 11:59 AM, catoismymotor wrote:

    Buffett, Gates and Brin know their companies from the inside out and have enough personal assets set aside to weather most any economic storm. They have little reason to change what has worked for them for so long.

  • Report this Comment On March 12, 2010, at 12:19 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

  • Report this Comment On March 12, 2010, at 7:31 PM, kenpersonal wrote:

    I am 31 years old and believe it or not until about a month ago I did not know how easy it was to invest in individual stocks. I am upset that I missed one of the biggest stock market runs in history. I am in now, all in for the long term. I cannot wait to see what 2010 ends up like. Up or down with the right strategy money can be made.

  • Report this Comment On March 12, 2010, at 9:58 PM, sarcastro999 wrote:

    Dear Motley Fool,

    In accordance to the rules at the right, I will try to be respectful. Rest assured, it will not be easy.

    When I saw the headline of this article, before even opening it, I sent an email to my sister, saying that Warren Buffett will either be the first person mentioned, or the second. And yeah, I guess in a sense, that seems fair, seeing how he's one of the richest people in the world. But you guys at Motley Fool, more than just about anyone in the financial media, seem to adore the man- and that's saying a lot, as he TRULY is adored by the media. What you fail to mention is that he is the son of a famous congressman/investment broker, who no doubt helped him get his start. The way the financial media talk, you'd think he made his billions, standing in a cornfield in Nebraska! You also fail to mention how Buffett's stock decreased 50% in less than a year, only to be literally bailed out by his vast connections in Capital Hill. It never gets old for me how you fail to mention that this "folksy" grandfather is a well-connected lobbyist. And THAT, in essence, is why Warren Buffett is a billionaire and I am not (yet).

    Just to be clear, I don't begrudge the man for using these connections to his advantage- who wouldn't?! But to always act like he's above the fray, and that investing in Wal-Mart, Amazon, and Dell- stocks that have proven to be as safe and predictable as a casino craps table- is some kind of mark of virtue, really is a bit much to take.

    But what REALLY got me going was your dig at Peter Schiff. Oh, no, you did not just go there! By no means do I think Peter Schiff is perfect- he can be overly excitable, and in total denial when he gets some of his short or intermediate term calls wrong. But it is funny to me- soooo funny- that you people STILL make these sneering, derisive comments about a man who stood against all of you who were shilling these stocks until they crashed (twice). And now that the stock market has reloaded for a THIRD time, you're doing it again! Bottom line- Peter Schiff, was right, Peter Schiff is right, and Peter Schiff will continue to be proven right for the foreseeable future. You think last bear market was bad? Wait until the U.S. treasury market blows up. Then we'll see how much of a "genius" Warren Buffett- who had said that the financial crisis was behind us BEFORE his stock went down 50%, BTW- really is.

    Happy trading,

    Scott

    p.s. Dont forget- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU. I'll look forward to the next addition.

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 12:49 AM, funkyduane wrote:

    It was at this time last year that I purchased my first stock. Since then I have had to pinch myself to believe how much my investments have appreciated in value. Since High School till the age of 52, I've always spent more than I earned, and believed I would never be successful with money, thinking I just didn't have the right parents or mind for it.

    Five years ago I did a seminar entitled Money: From Concern to Freedom. Out of the work I did in that seminar to free myself from the beliefs and views of myself and money that I'd created as a child, I was able to garner the coaching of some wealthy friends, pay off $20K of credit card debt, and begin to learn how to be responsible and successful with money.

    Along the way, I discovered Motley Fool, became a member and have appreciated it as an invaluable resource ever since.

    Although I didn't inherit financially savvy parents, I did inherit a propensity for contrarianism, boldness and a deep abiding faith in the continuity of life.

    That allowed me to buy Apple at $79, Aflac at $17, Standard Insurance at $19 just to name a few of my 20 mostly dividend paying stocks plus some Vanguard Star Fund in my first year as an investor.

    The overall average ROI on $59K invested is 68%, but my Roth portfolio is up 99% today. $17K in Vanguard is a boring 4.5% since 9/09. I have three losing stocks down about 6%. Total value of all stocks and funds in our first year $86K

    Thank you Motley Fool people for providing me the tools, information and diverse views for having my first year as an investor be so fun and successful.

    Duane Smelser

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Guitarpack wrote:

    I have to side with some of the comments made earlier. Your effort to somehow compare the results of people like Warren Buffet with us "commoners" is so ill conceived, it doesn't fail to amaze me. You like to look at these extremely successful investors and make them sound more savy and knowledgeable then everyone else because they have done so well with their investments. What you seem to fail to realize is that most of these people already had so much money from other non-investment sources, that their downside risk wasn't all that high. Bill Gates created a very profitable computer design and made his money in that manner, not from being an astute investor. Most of the others (Buffett included) inherited their fortunes, which, as my father taught me, is the easiest way to get rich (along with stealing (Wall Street in general) and inventing the better mouse trap (Gates again). Almost none of these people graduate school with nothing and work their way to vast investing fortunes off of their own hard labor. Your attempt to compare them to us common folk is stupid and pointless. Almost in no cases did they start out as "commoners" and they already had a bundle with which to work with to make their investment fortunes.

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 3:29 AM, PeteGall wrote:

    Here's the way my simple mind see's it. Experienced investors knew once the economic ship didn't sink that there would be a big rebound in stock prices and they didn't move all their resources into the safe havens of bonds and fixed but limited returns as many shellshocked investors did. Also many "wealth management" companies encouraged investors (IRA holders, etc.) to convert to safer, but as it turns out, less profitable investments, once the markets corrected. Just as there were many articles on the dot com bubble and the housing bubble before they burst , there were many articles predicting the stock market run up, and it's not over yet. For the average investor the problem is he doesn't have control over how his money is invested, usually it's controlled by a fund manager and if you've ever tried to talk to a fund manager about how your money is invested you know you get a lot of run around and attitude of how they know what's best etc. Well, "It ain't necessarily so" as the song goes.. In response to Guitarpack.. Bill Gates did make one very smart investment - he bought a large stake in Apple Computers. Just a little joke, Bill! Truthfully I admire his humanitarian spirit.

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Friendlysurfer wrote:

    For once I disagree with the article: The only thing they got in common is: THEY STARTED UP THEIR OWN COMPANY

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 5:55 AM, marc5477 wrote:

    Just wanted to correct a few miss-statements about Mr. Buffett. Firstly, his business did not need any sort of bailout whatsoever. His stocks lost value due to normal market movement. Second, he helped bail out Goldsman and he received a great deal when he did.

    Mr. Buffett did indeed have a privileged start. If memory serves me, he got a $12k job in the mid 50's before he was in his mid 20's which is the equivalent of about $100k today. He did manage to somehow save $120k back then in some way over a 2 year period and it has never really been made clear where that money came from (equivalent to about $1.2m today).

    Anyway, like him or not his performance speaks for itself. More notably, his companies employ hundreds of thousands of people and last time I checked he didn't have to fire anyone on account of the recession. He also admits when he makes mistakes and remains down to earth despite his billions. He is well liked for good reasons but still, I dont trust the media so who knows.

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 9:33 AM, Pr0metheus wrote:

    I have to agree with some of my fellow Fools. This article missed the mark just slightly.

    Most of the billionaires on the Forbes list aren't rags-to-riches stories. They came from money, and Buffet is a prime example. His first investment was $10,000 in the 1950s. Assuming an inflation rate of 2%, that's roughly $29,717 in today's dollars. Most people don't have $30k lying around that they won't need for the next 5 years.

    Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to take away from the successes of these billionaires. They may have come from wealthy backgrounds, but a lot of their success is from their own hard work (setting up Microsoft/Berkshire/Dell/Walmart wasn't exactly a turnkey operation). Still, they had big enough advantages starting out that you can't really draw a direct comparison between them and "us".

    However, that doesn't mean "billionaire" is a title beyond our reach. It just means we have to work harder to get it. In this, Morgan is spot-on that staying invested is the path to wealth. If you want to have sky-is-the-limit success in a capitalist society like ours, then you need to own companies; either privately or through the Market (preferably both).

    Very recent history has shown that the stock market can be a rough game. But if you want to win, then you have to play, and you aren't playing if you're on the bench.

    Play ball, Fools. :)

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 10:08 AM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Thanks for the comments all.

    "Just wanted to correct a few miss-statements about Mr. Buffett. Firstly, his business did not need any sort of bailout whatsoever."

    The article doesn't say Buffett's business needed a bailout.

    "For once I disagree with the article: The only thing they got in common is: THEY STARTED UP THEIR OWN COMPANY"

    They started their own company (or inherited one) AND STUCK WITH IT. They didn't dump it at the first sign of trouble and hide under a cave. Bill Gates could have cashed out in the '70s and no one would know who he is today. That was the point of the article.

    "Most of the others (Buffett included) inherited their fortunes."

    That's completely untrue. I did, though, address your broader point by writing, "Money seems to buy these people a lot of luck."

    "Bottom line- Peter Schiff, was right, Peter Schiff is right, and Peter Schiff will continue to be proven right for the foreseeable future."

    I agree with points 1 and 2. It's assuming points 1 and 2 guarantee point 3's outcome that screws people up in investing.

    "[Buffett's] first investment was $10,000 in the 1950s. Assuming an inflation rate of 2%, that's roughly $29,717 in today's dollars. Most people don't have $30k lying around that they won't need for the next 5 years."

    Certainly not all of us. But the median net worth of someone making $50k is $168,500. Let's not act like an inflation-adjusted $29k made Buffett some kind of one-in-a-billion miracle child.

    Morgan

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 10:08 AM, TMFHousel wrote:

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Pr0metheus wrote:

    "Let's not act like an inflation-adjusted $29k made Buffett some kind of one-in-a-billion miracle child."

    Exactly the point I endeavored to make in my comment. Buffet and other billionaires had a head start, but that just means we have to run faster. By no means does it preclude us from reproducing their results.

    I only mentioned Buffet's head start because I prefer to account for all variables when drawing comparisons.

  • Report this Comment On March 13, 2010, at 7:27 PM, kondian wrote:

    Buy the right stocks, you will be a Billionaire too! One day after reports that Citigroup (C) may have weathered the worst of the financial storm, shares of the financial giant were up over 3% in afternoon trading on Wednesday.

    http://gettopstocks.blogspot.com/2010/03/stock-rises-over-4-...

  • Report this Comment On March 14, 2010, at 3:18 AM, dgmennie wrote:

    I think you are asking the wrong question and/or making the wrong analysis. Look back 30 years and tally up the "players" in the stock market game (then) and compare with similar data for today, I expect you would find the same proportion of (1) intelligent investors, (2) average investors, and (3) mentally-challenged investors. In other words, at every point in time you have a huge population of billionare wannabes, all of whom must have an underlying (but mostly unjustified) belief that their particular investing insight (based on everything from mathematical modeling to astrology) will somehow give them an "edge" over everyone else.

    Now, you track everything for 30 years and note the results. If there is anything consistent and predictable in the strategies adopted by the VERY FEW "wildly successful" investors that can be separated from the multitude of decision trees employed of the VAST MAJORITY who make little or no money, I would be very interested to hear more about it.

    However, it is much more likely that even among those blessed with lots of "old money" or what appear (at the time) to be fantastic inventions or technical insights, most will NOT IMPROVE their financial position significantly via the stock market, nor will it be possible for anyone to predict IN ADVANCE which handfull of players will pull way ahead of the pack and why they stay there.

    The problem is more fundamental than it might at first appear. For example, on a long market rise like we have just experienced (following a devastating decline which has yet to be fully corrected), lots of investors who "got in at the bottom" last year will make handsome short-term profits. After reaping double-digit gains, how many will take these profits and bank them? How many will consider such short-term returns as evidence of their investing genius and stay in the game for another year. . .or five? Furthermore, the supply of new investors is endless and thus the process can continuously repeat itself.

    Looking at the stock market as a CONSUMER of wealth rather than a creator of wealth will require an intellectual leap that few here are prepared to deal with.

  • Report this Comment On March 14, 2010, at 10:03 AM, 398669 wrote:

    Degmennei,

    You cut right to the chase and I agree with you.

    Here are two very easy rules to follow to make money consistently in any market.

    1. Never risk more than 7% of the cost of the trade on ANY one trade (4%) is better.

    2. Never risk more than 1% of your total capital on any one trade.

    It is possible with the judicious use of options to do this without ever entering a STOP LOSS order.

  • Report this Comment On March 14, 2010, at 3:04 PM, 11x wrote:

    Not an apples to apples comparison. MANY people in the united states simply live paycheck to paycheck. Many people are making just enough to get by, send their kids to school, and pay their mortgage. This means they are not going to use their millions to "ride out the storm cool and calm." Their idea of making it through the storm is to not get laid off, furlough, or hours cut back. You DO realize unemployment is higher now than a year ago right?

    Totally useless article.

  • Report this Comment On March 14, 2010, at 3:20 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    "Their idea of making it through the storm is to not get laid off, furlough, or hours cut back."

    And dumping stocks at the lows in order to buy bonds at the highs. That's what they thought was best to make it through the storm. And that's why most of us underperformed billionaires last year.

    "You DO realize unemployment is higher now than a year ago right?"

    Yes.

  • Report this Comment On March 14, 2010, at 4:28 PM, hlmeans wrote:

    I think most of you are missing the point of the article, billionaires stick to their investing plan rather than allowing emotions to control their investing strategy. Granted, they do not need to sell their shares to pay the bills, but neither should anyone else, basic thought process that is preached everywhere is don't invest money you will need within 5 years, so either everyone had bills come due last Feb/Mar or they let fear control their actions. When the market is down it is the time to buy, I am relatively new to investing, a little over a year, but with dollar cost averaging, I don't care what the market is doing, plus I am buying for the long term. Take out billionaires and replace that with any name of someone who is more financially secure than you, odds are they developed an investing strategy of some sort and stuck with that no matter what was going on. This can really be applied to anything in life, if you have a long-term plan(which is what investing SHOULD be) and stick with it, odds are the end results will be better than changing course everytime a bump in the road happens.

  • Report this Comment On March 15, 2010, at 6:14 AM, jaketen2001 wrote:

    This article misses the larger revelation. Only one of these examples are people who made their money in the stock market. The rest were all people who created something of value and sold it to someone else by starting a business. The path with a greater probability of creating actual wealth for anyone is to start a business, generate a new idea, and can it. Even the one example of a person who just made their money in stocks is Buffet. And he is not a prototypical stock trader. He is a long term investor, manager, and he never sells anything. He is more like a turn around shop that never sells.

    A statement like 'they never sell stocks' is inane. They have not yet sold off their own companies, true. But is entirely a different issue. Trying to tie in the behavior of the worlds richest business men (in this case all tech geniuses) with retail investing is nonsensical.

  • Report this Comment On March 15, 2010, at 9:43 AM, miteycasey wrote:

    Notice that Gates, Buffett, and Brin are not diversified? They have all their wealth from one stock....just saying.

  • Report this Comment On March 15, 2010, at 12:27 PM, gregoryvg wrote:

    Miteycasey,

    In Buffet's case, I think he is diversified. Berkshire Hathaway is a company of companies, almost mutual fund like.

    But a greater point you made is they all took a chance, a gamble. Their wealth comes from owning one company, and they bet it all. Of course, many make similar bets and lose it all.

  • Report this Comment On March 15, 2010, at 7:20 PM, AdneyC wrote:

    Warren and the like spend more in jet fuel than all of

    us on here combined, yes especially you penny stock idiots, can you even fathom the ability to write a billion dollar check, because i cannot, it is inconceivable what he has accomplished, but God gave him his wealth, He must be doing the right thing with it

    or God would have taken it from him as well.

    Read this and know it, without a shadow of a doubt,

    God gives everyone everything they have

    wheather they know it or not in thier pride is another

    conversation for another day, quite simply put , God gives money to those who Give,

  • Report this Comment On March 17, 2010, at 2:35 PM, JoeBtsflk wrote:

    This is a reiteration of The Motley Fool's original investment philosophy, often characterized as "buy and hold", but certainly emphasizing long term investment over speculation and market timing.

    If you can't time the market well, better not try. My grandma used to sing me a lullaby that sounded like, "Bye-lo baby," but the second verse was "Sell high baby." As noted, many small investors made the classic panic move, exactly opposite to grandma's advice.

    As Edgar Bronfman said, "To turn $100 into $110 is hard work. To turn $100 million into $110 million is inevitable." Pro NFL players and lottery winners are the exceptions that prove the importance of mindset.

  • Report this Comment On March 17, 2010, at 2:36 PM, JoeBtsflk wrote:

    This is a reiteration of The Motley Fool's original investment philosophy, often characterized as "buy and hold", but certainly emphasizing long term investment over speculation and market timing.

    If you can't time the market well, better not try. My grandma used to sing me a lullaby that sounded like, "Bye-lo baby," but the second verse was "Sell high baby." As noted, many small investors made the classic panic move, exactly opposite to grandma's advice.

    As Edgar Bronfman said, "To turn $100 into $110 is hard work. To turn $100 million into $110 million is inevitable." Pro NFL players and lottery winners are the exceptions that prove the importance of mindset.

  • Report this Comment On March 18, 2010, at 2:26 PM, miteycasey wrote:

    But a greater point you made is they all took a chance, a gamble. Their wealth comes from owning one company, and they bet it all. Of course, many make similar bets and lose it all.

    And that's part of my point.

  • Report this Comment On March 19, 2010, at 12:05 PM, webalongroger wrote:

    When the stock market dropped through the floor my portfolio dropped right along with it. It fell by about 53%.

    In 2009 I was able to (thanks to MF) ride the wave back up and my stocks rose almost 300%! My overall performance for the last two years netted a gain of about 35%. I hope that 2010 can be another good year!

  • Report this Comment On March 19, 2010, at 12:06 PM, PhotoPhool wrote:

    I loved the headline: "Why They're Billionaires, and You're Not" which certainly caught my attention.

    What amazed me however is many of the follow-up comments. Some Fools (capital F) understood that controlling your own emotions is the article's critical lesson in building and keeping wealth.

    What amazes me is the foolish who actually believe that financial success either comes from having it feed to you with a silver spoon (from wealthy parents) or handed to you by God.

    Perhaps the corollary makes them feel better, that is, "I'm not successful because my parents were not rich or I wasn't lucky or God didn't like me."

    I'm not likely to become a billionare because I'm too old to be an NFL player and winning the lottery requires buying a lottery ticket. The failures and successes of my investment plans lie in my hands.

    I haven't a problem learning from the successful and applying their lessons will increase my personal wealth.

  • Report this Comment On March 19, 2010, at 6:30 PM, alzbeta wrote:

    I started with 10 shares in 1953. Since that time the stock has split 5for1, 10for1, 2for1, 2for1. Now holding 2000 shares. Did nothing but hold. During many hard times it was difficult not to hatch the nest egg. Over time, good stocks will go up. Since that start, I have been very careful to choose good stocks. According to TMF retirement calculator, I should never go broke. Due diligence, dividends and patience are invaluable.

  • Report this Comment On March 23, 2010, at 10:52 PM, rse0506 wrote:

    I looked; there isn't a single billionaire whose fortune is attributed to "dumping stocks when everyone else was and buying bond funds yielding 0%."

    This one caught my eye. In particular, I thought "What about John Paulson?" (He's the dude who made something like $4 billion by shorting the banks before the panic broke loose).

    I suppose if you put the emphasis on "when everyone else was", then Paulson isn't *actually* an exception to the rule Morgan has stated.

    Just for grins,

    Scott

  • Report this Comment On March 23, 2010, at 10:55 PM, rse0506 wrote:

    I looked; there isn't a single billionaire whose fortune is attributed to "dumping stocks when everyone else was and buying bond funds yielding 0%."

    This one caught my eye. In particular, I thought "What about John Paulson?" (He's the dude who made something like $4 billion by shorting the banks before the panic broke loose).

    I suppose if you put the emphasis on "when everyone else was", then Paulson isn't *actually* an exception to the rule Morgan has stated.

    Just for grins,

    Scott

  • Report this Comment On March 23, 2010, at 11:03 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    rse0506,

    I think you misinterpreted the sentence. The quote you reference was meant to imply that no billionaire made his or her fortune by following the crowd. John Paulson is a perfect example of this, and doesn't contradict the claim at all.

    Morgan

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1134487, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/19/2014 3:56:38 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement