“If people whom you want to have love you love you, you're a success.”
—Warren Buffett, Fortune, 2013
How can you tell if someone really means what they say? One clue is if they do something for free, or virtually free, and expect nothing in return. We'd put Buffett in that category due to his pledge to donate more than 99% of his net worth to philanthropy. The terms “philanthropy” and “charity” are often used interchangeably, but there are some subtle differences. We'll use both terms in this chapter as well without worrying too much about the difference. Charity is often associated with short-term causes and gifts, often of an urgent nature (e.g., hurricane relief). Philanthropy, in contrast, often focuses on long-term solutions and active engagement. Both are admirable qualities regardless of the nuances.
Engaging in philanthropic activities isn't just a noble action. It will likely play a positive role in your own happiness—a true win-win situation. An ancient Chinese proverb says, “If you want happiness for an hour, take a nap. If you want happiness for a day, go fishing. If you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody.” Boxing legend Muhammad Ali had a slightly different take on philanthropy when he said, “Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.” Helping others adds an interesting, thoughtful dimension to your personality and is almost mandatory as part of the college application process to top schools worldwide. These colleges have their choice from many thousands of student applicants and often choose to create a community of students who think beyond their own interests. Remember the athletic slogan “There is no I in team.”
Buffett's plan to donate most of his wealth is unique in several aspects, besides its enormity of roughly $80 billion. He is giving the lion's share of this money to the foundation run by Bill Gates and his wife Melinda. He believes they have been doing a great job with the Gates Foundation and have developed a solid infrastructure to get things done around the world. He's given roughly $35 billon to the Gates Foundation to date. We previously noted that Buffett also teamed up with Gates on forming the Giving Pledge (www.GivingPledge.org), persuading roughly 200 billionaires from more than 20 countries to give away at least half of their fortune within their lifetimes, or shortly thereafter. You might be wondering why all billionaires haven't signed the pledge. They may have different priorities and/or may not want the publicity and incessant requests by people seeking money. Some billionaires, amazingly, told Buffett they couldn't afford it! Buffett quipped that “someone should write a book on how to live on a half billion dollars.”
I think we can confidently infer that Buffett is a very philanthropic person driven by a love of what he does—investing money—and not by greed. This chapter will focus on Buffett's comments concerning philanthropy, ethics, and “paying it forward,” that is, helping others if you have benefited from someone else's generosity. These concepts intertwine with ethics.
There are many ethical codes documented by philosophers and religious scholars across recorded history, and there is no objective measure concerning which one is best. For example, most doctors pledge to follow the Hippocratic Oath, a code of ethics tied to the practice of medicine dating back to between the fifth and fourth centuries BC. “First do no harm” is one of the most popular phrases affiliated with the Oath. Let's just simplify this topic by saying that ethics is “doing the right thing.” We'll let you substitute what you think is your best and fairest definition or code of what is right.
Ethical people are often involved in philanthropic and charitable activities, in part because they want to “pay it forward.” Few successful people have gotten to where they are without the help of others (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, mentors, teachers). Benjamin Graham once said that every day he “hoped to do something foolish, something creative, and something generous.” The “something generous” part of the quote is paying it forward.
Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians who ever lived, said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” Newton's great ideas didn't come out of a vacuum or simply due to the apple that purportedly fell on his head, inspiring his theory of gravity. He built his theories on the fundamentals of what he learned elsewhere.
Noblesse oblige is a French expression that means nobles, or more loosely defined as the rich and powerful, have an obligation to help those less fortunate. If that expression sounds too stuffy, consider the widely cited quote from Spiderman's Uncle Ben character, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Let's get this chapter rolling with Buffett's spin on one of the oldest expressions on kind, charitable, and ethical behavior. It's called the Golden Rule and underpins the philosophy of many world religions. It's usually expressed as, “Treat others as you wish to be treated.” In Berkshire's 1983 Letter to Berkshire Shareholders, Buffett put a financial spin on the Golden Rule by saying, “We will only do with your money what we would do with our own, weighing fully the values you can obtain by diversifying your own portfolios through direct purchases in the stock market.” Let's shorten that quote a bit into our first Tip for Chapter 16.
One way of following this Tip is to have some skin in the game. If you are recommending an investment or product to someone else, you should be willing to spend your own money on it since you would suffer if things turned out badly. If you tell someone to be involved in some kind of charitable or philanthropic activity, then you should be willing to engage in it as well.
It's not only with money that Buffett follows his version of the Golden Rule. NetJets is a Berkshire subsidiary that focuses on fractional jet ownership. What's that? Of course, private jets are incredibly expensive. They typically go for from $10 million to more than $100 million. Some super wealthy people even customize their own Boeing 747 jets, which costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Fractional jet ownership basically allows you to fly on a fleet of jets that are group owned, sort of like a mutual fund for jets. The cost is usually thousands of dollars per hour. Buffett travels a lot, so flying by private jet is one of his few extravagances. But he gets the same treatment as everyone else when he flies on NetJets. In his 2009 Letter to Berkshire Shareholders, he wrote, “We receive exactly the same treatment as any other owner, meaning we pay the same prices as everyone else does when we are using our personal contracts. In short, we eat our own cooking. In the aviation business, no other testimonial means more.”
There are a bunch of ways to get involved in philanthropic and charitable activities. The most obvious route is to support a cause that is important to you. Perhaps you, a family member, or a friend has been impacted by a disease, such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, or Alzheimer's. Many people volunteered to help in a variety of ways, ranging from health care workers to benefit concerts, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, there are tons of other philanthropic activities, such as helping out at soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hospitals, nursing homes, and even in your own school's community activities. Many religious institutions are actively involved in philanthropic and charitable causes, so that could be another way to get involved, if you are so inclined. If you like sports, volunteering to help with the Special Olympics, an international sports organization for children and adults with intellectual and/or physical disabilities, may be a great fit.
Many young people have had a charitable experience with United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF provides food and health care services to needy people in more than 150 countries around the world. Perhaps you have collected spare change for UNICEF in one of their famous orange boxes, especially around Halloween time (October 31) in the US.
You've probably heard the expression “There is safety in numbers.” If you are still unsure where to get involved, we think another decent place to look may be to examine the activities of the largest charities. A recent article in Forbes found that the largest charitable organizations in America were:
Donating your time and energy to a philanthropic or charitable organization may be the most powerful thing you can do at this stage, but even small financial donations can go a long way, especially if practiced by millions of people. We have mentioned Buffett's deep involvement in the Giving Pledge and with the Gates Foundation. He also gave billions of dollars to philanthropic foundations run by each of his three children, Howard, Susan, and Peter.
Buffett has actively supported the Glide Foundation, a San Francisco–based charity that helps the homeless, for more than a decade. Each year the Glide Foundation auctions off a steakhouse lunch with Buffett that goes to the highest bidder. How much do you think this lunch goes for today? A few thousand dollars? Try several million dollars! The record was set in 2019 by cryptocurrency pioneer Justin Sun who had a winning bid of $4.57 million! Since Buffett has come down hard on cryptocurrency, referring to bitcoin as “probably rat poison squared,” the conversation at that lunch must have been interesting indeed!
The prior records were set in 2012 and in 2016 with both winner(s) bidding $3,456,789. We're guessing the winners for these years had an affinity for Buffett and numbers (notice the sequence 3, 4, 5, …, 9). The table in the Appendix shows the winning bid each year, which started at “only” $25,000 in 2000 but quickly went into six and seven figures within a few years.
On the great work done by the leaders and volunteers at the Glide Foundation, Buffett said, “Glide really takes people who have hit rock bottom and helps bring them back. They've been doing it for decades. If I can help out by raising some money for them, then I enjoy doing it.”
How do you know if the charity is doing a good job? We'll share some background info on this topic, supported by some of Buffett's historical comments, as usual. Pretty much all charities are nonprofit, but it doesn't mean that the people there work for free. It might surprise you to learn that some heads of charities earn over a million dollars a year!
Most charities are organized according to a part of the IRS tax code that goes by the number/letter combo of 501(c)(3). There are a few things you should know about 501(c)(3) organizations. First, donations to them are tax deductible. This point is a biggie, since it makes it a lot easier for them to receive donations. Second, there are a bunch of record-keeping and reporting requirements for the organization. If they don't do this paperwork, there is a chance the charity can get busted and put out of operation. From these reports it's possible to get a rough estimate of how efficient the charity is with the donations it receives. Would you rather donate to a charity that gives virtually all of its money to its primary cause or to its employees? We won't insult your intelligence with an answer to that question.
Let's provide an example of a foundation with an excellent record of both impact and efficiency, the Foundation Fighting Blindness. The Foundation Fighting Blindness “drives research to find preventions, treatments and cures for people affected by retinal degenerative diseases.” Since its formation in 1971, the Foundation has raised more than $750 million and has allocated most of the funds toward research and information for those affected by sight loss. They helped fund a prescription drug by Spark Therapeutics, called LUXTURNATM, which uses gene therapy to help restore the sight of some visually impaired patients.
A recent financial report shows that they received about $72.3 million in revenue, primarily from donations. They spent only $2.7 million on administrative expenses, an “overhead” percentage of only 3.7%. Historically, most of their donations went to fund research or to sponsor events supporting their cause and not in the pocket of some “fat cat” administrators. You can track down the tax filings of most 501(c)(3) firms on the Internet since they are public. There are also websites such as Give.org and Guidestar.org that summarize the financial results of thousands of charities. You might want to check them out before you donate your time and money to a specific cause.
Now let's get back to the wisdom of Buffett. He has a nice quote on the importance of checking results. In Berkshire's Annual Report, Buffett consistently lays out some operating principles of his firm. One principle, taken from his 1983 Letter to Shareholders is, “We feel noble intentions should be checked periodically against results.” He was actually talking about profit-making enterprises in this case, specifically how well companies reinvest their earnings. He believes firms should deliver to shareholders at least $1 of market value for each $1 retained. However, his point about checking results certainly applies to nonprofits as well, and we think this quote merits a Tip.
Buffett also provided some guidance on how to measure performance. The performance metric should be specified in advance. It should also be objective and measurable—such as his comment about firms earning more than $1 for each $1 of retained earnings invested. In Berkshire's 1988 Letter to Shareholders, Buffett wrote, “At too many companies, the boss shoots the arrow of managerial performance and then hastily paints the bullseye around the spot where it lands.” A variation on this comment is worthy of a Tip.
There are probably a ton of examples in your own life where you can set goals in advance and measure them accurately at a later date. For example, you might shoot for a certain GPA if you are still in school, target a percentage of your income to save each year, strive for a certain return for your investments over a period of time, or seek a net worth goal for various age ranges.
The market-based economic system that operates in most countries around the world has generated enormous amounts of wealth, developed amazing technology, and lifted billions of people out of poverty, but it's not perfect. Go to any major city in the US, and throughout much of the world, and you will see homeless people who have been left behind. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people around the world continue to live without access to acceptable levels of food, shelter, health care, and education.
Market-based systems are analogous to Charles Darwin's “survival of the fittest” theory covered in most biology textbooks. Darwin's theory says living organisms need to adapt to their environments or else they risk becoming extinct. The fittest—those that are smart, strong, adaptable—are usually able to make this transition. The economy isn't an organism, but it is dynamic, changing significantly over time. A little over 100 years ago, there were no cars or airplanes. Several decades ago, computers, the Internet, and cell phones didn't exist. Perhaps within your lifetime, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Uber, didn't exist. Each of these inventions or companies has radically changed the way most people live and work.
We previously mentioned Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian and Harvard economist, who coined the term “creative destruction” to describe how some companies and industries are “born” and wind up “destroying” other companies and industries. Society as a whole generally benefits from this economic progress—imagine life without your cell phone and all of its apps—but certain segments and people are adversely affected—sometimes severely.
Let's analyze an example that we all can relate to—listening to music. Thomas Edison is credited with inventing the phonograph, which is essentially a record player. Records are pretty bulky, about the size of a super thin pizza, and not easy to carry around, especially in a car. In the mid-1960s, 8-track tapes became a popular way of storing music. They were about the size of a small sandwich and were more portable than records. Perfect for cruising! In the 1970s and 1980s cassette tapes supplanted 8-tracks for most consumers. Cassettes are even smaller than 8-tracks, about the size of a small cellphone. In the late 1980s and early 1990s compact discs (CDs) began to replace cassette tapes for most music listeners. Although they were larger than cassettes, in length and width terms, CDs exhibited superior music quality and durability. By the time the Internet started to pick up steam in the mid-1990s, digital copies of music became the dominant way of maintaining a music collection. Apple co-founder Steve Jobs marketed the iPod music player very effectively by saying it was like “having a thousand songs in your pocket.” Who could resist that pitch?
If you worked for a firm that manufactured records, 8-tracks, cassettes, or CDs, you eventually would have lost your job. The same holds true for many other industries, ranging from horse buggy whips to typewriter manufacturers. Technological progress can't be, and shouldn't be, stopped. In the early 1800s in England a group of workers, known as the Luddites, tried to destroy machines in an effort to preserve their jobs. Spoiler alert. The Luddites lost their battle. So what does all of this have to do with Buffett? Make no mistake. Buffett calls himself a “card-carrying capitalist.” In a capitalist economic system, most of the property and businesses are owned by individuals. The profits go to the owners of the businesses and usually not the workers. The capitalist economy is primarily driven by market forces, not planned by the government, which is the case in some socialist and communist systems. Some individuals in the capitalist system can earn great amounts of wealth, as Buffett did. But he has also weighed in on how the market-based and capitalist system can negatively affect people. He saw firsthand what happened to the textile workers at Berkshire as he unsuccessfully tried to turn around that business for many years.
We've all seen dead animals that have been run over by cars (i.e., roadkill) at some point in our lives. Probably one too many times. When questioned about how economic progress hurts some people, Buffett replied, “We should take care of people who've become roadkill because of something beyond their control … I think that's the obligation of a rich country.” He then went on to say how in a rich society, like that of the US, the government should find a way to take care of these affected people.
In his 2005 Letter to Shareholders, Buffett recommended at least one specific remedy for those able to find employment—expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. This tax credit is exactly what it sounds like. It results in less taxes paid for people who work, as opposed to getting a direct cash payment from the government. The tax credits are generally larger for a person with (more) children.
Buffett wrote, “The solution, rather, is a variety of safety nets aimed at providing a decent life for those who are willing to work but find their specific talents judged of small value because of market forces. (I personally favor a reformed and expanded Earned Income Tax Credit that would try to make sure America works for those willing to work.) The price of achieving ever-increasing prosperity for the great majority of Americans should not be penury for the unfortunate.” In case you are wondering, penury is one of those SAT/ACT words meaning extreme poverty.
What about helping people who are unable to find new work, especially after unemployment insurance runs out? (Unemployment insurance typically lasts up to six months, but in uncommon circumstances can extend for up to 1.5 years). The question about how to best serve the long-term unemployed is subject to considerable debate and beyond the scope of this book. However, it likely involves some form of education, retraining, (additional) tax credits, and direct cash payments. For example, part of the stimulus package following the COVID-19 pandemic involved direct cash payments to households with a combined income of less than $198,000 per year, or $99,000 for a single filer. One purpose of Buffett's (co-)creation of the Giving Pledge was to help people who became roadkill in the wake of economic progression or health care crises. Let's summarize Buffett's views with a Tip.
A Benjamin is slang for the US $100 bill, since founding father Benjamin Franklin's face is on its front side. Of course, we know that Buffett has made a ton of money over the years. So it may surprise you that he has left some money on the table, sticking with subpar businesses and the related costs involved, such as employee salaries and taxes paid to state, local, and federal governments. Perhaps Buffett's most prominent example in this regard relates to the many years he tried to turn around Berkshire's original clothing and textile business. A quick glance at the tag on your clothes will reveal that most are manufactured outside the United States. It's usually a lot cheaper, often 90% less, to make them elsewhere. Eventually, Berkshire shuttered virtually all of its textile manufacturing plants in the US, but he tried to turn the business around for well over a decade. In Berkshire's 1978 Letter to Shareholders, Buffett referred to his community of stakeholders in the following manner:
(1) Our textile businesses are very important employers in their communities, (2) management has been straightforward in reporting on problems and energetic in attacking them, (3) labor has been cooperative and understanding in facing our common problems, and (4) the business should average modest cash returns relative to investment. As long as these conditions prevail—and we expect that they will—we intend to continue to support our textile business despite more attractive alternative uses for capital.
Buffett and Berkshire's behavior toward underperforming assets largely boils down to a philosophy of being loyal, patient, and having a long-term focus. It also puts Berkshire near the top of the list for owners of businesses looking to sell. After all, if you were selling a business that you grew and nurtured for decades, you'd probably want it to be in good, long-term hands once you're gone. If a business continued to burn cash, like Berkshire's textile business did, it would eventually be closed down at Berkshire. In Buffett's 2011 Letter to Shareholders, he expressed it this way:
Our approach is far from Darwinian, and many of you may disapprove of it. I can understand your position. However, we have made—and continue to make—a commitment to the sellers of businesses we buy that we will retain those businesses through thick and thin. So far, the dollar cost of that commitment has not been substantial and may well be offset by the goodwill it builds among prospective sellers looking for the right permanent home for their treasured business and loyal associates. These owners know that what they get with us can't be delivered by others and that our commitments will be good for many decades to come.
Let's simplify Buffett's comments into a Tip about considering all of the people that interact with a business, known as stakeholders. The term stakeholders, with respect to your own life, may be generalized to the people you interact with—family, friends, classmates, co-workers, and so forth.
Way back in September 1987, Buffett invested $700 million in the stock of Salomon Brothers, a well-known Wall Street firm at the time. The investment was in a variation of the type of common stock that we focused on throughout much of this book called convertible preferred stock. Let's not worry about the nuances of this particular type of stock since it's not important to the story. The investment amounted to about 12% of Salomon Brothers and was the biggest dollar investment that Buffett had ever made until that point. The investment didn't get off to a good start because the infamous Crash of 1987, where the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell an astonishing 22.6% in one day, happened shortly thereafter! It was the biggest single-day loss ever. Not panicking during times of distress is a Tip we referred to in Chapter 5, but our new lesson comes from what happened a few years later.
In 1991, Paul Mozer, a top trader at Salomon Brothers, rigged the auction of US Treasury bonds, one of the largest and most important financial markets in the world. Recall that US Treasury Bonds are the bonds that the US government sells to finance both its short-term operations and huge, long-term debt. In fact, Mozer committed several violations, even after being caught by Salomon's legal department. He eventually went to jail for it. Once the federal government got wind of the illegal actions at Salomon, they threatened to put the firm out of business. This would have likely wiped out the bulk or all of Buffett's massive investment in Salomon, so he promised to step in as chairman of the company and clean up the mess. Buffett isn't a saint. He did this to protect his investment and potentially to minimize the effect on the overall financial system. Salomon did more than just make a promise. They also paid the US government a $290 million fine.
During Buffett's testimony to Congress, detailing what happened at Salomon and the changes that were taking place at the firm to prevent another big problem, Buffett uttered one of his most famous quotes. “Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding; lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless.” Buffett's rationale is that damage to the reputation of a firm may have a lasting effect, while the loss of money can often be recovered in the future, especially when the economy or financial markets turn for the better. That thought merits a Tip.
In case you are wondering, Buffett eventually made out just fine on his Salomon investment. The firm was allowed to continue to operate, despite paying the huge fine noted previously, and it was ultimately sold to insurance firm Travelers and subsequently merged into Citigroup. You may be thinking, “Does Buffett practice what he preaches?” We think the answer is yes.
Dairy Queen (DQ) is one of the more high-profile Berkshire companies due to its range of delicious ice cream products and national footprint, although DQ counts for only a tiny percentage of overall firm profits. As we said in Chapter 1, in early 2017, James Crichton, a Dairy Queen franchise owner, shouted a racial epithet at a customer and her two children. Almost immediately, Chrichton's Dairy Queen franchise was terminated, and the store was closed. It's unlikely that Buffett got directly involved in the termination due to his hands-off management style, but he set the culture at Berkshire. Dairy Queen's management responded just as Buffett would have, with swift action due to Chrichton's reprehensible comments and also because of the loss of reputation for the firm.
Another more widely cited example concerns the former Berkshire senior executive David Sokol. Some suggested that Sokol was once so well regarded by Buffett, that he was in line to be the CEO of Berkshire, when Buffett eventually left the post.
The short version of the story is Sokol purchased roughly $10 million of an oil-related stock called Lubrizol in early January 2011. What's wrong with that? Well, shortly thereafter he suggested that Berkshire buy the entire company, a transaction that would make Sokol a ton of money quickly. He disclosed his purchase of Lubrizol, so it wasn't illegal insider trading by the letter of the law. At first, Buffett wasn't interested in purchasing Lubrizol, but Sokol kept suggesting the takeover to him. Berkshire eventually did offer to buy the company and Sokol made more than $3 million in a few months. Sokol's actions violate the ethical norms of most companies. In lay terms, they don't pass the “smell test” of ethical behavior.
Once word got out about what happened, a controversy ensued. Sokol offered to resign, and Buffett quickly accepted his resignation. An interesting footnote to the story is that for unrelated reasons Sokol had offered to resign twice in the past and Buffett firmly refused to accept the resignation letters. Buffett later said about the Lubrizol incident, “I obviously made a big mistake by not saying, ‘Well, when did you buy it?’” He found Sokol's actions “inexplicable” and “inexcusable.” Buffett's actions in the Sokol case weren't as swift or forceful (i.e., allowing a resignation rather than immediate termination) as the Dairy Queen incident, but the message is clear. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and he will be ruthless in the end result.
You've probably heard the expression “Charity begins at home.” One interpretation of this phrase is that it's great to help others, but don't forget about the people who are part of your family or community. However, leaving family members a wad of money may sap their incentive to work or lead productive lives. Buffett addressed the topic of how much money a wealthy person should leave to their children with a phrase that would make King Solomon, a fabulously wealthy and wise ruler of ancient Israel, proud. He said, leave children “enough money so they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.” When pressed for a hard dollar number, Buffett replied, “A few hundred thousand dollars” for a recent college graduate sounds about right. A few hundred thousand is enough to help someone start a business, put a down payment on a house, pay off student loans, and get a financial head start in life. It's not enough to enable someone to be a couch potato for a decade or more.
A-list actors Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis, who as you might know are married to each other, expressed similar views noting that they wouldn't be leaving their kids a trust fund. Kutcher said, “If my kids want to start a business, and they have a good business plan, I'll invest in it.” Buffett did something similar decades ago, lending his eldest son, Howard, money to buy a farm while charging him a market rate of interest.
Buffett believes rewards should be earned on merit, not simply because you have a connection to someone who is successful. In an interview with The New York Times he expressed a similar thought when he said repealing the estate tax, which is a tax on inherited assets, is similar to “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics.” Let's close this section by putting Buffett's quote about the amount a wealthy person should leave their kids as a Tip.
Buffett has seen and accomplished a tremendous amount over his amazing life and has certainly developed some worldly wisdom. He views himself as being very lucky to have been born to loving parents and in a country that rewarded his particular set of skills—a knack for making money. He refers to his good fortune as winning the ovarian lottery. In a Fortune magazine interview, he said, “My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery.”
Although this book has a primary focus on financial matters, and in particularly financial literacy, we think it's fitting to end it with Buffett's definition of success. It might surprise you, but his definition is decidedly non-financial in nature.
In an interview with Fortune magazine in 2013, Buffett said, “If people whom you want to have love you love you, you're a success.” It's a powerful quote, but especially coming from one of the richest people who ever lived. A man who knows the value, or lack thereof, of money. We think that's a great last Tip for our book and one that should never be forgotten.
Charitable Lunch Auctions for Warren Buffett, Benefiting Glide Foundation
| Year | Winner | Winning Bid |
| 2000 | Anonymous | $25,000 |
| 2001 | Anonymous | $18,000 |
| 2002 | Anonymous | $25,000 |
| 2003 | David Einhorn, Greenlight Capital | $250,010 |
| 2004 | Jason Choo, Singapore | $202,100 |
| 2005 | Anonymous | $351,100 |
| 2006 | Yongpin Duan, California | $620,100 |
| 2007 | Mohnish Pabrai, Guy Spier, Harina Kapoor | $650,100 |
| 2008 | Zhao Danyang, Pure Heart Asset Management | $2,110,100 |
| 2009 | Salida Capital, Canada | $1,680,300 |
| 2010 | Ted Weschler | $2,626,311 |
| 2011 | Ted Weschler | $2,626,411 |
| 2012 | Anonymous | $3,456,789 |
| 2013 | Anonymous | $1,000,100 |
| 2014 | Andy Chua, Singapore | $2,166,766 |
| 2015 | Zhu Ye, Dalian Zeus Entertainment Co. | $2,345,678 |
| 2016 | Anonymous | $3,456,789 |
| 2017 | Anonymous | $2,679,001 |
| 2018 | Anonymous | $3,300,100 |
| 2019 | Justin Sun | $4,567,888 |
Source: Bloomberg.