That's a good point. And 'broke' isn't 100% broke just yet, he's not going to have to sleep under a bridge. But he's broke enough that the wrong accident can put him on the far side of the line easily enough. Obviously this goes for many people but they tend to end up in that situation by accident, not by design and as an example to other billionaires he's pretty impressive.
it's really hard to imagine someone at age 89, with 2 social security incomes and $2M, who is apparently more frugal than most technology workers, being one "wrong accident" away from "the far side of the line easily enough".
an 80% loss of that $2M cash leaves him with a paltry $400K which, assuming a rate of return == inflation, is 10 years of $40K/yr spending, to say nothing of 2x SS income.
people's idea of "being broke" is just ridiculous.
Healthcare in the United States is perfectly designed to take your every last penny in the last 6 months of your life. If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.
He'll never be "broke", because with his money he acquired something way more long lasting than cash, which is social acquaintances. Philanthropy has been used to this exact end throughout history, and is still today.
So of course his billionnaires friends will bail him out in the highly improbable event he should really need the money. The level of networking he reached means he doesn't need to spend a dollar until his last breath if he so wished.
>If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.
Aren't you forgetting that that he already "lost" the vast majority of his wealth? If he actually cared about the money he would have given it to his children. If he loses his last $2 million on healthcare he probably wouldn't care.
Nursing homes are only covered longterm if you are destitute. Good places will take your assets and use them all up until it’s gone then apply for Medicaid.
Won’t pay for personal in-home nurses either.
But 2 million should buy him plenty of elder care. I would have kept 10 million just in case.
Based on the famous Trinity study [0], $2M would be enough for he and his wife to draw $80k/year plus social security. That's certainly more than most people are able to retire on, but I wouldn't call it lavish, and I imagine the remainder will be donated after death. I find it hard to fault him for wanting to make sure he and his wife can enjoy their last few years without having to worry too much about the exorbitant cost of end of life care in this country.
You shouldn't compare expenses for someone at this level of networking with a standard one. At his level of social bonds, he can live without money anyway.
Wouldn't Chuck just receive donations from the thousands of people he personally knew and helped? I doubt people would let him go broke under any scenario... the man spent time with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
Try imagining Larry Ellison doing this.