Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (720335)

6/10/2013 12:57:14 AM

From: joseffy

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1586802

Saudi prince Alwaleed sues Forbes over his rank on billionaires list

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is suing Forbes magazine, accusing it of underestimating his wealth on its annual list of the world's richest people. (Yahya Arhab / EPA / May 24, 2009)

By Shan Li June 8, 2013
latimes.com

A Saudi Arabian billionaire prince has sued Forbes magazine in London, accusing the publication of underestimating his wealth in its highly scrutinized annual list of the world's richest people.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal claims the magazine was "deliberately biased" when ranking him at a lowly 26th place in its 2013 tally of the super wealthy, according to court documents cited by the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper.

The magazine pegged his net worth at $20 billion. The prince claims it is closer to $30 billion. The difference? About $9.6 billion, the Guardian reported.

The alleged inaccuracy has the business mogul, who holds a stake in Twitter, reportedly fuming. In addition to the Forbes publisher, Bin Talal also filed suit against its editor and two of its reporters, the Guardian reported.

Forbes may have angered the prince further with an article examining the way he calculates his net worth, deeming it "an alternate reality" driven in part by his need for public validation.

"For the past few years former Alwaleed executives have been telling me that the prince, while indeed one of the richest men in the world, systematically exaggerates his net worth by several billion dollars," Forbes reporter Kerry Dolan wrote. "This led Forbes to a deeper examination of his wealth, and a stark conclusion: The value that the prince puts on his holdings at times feels like an alternate reality."

For example, the value of his publicly traded company Kingdom Holding seemed to rise and fall based on factors "more tied to the Forbes billionaires list than fundamentals," Dolan wrote.

The magazine said Forbes has been the target of "a quarter-century of intermittent lobbying, cajoling and threatening" when it comes to Bin Talal's ranking on the billionaires list.

"Of the 1,426 billionaires on our list," Dolan wrote, "not one – not even the vainglorious Donald Trump – goes to greater measure to try to affect his or her ranking."

To persuade Forbes to use his own calculations when tabulating its annual list, the prince has offered up his private banker in Switzerland and flown his company's chief financial officer to New York from Saudi Arabia, the magazine said.

A net worth of $30 billion would push bin Talal to ninth place, tied with Liliane Bettencourt and her family, who hold a large stake in cosmetics giant L'Oreal.

Through Kingdom Holding, the prince is an investor in swanky real estate such as the Savoy Hotel in London and is a stakeholder in multinational corporations such as Citigroup and News Corp.

ALSO:

College graduates see pay drop 7.6% in the last six years

Self-doubt hinders career advancement for women, survey says

Redlands broker is accused of stealing $4.2 million from two clients

To: steve harris who wrote (720335)	6/10/2013 5:32:10 AM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Recommended By joseffy Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586802

My focus in that article was on what was said and what is being said now... Politicians today say anything they want...not what is the truth. Let's start with Obama – just as with his flip-flops on the debt ceiling debate and the use of the military force without Congressional approval, we're reminded again that it's far easier to campaign for president than to confront the leadership responsibilities that come with actually being president. As senator, Obama routinely attacked Bush on this very issue and voted against extending the wiretap provisions in the Patriot Act. In a February 2006 speech on the Senate floor for example, he specifically decried what he called "false choices," saying in part: "Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America." He repeated that view in his 2009 Inaugural Address stating, "[W]e reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." [Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.] Yet, at an event in California this morning, there was Obama embracing the exact opposite position, stating that in fact you have to find the "right balance" between security and privacy: "I think it's important to understand that you can't have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."