Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the username or e-mail address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Money

Forbes Billionaires List | 03/12/2009 10:20 am

17 Less Women Billionaires: Forbes Billionaires List Reports

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP/AP

As the world’s economy sinks, women billionaires are watching their fortunes slip away.

According to Forbes magazine’s 2009 billionaires list, there are 17 less women billionaires than this time last year. The latest list shows that there are 72 smart, successful lady billionaires — including media mogul Oprah Winfrey ($2.5 billion) and L’Oréal shareholder Liliane Bettencourt ($22.9 billion). In 2008, there were 99 women ranked.

Of course, many of the richest men in the world also saw a chunk of change vanish. In all, the list shrank from 1,125 billionaires last year to 793. Most shocking: The average billionaire is worth only $3 billion — down from $3.9. The average billionaire is age 63 … Now they’re probably holding off on retirement …

Other women billionaires include:
Begunham Dogan Faralyali ($1 billion) — Turkey’s leading advisor to technology and media firms
Gina Rinehart ($1.9 billion) —  Australia’s richest woman and lone female billionaire who made her fortune mining
Cristina Green ($8.4 billion) — A United Kingdom socialite, wife of retailing billionaire Philip Green


Click here for Forbes billionaires complete list.

Read more about: Billionaires, Economy, Finance, Forbes, Liliane Bettencourt, Money, News, Oprah Winfrey, Wealth

13 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

GreenTears

Apparently, this lousy economy affects even those with the biggest fortunes. It would be nice if those whose wealth is now only in the millions would extend some assistance to help those whose fortunes are quickly approaching zero.

By GreenTears on 03/12/2009 10:34 am
DeBrcaobj
Billionaires are really not that important in the scheme of things. There are much better indicators of accomplishment and value to society.
By DeBrcaobj on 03/12/2009 11:31 am
cajp
Whatever money they may have lost during this mess, it is a drop in the ocean compared to the average worker who is barely making it and have lost their jobs and or homes.  I sure wouldn’t be complaining if I was a millionaire and lost some money I would still think myself very lucky not to have lost everything and still have an income and a home.  Nothing against them having money but in the grand scheme of things right now with this economy the way it is hearing about millionaire’s losing some money doesn’t make feel too sorry for them.
By cajp on 03/12/2009 11:42 am
shirleyadams
who have they helped, people over seas? we need help here at home! they cant take it with them!
By shirleyadams on 03/12/2009 11:55 am
DeBrcaobj

Speaking of the value of Billionaires… check out Stephen Colbert’s take on Ayn Rand:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/61977/the-colbert-report-wed-mar-11-2009#s-p1-…

 

By DeBrcaobj on 03/12/2009 12:56 pm
SJMorgan

Well do remember that just because someones assets equal over a million/billion does not mean they have that sitting in a bank account.  Much of that net worth may be invested in business, real estate, notes and not exactly liquid.

Would you expect them to sell an asset ( who would buy right now)  or close a company and put more people out of work to give it to the less fortunate.

ON Paper many seem wealthy but in reality they hav elittle more cash than the next guy and already give a huge amount of money to those in need.

With the changes in tax deductions sadly you may see less rather than more.

Unless  you goal is income redistribution?  If so what incentive is there towork your fanny off to be one if the government will just distribute it to others that did nothing to earn it? 

 

The BEST thing to do is for the government to get out of the way and let them earn more to give those people their jobs back to get back on their feet!

By SJMorgan on 03/12/2009 1:35 pm
DianaT
Well, I don’t think they need to worry too much about putting bread on the table.
By DianaT on 03/12/2009 4:57 pm
SJMorgan

True Diane….. but what would be an acceptable tax for their success 100% 

I received my 401K statement yesterday and my investment  dropped another 20% in just one month …71% over the past year.  Do you think they are much different?  

By SJMorgan on 03/13/2009 9:44 am
georgiafatwood
Totally not in anyone’s frame of reference…except maybe to relish women’s achievements….which I do….(Isn’t it "fewer" or is that just a schoolmarm channeling?) Sort of like "Oh, mommy….not PATE again…!" I would be happy to hear about the womens’ good works with their fortunes…..Maybe they are sure to put plenty of Reese tomato aspic and Hagerty’s silver polish in the canned goods basket at their church…let’s hope so…….
By georgiafatwood on 03/13/2009 12:34 pm
MsDee1
"Fewer it IS! And ever SHOULD Be!" quoth the channeled schoolmarm. But "fewer" seems to be a word that’s fallen out of fashion…or at least nobody differentiates it and its agreement with plural nouns from "less" and its correct agreement with singular nouns.  Less is all you ever hear these days.  Less people, less dollars, less and less creative ideas.  It’s literally an abomination!  Drives me crazy.
By MsDee1 on 03/15/2009 1:24 am
RainbowPower
Yay for women on the list.  One of these days my name is going to be on that billionaire list.  I just have to make another 999,999,999.10.  Maybe one of these women wouldn’t mind lending me a few bucks…they can cut back on caviar for a day.
By RainbowPower on 03/13/2009 8:48 pm
MsDee1
Honestly, rich or poor, it’s all about who you’ve put your faith in for the past twenty years.  A lot of "wealthy" people have evidently failed us all.
By MsDee1 on 03/15/2009 1:26 am
MsDee1
And many more have not!
By MsDee1 on 03/15/2009 1:27 am