Being a generational running back with a huge NFL contract makes it much easier to invest like this than the average back who only lasts a couple of years in the NFL. Plus Barkley is also the beneficiary of plenty of endorsements. When the average player is out of the league in 3 years, often due to injury, it's not unexpected that they may have financial difficulties. Most of the degrees they get aren't worth much, and while the minimum salary looks enticing, the taxes eat it up quickly, as do all the people clamoring for a cut.
Being a famous sports figure in general makes it easier to invest in these assets. Many VCs will bend over backwards to have a famous sports personality involved in their firm or investments.
Even a non-famous person with ~$20mm to invest (somewhere around the after-tax amount of his rookie contract) would not get a seat at the table at these VC firms.
Yeah, it seems like these "investments" are halfway to endorsement deals. He endorses the companies for marketing purposes and is paid in access to investments that typically aren't available to someone of his specific tier of wealth.
I also see no real indication that Barkley is especially good at what he is doing here. Is there a reason to believe that anything but luck separates his investments, including in crypto, from deals his peers like Tom Brady and Steph Curry made with FTX that got those guys pulled into the company's legal problems?
This x1000000.
He's a generational talent who signed a $30 million rookie contract.
I know guys who played in the NFL and they got paid a sliver of that, at best. They are out of the league. 99% of guys who make it aren't Saquon Barkley. Shit, 99% of guys in his position aren't at his level. RBs do not last at the NFL level for very long. There's always some young new hotshot out of the college game who is faster, younger, and not beat up.
The big issue is that most of those guys spent their entire lives to that point to play in the NFL. They didn't challenge themselves in high school or college from an academic standpoint - they focused on football. They took home through that 3 year rookie deal MAYBE $200k-300k total after tax, outside training expenses, agent expenses, etc.
> They didn't challenge themselves in high school or college from an academic standpoint...
A slightly different perspective: they weren't challenged academically, primarily because they excelled at footballs/sports. I had a friend in high school (back in the 80s) that was, coincidentally, also a star running back, broke rushing records, played for a good college, all that. However, he never made it to the NFL. He coasted through high school because everyone wanted him on the field and didn't care at all about his education. College was even worse. He told me for most semesters he didn't even know what his classes were; he was there only to play football, and that was made very clear to him from the start.
It's easy to point the finger, like, "You should've challenged yourself in high school!", and that's true. But for a lot of these kids, "the system" either simply looks the other way or actively discourages them from education.
Fortunately for my friend he landed a job in the football program at a small, private college, where he also was able to actually attend classes and eventually get a degree. I think he's retired now, though.
Perhaps I should have worded my statement differently - it's not that the players deliberately didn't challenge themselves, it was more that they were "encouraged" to focus on football. Especially in big time high school and college programs where there's just too much money and prestige involved for anyone to rock the boat or, god forbid take anything off the main focus of football.
For some players, too, they know the allure of the NFL can outweigh anything else, especially if they can run like the wind and ain't too smart but come from a really poor background. The school might know football is their best way out. Sad but true.
How is that possible when minimum rookie deal in the NFL is 4 million over 4 years?
Except for those drafted in higher rounds, most of the years on these rookie contracts are not actually guaranteed. Also, you can expect to lose maybe 15-20% of your roster to injury over the course of the season, so teams are often signing guys from the practice squad to weekly contracts. Practice squad salary is like 200-400k per season depending on tenure.
You’re not drafted and languish on a practice squad.
His change of direction, elusiveness, and vision are all generational. His durability is not or at least he has not displayed it yet. I don't think anyone would put his durability up against AD, Frank Gore, or even Derrick Henry and come out on top.
Bold statement two hours before kickoff but I'm expecting a significant regression this year and for him to be out of the league in two years.
>> high-growth startups in his portfolio include Anthropic (currently valued at $183 billion), Anduril ($30.5 billion), Ramp ($22.5 billion), Cognition ($9.8 billion), Neuralink ($9 billion), Strike (~$1 billion), and Polymarket (~$1 billion)
> His change of direction, elusiveness, and vision are all generational.
I hear he's pretty good at football too.
The "average 3 year" career is a bit like medieval life expectancy, it's pulled down by people dropping out early.
For players on the roster opening day, the average career is 6 years.
For players with 3 years of experience, the average career is 7 years.
First round picks have an average career of 9.3 years.
And if you make a Pro Bowl, your career average is 11.7 years.
League minimum is $840K. Cut it in half for taxes and agent fees and that's still $420K.
You're still talking about exclusive clubs. The PERCENTAGE of NFL players that meet those criteria is relatively small. The majority aren't dropping out early, they're replaced as soon as possible.
Their point is that the length of career is due to injury rather than ability.
And making an opening day roster already puts you 2x longer than the overall average.
> Being a generational running back
He won ROY, and last season was amazing, but the rest of his career is far from generational level production.
It also always help to have generational wealth before ZIRP pumped up all asset prices to the moon. If I was an average Joe with $100k to invest in 2017, I’d be a multimillionaire right now. This is based purely on the public investments I made with the little money I had. If I had access to private markets like startups, it would be worth even more.
> If I was an average Joe with $100k to invest in 2017, I’d be a multimillionaire right now.
You would not 20X your investment in 8 years unless you got extremely lucky and avoided losing anything in risky bets that did not work out.
Many novice investors have gotten lucky on a trade or two and imagined what their return would be if they had invested 10X or 100X more. However, when you have 10X or 100X more capital on the line, you don't play the same game.
I understand the sentiment, but even with dumb money an SPY investment from 2017 is worth 3X and QQQ is 5X. Obviously you’d have to do better than that to make more money, but the article talks about Saquon’s investments in bitcoin and startups. And that’s what I’m comparing against.
I… am skeptical of your numbers.
$100k invested in 2017 turning into $2m in 2025 implies a 46% annualized return over 8 years.
Those numbers are not realistic from even the world’s top hedge funds.
That begs the question of what magic well of oil you struck to yield those numbers? The only public investment I can see is TSLA. And I would not recommend an average Joe YOLO $100k into TSLA.
Off the top of my head:
Bitcoin was around $1k in 2017 and, after jumping up to about $20k, was back at around $4k in 2018. It's recently been over $100k, and fairly reliably been over $40k for much of the time in-between.
Gamestop's share price was below $10, stock split-adjusted, for many years, bottoming at $1 ($4 unadjusted). It infamously rocketed to over $100 ($400) in January 2021, with several similar, seemingly-random bursts of upward volatility since. Even now, depending on your entry, buyers from before the high would have seen somewhere between 200% and 2000% returns. There are a number of other so-called "meme" stocks which briefly performed similarly, though most have not retained even a fraction of their increase.
Both could have been used to hit $2m or more with a single set of buy-sell transactions. That's not considering leveraged trading like options. Keith Gill infamously turned $50k (briefly) into a billion dollars (and is likely, more durably, a centimillionaire).
In short: crypto and options, buying early and holding long. 2017 was actually almost the perfect time to jump in. Someone who was looking in the right direction could easily have struck oil, as you say. (Let's not even talk about the guys who made $660m off the negative oil price incident in 2020.) ZIRP and lax oversight of the securities market structure make odd things happen.
Retroactive analysis like this is almost worthless because these were incredibly risky investments in the moment and would have required a prolonged commitment to them that most didn't have and/or couldn't maintain. Considering the original claim here was that getting these returns wasn't possible without already being wealthy, you might as well ask why OP didn't get a loan to make these investments if they were such a sure thing.
GP asked how it could be possible, this is how. GGP suggested that he'd made such an investment, just at too low a principle amount to see such huge returns. If so, it doesn't matter that the investment was risky; the Sith lord in question made the investment in 2017, and would be looking at crazy returns today if he'd had $100k to put into it, rather than whatever sum he actually did.
As to
>why OP didn't get a loan to make these investments if they were such a sure thing.
You could ask him. Perhaps he didn't qualify. There are people who did this; depending on entry timing, you would certainly have seen enough returned to at least cover interest payments.
The article talks about Saquon’s bitcoin investments and investments in startups. The same argument can be made there as well.
Yes, I have made the same argument elsewhere in this thread saying there is little reason to believe Saquon's record of successful investing is due to anything but luck (and access due to his celebrity)[1], but at the very least he does have a track record of actually making those investments while your comment was purely a retroactive hypothetical.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45131713
Fair point.
But I will say that Saquon has access to deal flow that most of us will never have access to (they mentioned Anthropic and Stripe, for example).
And that was my original point.
> If I had access to private markets like startups, it would be worth even more.
If you (a retail investor) had access to private markets, they wouldn’t be private markets, they’d be public markets.
The chances of being Keith Gill are probably the same as winning the lottery, and I would bet most retail actually lost money in the meme stock craze.
None of those are reproducible investment strategies, they’re “dumb money” gambles.
If someone did turn $100k into $2m using crypto and options, the smartest thing they could do is to cash out and go home, as they will never get more lucky than that.
[not financial advice]
>If someone did turn $100k into $2m using crypto and options, the smartest thing they could do is to cash out and go home, as they will never get more lucky than that.
And the true problem here is that this would be true if they turned $100k into $200k, $100k into $300k, $100k, into $400k... That is always the problem with these crypto discussions, it's all hypothetical, but anyone in this actual situation would have felt an incredible pressure to start taking their profit before they got to the most astronomical returns that are often cited.
As for your last statement, I don't disagree.
As for your first two, none of that matters, because all you asked for was a publicly-accessible way to turn $100k in 2017 into $2.5m today, in response to the claim that GP could have done it. A crypto or a stock YOLO is how. From what he said, he probably did purchase Bitcoin or something else that went up massively in value, but not enough of it to see a large absolute return. I myself was aware of Bitcoin just after its creation, and had a small amount to invest, but instead put most into a blue chip stock on advice from family. Forget $100k, I could have been a millionaire off of $1k. And I can tell you that I probably would have made that wager if I'd had $10k to invest at the time, let alone $100k. I wouldn't have been expecting such ridiculous returns, very few were. However, the common investment wisdom of relying on "time in the market" would have seen at least a portion of the initial investment through to today.
But that's a little beside the GP's original point, which was that generational wealth made those kinds of (highly speculative) investments tenable. I don't see the point in arguing that they don't when they clearly do. You're on a website founded by a company that exists specifically to invest in such a manner. The entire point is to find the "unicorn".
Fair point, I can’t argue with that.
But I will say, finding the unicorn is always a trivial exercise in hindsight and it’s a more difficult exercise to pick tomorrow’s winner. Everyone has a story of, “if I had just invested in Amazon in 2000, I’d be rich.”
If anybody has the next unicorn picks they want to share, I’m open to ideas :)
My investments weren’t yolos and not everything was held to where it is today. Things were obviously bought/sold and diversified
Btc $2k -> $120k (60x held)
ETH 200 -> $4k (20x held)
Tesla 20 => 400 (sold), then bought back in on its recovery at $150 when it went to $100. Sold again at $300.
FB => DCAd my cost down to $120 in the late 2022 (6x now, all holding)
Nvidia => $5 after accounting for splits, now $170 (34x)
Infamous FAANG: Netflix is 8x, Microsoft is almost 10x, Amazon and Google are 5x, apple 7x
Those weren’t my only investments and I’m not pretending to be a genius but even SPY is 3X and QQQ is 5X. But just a little prudent investing would’ve gotten you a lot of money.
If you just held $100k of Microsoft you’d be a millionaire and it won’t need a magic well of oil.
Awesome! It sounds like you made smart investments. I think the kind of person who is here is going to be on average smart about the future.
I stand corrected. I didn’t realize MSFT was up 10x over the last 10 years. Wow.
Bitcoin was in the thousands for most of 2017, that as a booster to a tech heavy portfolio would have done extremely well.
That’s true… BTC returned 100% per year since 2017 (thanks to ChatGPT for the math).
But I would presume a regular Joe didn’t YOLO $100k into that, either.
I guess my original point was: there is no realistic way a retail investor walked away from a $100k investment a multimillionaire after 8 years unless they took an enormous, absurd punt.
If you invested $100K in Microsoft (one of the safest and most valuable and boring company in the world at the time) in 2017 and held, you’d not be a multimillionaire, but you’d be a millionaire. People really underestimate how crazy the asset bubble has been over the last decade.
USD 100k is an absurd amount for most people to invest all at once in anything whatsoever, not to mention the risk level involved. USD 10k is a lot but more reasonable. And that nets way less than USD 100k in this situation, which isn't life changing.
I hate these, it was easy then it is hard now arguments. Yes, some years it's easier to get a job, some years your investment perform better, some years houses are cheaper. But I think over a lifetime it evens out. It's on you.