WaPo has an interesting post about the Clintons' finances circa the White House years, using publicly available asset/debt disclosures. There are a few calculation errors however, resulting in ranges that are quite inaccurate for the significant debt years, 1998 to 2003.
The author presents the debt figures as positive, rather than negative, numbers. To find the lower bound of the Clintons' estimated net worth in a given year, he adds together the lowest possible asset figures (given the disclosed range), than subtracts the lowest possible debt figures. But the lower bound of net worth would be found by adding together the lowest possible asset values, then subtracting the greatest possible debt values.
In the alternative, you can keep things simple by assigning the debts negative values. This makes it easier - the lowest number then is the actual lower bound for a category of debt. Then you can just sum the asset and debt figures to arrive at the actual lower bound for the Clintons' net worth in a given year.
For example, here's 1998 (using the figures WaPo provided):
The author presents the debt figures as positive, rather than negative, numbers. To find the lower bound of the Clintons' estimated net worth in a given year, he adds together the lowest possible asset figures (given the disclosed range), than subtracts the lowest possible debt figures. But the lower bound of net worth would be found by adding together the lowest possible asset values, then subtracting the greatest possible debt values.
In the alternative, you can keep things simple by assigning the debts negative values. This makes it easier - the lowest number then is the actual lower bound for a category of debt. Then you can just sum the asset and debt figures to arrive at the actual lower bound for the Clintons' net worth in a given year.
For example, here's 1998 (using the figures WaPo provided):
| Year |
Type
|
Category | Amount (range) [Net Worth per Washington Post] | Net Worth Lower Bound (Lowest Asset & Greatest Debt Figures) | Net Worth Upper Bound (Highest Asset & Least Debt Figures) |
| 1998 | Assets | Trusts | $50,000 to $1,100,000 | $50,000 | $1,100,000 |
| 1998 | Other | $99,000 to $2,910,000 | $99,000 | $2,910,000 | |
| 1998 | Debt | Legal | $2,350,000 to $10,750,000 | -$10,750,000 | -$2,350,000 |
| 1998 | Other | $0 | $0 | $0 | |
| 1998 | Net worth | Net | -$2,201,000 to -$6,740,000 | -$10,601,000 | $1,660,000 |
The Washington Post arrives at a 1998 net worth between -$6.7mil and -$2.2mil. But the accurate range would be -$10.6mil to +$1.6mil.
The error is repeated throughout.
2000 net worth range per WaPo: -$8.8 mil to -$1.5 mil
Actual range: -$9.8 mil to -$519,000
Actual range: -$9.8 mil to -$519,000
2001 net worth range per WaPo: $4.7 mil to $24.6 mil
Actual range: $464,000 to $29.9 mil
Actual range: $464,000 to $29.9 mil
2002 net worth range per WaPo: $350,000 to $3.7 mil
Actual range: -$4.4 mil to $8.5 mil
Actual range: -$4.4 mil to $8.5 mil
2003 net worth range per WaPo: $431,000 to $3.8 mil
Actual range: -$4.2 mil to $8.5 mil
Actual range: -$4.2 mil to $8.5 mil
The Clintons' debt figures in subsequent years are nonexistent or relatively negligible, so the calculation error doesn't significantly distort those estimates.
No comments:
Post a Comment