How bogus are those billionaire lists, anyway?

I'm often amused by those billionaire lists published by purveyors of finanancial porn like Forbes and Bloomberg.

The editors deliver the numbers with such precision to enhance their publications' authority.

But everyone knows that any billionaire holds countless assets—precious art, gems, offshore bank accounts—that can't be included in any calculation of this nature.

Bloomberg has come up with an innovative twist in the Internet age—delivering visual rankings.

Here, Canada's top tycoon is Globe and Mail owner David Thomson. According to Bloomberg, he's ranked 21st in the world with a net worth of $25.5 billion.

Forbes, on the other hand, has Thomson ranked 24th at only $20.3 billion. That's a pretty big spread.

I wonder if Thomson takes offence over one editor saying he's worth more than $5 billion less than the estimate of another editor.

Meanwhile, Bill Gates tops the Bloomberg list at $72.4 billion, followed by Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim ($67.7 billion) and Warren Buffett ($59.2 billion).

Ikea's coach-flying boss, Ingvar Kamprad, is fourth on Bloomberg's list at $53.9 billion, closely trailed by Spain's richest man, Amancio Ortega ($53.7 billion). 

Forbes, on the other hand, placed Kamprad at 412th with a net worth of a mere $3.3 billion.

Here, Slim was first ($73 billion), followed by Gates ($67 billion), Ortega ($57 billion), Buffett ($53.5 billion), and software entrepreneur Larry Ellison ($43 billion).

The dastardly Koch brothers, who finance climate-change-denial efforts, were sixth and seventh on the Forbes list. Their combined net worth of $68 billion would have catapulted them into second place on the Forbes list. But their combined net worth, according to Bloomberg, is over $90 billion.

Canada's second-richest man, Galen Weston, was 145th on the Forbes list at $8 billion. Bloomberg has Weston in 89th place at $11.7 billion.

B.C.'s best-known billionaire, Jimmy Pattison, is third in Canada according to Forbes, clocking in at $5.5 billion. He's 219th in the world.

Bloomberg only includes 100 billionaires, so we don't know how the editors would have estimated Pattison's net worth.

The Jim Pattison Group is a private company, so it's not required to release any information to the public about its shareholdings.

I have a hunch that anyone who is assessing Pattison's net worth is probably just making a wild guess.

But hey, it helps drive circulation on the newsstands. And isn't that what all of this is about?