All eyes have been on Los Angeles this week, where firefighters have continued to battle the deadly fires that have displaced thousands of residents and destroyed more than 12,000 structures since they began on the 7th of January. Four major fires, driven by strong Santa Ana winds, have charred more than 100 square kilometres.

Looking at news reports of the aftermath, you would expect to see a sooty palette of ash and charcoal. You probably wouldn’t expect to see what looks like an immersive PR stunt punting the sequel to the Barbie movie. This is the result of hundreds of thousands of litres of hot-pink fire suppressant being doused over neighbourhoods ahead of the flames in a desperate effort to stop them from being destroyed.

Aerial fire suppressants are generally a mixture of water, ammonium phosphate (essentially fertiliser) and iron oxide, which is added to make the retardant visible. Hence, the neon pink colour. The Forest Service, which has used 13 aircraft to dump suppressants on the Los Angeles fires, says the suppressants help starve a fire of oxygen and slow the rate of burn by cooling and coating vegetation and other surfaces.

There are some concerns about toxicity (wouldn’t you feel the same if your whole backyard turned bright pink overnight?), but the suppressants are generally considered safe for people. As for plants and wildlife… well, it’s not exactly clear yet. Then again, when your options are death by wildfire (certain) or fire suppressants (maybe), it makes sense to bet it all on pink.

Here's a video showing you what we mean:

Dealing with disasters is all about choices and trade-offs. Business is the same, with decisions like whether to sell furniture or meatballs to customers. Sometimes, you get to do both. In her column this week, Dominique Olivier digs into IKEA's tasty strategy for getting more feet through the door. This is another example from the fascinating world of consumer psychology. Enjoy it here>>>

On the subject of European retailers, read on for a story of the kidnapping of a co-founder of Aldi back in 1971 and how it led to a fight with the tax authorities. No, we aren't kidding. And in Dominique's Fast Facts, get ready for what the five richest people in the world could buy.

Have a lovely day!

The Finance Ghost (follow on X) | Dominique Olivier (connect on LinkedIn)

TL;DR: In 1971, Theo Albrecht, one of the co-founders of Aldi, was kidnapped. A ransom of seven million German marks was paid for his release. Albrecht later unsuccessfully claimed the ransom as a tax deductible business expense.

Theo Albrecht always knew that he didn’t want to follow his father’s footsteps into the mines. That’s why he chose to learn the grocery trade from his mother instead. Along with his brother Karl, Theo turned a humble grocery store in bombed-out, post-WWII Essen into one of Europe’s largest supermarket chains. This was Albrecht Diskont, better known today as Aldi. With a motto of “The best quality at the lowest price,” Aldi quickly became a household name strongly associated with frugality - and made the Albrecht brothers two of the richest people in the world. How rich, you ask? Enough to make Theo the 31st richest person in the world way back in 2010.

Of course, all that money tends to draw the wrong sort of attention. In 1971, Theo’s life took an unexpected turn when he was kidnapped at gunpoint by a lawyer named Heinz-Joachim Ollenburg and his accomplice, Paul Kron. After a tense ordeal that lasted half a month, a ransom of seven million German marks (about $2 million at the time) was paid to secure his release. A bishop delivered the money, as per instructions. As for the kidnappers - they were eventually caught, but only half of the ransom was ever recovered.

Despite being one of the richest men alive, Theo was thrifty to a fault. He famously negotiated with his kidnappers in order to settle on the “correct” ransom amount, and later tried to claim the ransom as a tax-deductible business expense (sadly, the courts weren’t having it). On the day that he was kidnapped, his kidnappers demanded to see his ID in order to confirm that it was really him - by their own accounts, they couldn’t believe that a man with so much money would be wearing such a cheap, badly-fitting suit.

The trauma of the kidnapping left a lasting mark, prompting Theo and his family to withdraw almost entirely from public life. The Albrechts became notoriously reclusive, hiding themselves on private islands and in guarded houses behind unscalable walls. Theo switched to driving an armoured car (definitely also passed off as a business expense), varied his daily routes to and from work, and shunned the spotlight so thoroughly that the last public photo of him dates to the day after his kidnapping.

Though he lived a life far removed from the public eye, Theo Albrecht’s influence on the retail world was anything but invisible. He died in 2010 with a net worth of $16.7 billion, and what we can only assume to be a closet full of cheap suits.

An assortment of facts that will only take you five minutes to read.

• Elon Musk (net worth $426.8 billion) could buy the Amazon rainforest (valued at $317 billion) and have some change left over.

• ​Jeff Bezos (net worth $234.6 billion) already built his own Amazon, but he could buy the Nile River (valued at $25 billion) nine times over.

• Mark Zuckerberg (net worth $211.3 billion) could buy the Mona Lisa (currently insured for $1 billion) 211 times. Plus, he would have all the data on everyone who visits it.

• Larry Ellison (net worth $202.5 billion) could buy Buckingham Palace (the most expensive property in the world, valued at $4.9 billion) 41 times.

• Bernard Arnault (net worth $182.2 billion) could buy the International Space Station (worth $150 billion), and fill it with every LVMH product you can think of. Out of this world luxury, anyone?