4 ms·

It isn't very strange actually. Bill Gates's value is based on the last closing price of Microsoft, and Zuckerberg's is based on the last "closing price" (altho

by DXL 19y ago

It isn't very strange actually. Bill Gates's value is based on the last closing price of Microsoft, and Zuckerberg's is based on the last "closing price" (although a few months ago) of his company. Shares of Facebook have been sold but they are not sold on a regular basis (such as every few seconds, as is the case with MSFT). That's the only difference. Now, you might argue that Facebook is overvalued, but then it would no longer be an objective list.

Readmore 19y ago
I agree that there is a parallel but the difference is very real. While both Bill and Mark have their net worth based on their assets only Bill could actually sell those assets today to achieve that net worth. Also, as you mentioned, Microsoft is traded nearly every second so the value of each of Bill's shares are infinitely closer to their actual value. Zuckerberg's net worth is based off the inflation that Facebook's shares have received after the latest round of investment. He doesn't have the option to sell those assets and as such shouldn't be able to count that as his net worth. I highly doubt that Mark Zuckerberg could sell his shares of Facebook for $1.5 billion right now. I also doubt that had that latest round of financing happened this week that it would have valued the company so high. To place someone on a list as the 'Youngest Billionaire in the World' when he actually has only the chance at $1.5 billion is a mis-understanding. Therefore the term Zuckerbucks should be used to state what his net worth COULD become if he is able to reach a liquidly event.
ivankirigin 19y ago
Liquidity is the huge difference.
- cstejerean 19y ago
  You are correct. But I wonder what would happen to MS stock if Gates decided to dump all of his shares at once. I wonder over what period of time someone can sell their shares without negatively impacting the stock price (and thus their overall income).
foonamefoo 19y ago
Since the stake in Facebook was sold as part of a conditional advertising agreement, it shouldn't count as a "closing price".

by DXL 19y ago

Readmore 19y ago

I agree that there is a parallel but the difference is very real. While both Bill and Mark have their net worth based on their assets only Bill could actually sell those assets today to achieve that net worth. Also, as you mentioned, Microsoft is traded nearly every second so the value of each of Bill's shares are infinitely closer to their actual value. Zuckerberg's net worth is based off the inflation that Facebook's shares have received after the latest round of investment. He doesn't have the option to sell those assets and as such shouldn't be able to count that as his net worth. I highly doubt that Mark Zuckerberg could sell his shares of Facebook for $1.5 billion right now. I also doubt that had that latest round of financing happened this week that it would have valued the company so high. To place someone on a list as the 'Youngest Billionaire in the World' when he actually has only the chance at $1.5 billion is a mis-understanding. Therefore the term Zuckerbucks should be used to state what his net worth COULD become if he is able to reach a liquidly event.

ivankirigin 19y ago

Liquidity is the huge difference.

cstejerean 19y ago
You are correct. But I wonder what would happen to MS stock if Gates decided to dump all of his shares at once. I wonder over what period of time someone can sell their shares without negatively impacting the stock price (and thus their overall income).

foonamefoo 19y ago

Since the stake in Facebook was sold as part of a conditional advertising agreement, it shouldn't count as a "closing price".