4 ms·

That's where a lot of people get confused on "wealth". A majority of the top 100 richest folks dont have that liquid. Sure, they can borrow against their assets

That's where a lot of people get confused on "wealth". A majority of the top 100 richest folks dont have that liquid. Sure, they can borrow against their assets, but that does change their wealth status in some ways. Musk doesn't have 185b in bills that he can go make it rain at a strip club. In some sense, the whole stock wealth count is weird since as you offload your stock at a large volume, you tank the value. Dropping your wealth even more. Paper profit, accounting wealth, assetable value, and whatever else its called gets weird when you think about it in practical terms.

statstutor 6y ago
Why would you need liquid 185b? Why would you take 185b to the strip club? (I would even dispute your claim - I assume that strippers would absolutely not mind if you brought them 185b of paper assets). Even if it takes a lifetime to see that value, you have a Richie Rich [edit: I mean, Brewster's Millions] problem of how to spend it. Employing people's labour or buying capital is expected and won't tank the value - and what else would you want to do with it?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bidirectional 6y ago
Do they? This type of comment is posted everywhere as if it is some kind of revelation. I think maybe young children think that, but I'd imagine the average adult has grasped the idea that Musk is rich because he owns companies. And they more often do have it liquid, publicly traded stocks are a liquid asset. They can also convert it into cash far more easily than you seem to imply, Bezos sells billions in Amazon stock every year, Gates owns ~2% of Microsoft now down from 25% in the 90s, etc. Sure if Bezos decided tomorrow to flood the market the price would plummet, but he could easily put together a plan for selling his share over the next few years, especially now he is no longer CEO.
- vp8989 6y ago
  "but he could easily put together a plan for selling his share over the next few years, especially now he is no longer CEO" That doesn't sound very liquid to me.
  - bidirectional 6y ago
    Stocks are liquid assets by definition.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  I dont have a revelation what so ever. I think 80%+ of HN users easily know about this. But there are some that dont. It's not a bad idea to just throw out, every now and then, a simple explanation for people to start of a rabbit hole education on the topic who are unaware. Also, to me, it's interesting to think about in terms about how fragile and kind of weird weath perception is. We think Musk is the "richest", but it's not like he is rich enough to move that amount of money around at his whim. I bet there are lower tier rich people with more cash that in a practical aspect, we would think of richer when it comes to speed of use. Like, if you needed to borrow $1k from a friend to help for rent/mortgage next week. Who can help you faster, the one with $1k in hand or the one with $10k in assets and can get you the $1k in 2 weeks after unloading (a little hyperbolic, I know)? I'm not saying one is better than the other either. What is more useful, $100k in a safe or a $100k Haas CNC mill? I say the cnc. But you can say the 100k in cash has better opportunity potential, especially if the cnc doesn't work out, including the immediate 25% devaluing since it's now "used". Which is true too. Again, no revelation. Just interesting to remind yourself from time to time and if someone doesn't know about this already, it's nice to enlighten them. Plus the idea of money and value gets super weird when you realize how easy it is to manipulate.

statstutor 6y ago

Why would you need liquid 185b? Why would you take 185b to the strip club? (I would even dispute your claim - I assume that strippers would absolutely not mind if you brought them 185b of paper assets). Even if it takes a lifetime to see that value, you have a Richie Rich [edit: I mean, Brewster's Millions] problem of how to spend it. Employing people's labour or buying capital is expected and won't tank the value - and what else would you want to do with it?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bidirectional 6y ago

Do they? This type of comment is posted everywhere as if it is some kind of revelation. I think maybe young children think that, but I'd imagine the average adult has grasped the idea that Musk is rich because he owns companies. And they more often do have it liquid, publicly traded stocks are a liquid asset. They can also convert it into cash far more easily than you seem to imply, Bezos sells billions in Amazon stock every year, Gates owns ~2% of Microsoft now down from 25% in the 90s, etc. Sure if Bezos decided tomorrow to flood the market the price would plummet, but he could easily put together a plan for selling his share over the next few years, especially now he is no longer CEO.

vp8989 6y ago
"but he could easily put together a plan for selling his share over the next few years, especially now he is no longer CEO" That doesn't sound very liquid to me.
- bidirectional 6y ago
  Stocks are liquid assets by definition.
NoOneNew 6y ago
I dont have a revelation what so ever. I think 80%+ of HN users easily know about this. But there are some that dont. It's not a bad idea to just throw out, every now and then, a simple explanation for people to start of a rabbit hole education on the topic who are unaware. Also, to me, it's interesting to think about in terms about how fragile and kind of weird weath perception is. We think Musk is the "richest", but it's not like he is rich enough to move that amount of money around at his whim. I bet there are lower tier rich people with more cash that in a practical aspect, we would think of richer when it comes to speed of use. Like, if you needed to borrow $1k from a friend to help for rent/mortgage next week. Who can help you faster, the one with $1k in hand or the one with $10k in assets and can get you the $1k in 2 weeks after unloading (a little hyperbolic, I know)? I'm not saying one is better than the other either. What is more useful, $100k in a safe or a $100k Haas CNC mill? I say the cnc. But you can say the 100k in cash has better opportunity potential, especially if the cnc doesn't work out, including the immediate 25% devaluing since it's now "used". Which is true too. Again, no revelation. Just interesting to remind yourself from time to time and if someone doesn't know about this already, it's nice to enlighten them. Plus the idea of money and value gets super weird when you realize how easy it is to manipulate.