3 ms·

> Musk, with a wealth 100x that of Hughes at $290 billion I've never really understood this kind of net worth valuation. Since most of that value is tied up in

> Musk, with a wealth 100x that of Hughes at $290 billion I've never really understood this kind of net worth valuation. Since most of that value is tied up in Telsa stock, he's only worth that as long as he keeps doing what he's doing. In a way he's a slave to his net worth (not that I would mind being in his financial position). If, tomorrow, Elon throws his hands up and decides he's had enough and wants to exit his position, there would be significant downward pressure on TSLA price not just from his huge sell orders but from the panic of investors wondering why Elon is quitting. (Ex: TSLA was down 15.4% the week of his recent sale of $6.9B which was somewhere around 3% of his holdings). I'm also not sure how cap gains taxes are being factored in to, well, anyone's net worth calculation. A more meaningful measure of net worth is probably assets excluding stock in one's day job (or include the stock at a massive penalty depending on the dependency of the company on said person). Which would still probably be billions for Elon.

ItsMonkk 5y ago
This was a fair comparison - the same exact thing was true of Hughes and Rockefeller. But your argument is actually my argument. The past 50 years wealth inequality has grown, and we are now starting to see liquidity issues where for their particular stock. But if we let this trend continue, sometime in the next 100 years, if they intend to sell and use their wealth for some utility, it will have a either have a liquidity effect on the entire market, or/and have substantial wage inflation as a result.
- grog454 5y ago
  >This was a fair comparison - the same exact thing was true of Hughes and Rockefeller. Agreed, but then Hughe's et al net worth are wrong imo as well. If you or I give a two week notice our net worth probably doesn't drop a cent. If some (but importantly not all) UHNW people quit on short notice their networth drops an order of magnitude or more. I presume it can be done with a very long term and carefully managed exit strategy, and I'll assume that's what bill gates did with nothing but the knowledge that he served as a board member long after stepping down as CEO. I suppose my only point is that these top N networth lists are irrelevant at best, and it would not surprise me if significant wealth utility is actually held by people with lower public visibility (inheritors, private company owners, private investors, dictators, etc).

ItsMonkk 5y ago

This was a fair comparison - the same exact thing was true of Hughes and Rockefeller. But your argument is actually my argument. The past 50 years wealth inequality has grown, and we are now starting to see liquidity issues where for their particular stock. But if we let this trend continue, sometime in the next 100 years, if they intend to sell and use their wealth for some utility, it will have a either have a liquidity effect on the entire market, or/and have substantial wage inflation as a result.

grog454 5y ago
>This was a fair comparison - the same exact thing was true of Hughes and Rockefeller. Agreed, but then Hughe's et al net worth are wrong imo as well. If you or I give a two week notice our net worth probably doesn't drop a cent. If some (but importantly not all) UHNW people quit on short notice their networth drops an order of magnitude or more. I presume it can be done with a very long term and carefully managed exit strategy, and I'll assume that's what bill gates did with nothing but the knowledge that he served as a board member long after stepping down as CEO. I suppose my only point is that these top N networth lists are irrelevant at best, and it would not surprise me if significant wealth utility is actually held by people with lower public visibility (inheritors, private company owners, private investors, dictators, etc).