4 ms·
That's very limited If you're Jeff Bezos there's no bank that is going to lend you 100B$ against your stock, because: 1. they don't have this money available
by popol12 4y ago
That's very limited
If you're Jeff Bezos there's no bank that is going to lend you 100B$ against your stock, because:
1. they don't have this money available themselves
2. there's less than 100B$ liquidity to dump these stocks on the market if they go down in value and Jeff's assets have to be liquidated, so the bank will limit the amount of money it will lend
- eastern 4y agoThe liquidity of anyone's stock holding depends entirely on how much one holds compared to how much is routinely traded on the markets. If I own 0.01 percent of any heavily-traded stock, it's 100% liquid. I can sell it whenever I want at a moment's notice. In any such accounting it will be added to my liquid wealth. But if I own 25% of the same stock, it's illiquid. If I also run the company, then it's worse because any attempt to sell a large part of my holding will itself trigger a crash in the price.
- pastacacioepepe 4y agoPoor Bezos, one of the richest man in the world, yet has no cash at hand. I've heard stories of him having to ask money to the passerby to afford lunch. So sad to be the richest man but to actually own nothing. Hey poors, take example from Jeff! He's not liquid at all, like all of you, but he's always so happy!
- GaylordTuring 4y agoWho said anything about that you should feel sorry for Jeff Bezos? The parent commentator simply described the circumstances regarding what Jeff Bezos can get. Who are you arguing against?
- pastacacioepepe 4y agoMostly against the trite argument that net worth != liquidity, it's just reiterated everywhere here so I figured I could comment on any thread. Everyone is just skimping on the fact net worth still grants billionaires more power than entire countries have. That is what people are angry for.
- popol12 4y agoThe sole existence of billionaires bothers me a lot, yet I don’t see the issue in rectifying the truth about their fortune being 1 or 2 orders of magnitude smaller than what people believe. But don’t get me wrong, I think they are still way too rich even after accounting for this discount.
- pastacacioepepe 4y agoI agree but I feel this has been rectified over and over, as I'm hearing the argument for years both online and on conventional media. By now it only feels to me as a cheap way to hijack the discussion and derail it further from the fact that we have to debate why billionaires exist and not how liquid they are. In the end the anti-billionaire/anti-system sentiment exists for valid reasons and it doesn't need to be educated to show us that there is an ever growing discontent with the way things work.