of course it was a leveraged buyout. no single person has $44 billion burning a hole in their pocket, especially not musk, who has most of his net worth tied up

of course it was a leveraged buyout. no single person has $44 billion burning a hole in their pocket, especially not musk, who has most of his net worth tied up in the equity of his various ventures. and that equity is too valuable to trade for a mediocre company like twitter, so it must have been debt, and you don't raise that much debt from the local credit union. musk has access to debt and is experienced enough to know how to employ that access to limit his (and his investors') risk exposure. this is literally finance 101. with that said, should financial systems be tilted this way to favor the wealthy and their capital? no, probably not. while musk is an outlier, in general there's a weak correlation between successes if you take out this skewed access to capital. instead of a few hundred billionaires, we could have hundreds of thousands more of entrepreneurs founding and leading useful companies.