• Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s worth $240B.

    Him spending $44B on Twitter is similar to someone worth $100k spending $18k on a car or a house remodel or something. Its proportionally a decent amount of money, but it’s not gonna break him if he totally loses it all.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but he took loans from the billionaire equivalent of loansharks to buy it.

    • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Elizabeth Holmes was “worth” 4.5B, now I’m worth more than her.

      That’s the life of frauds. One day you’re a billionaire, the next day you’re in jail with 0.

      • sol@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        they may even fluctuate up, especially if you own a bunch of monopolies backed by the goverment

      • zeppo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh no, they might dip severely and he’ll only have $60B or as a little as $10 billion!

        His problem seems to be more cash flow. As a prominent shareholder and executive, he can’t sell large amounts of his stocks without PR and legal risk. He could do what people like Bill Gates do and sell them slowly on a set schedule, though.

    • anlumo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the reason it’s not going to break him is that Twitter took on the loan, not himself.

      • valkyre09@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

        if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

        Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Hold on…. You’re saying I can take out a loan for $x amount of dollars against a company I don’t own yet and buy it with that money?

          Yes

          I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

          Not the same, a house can’t be a legal person, the owner is the legal person of the house. The money Musk borrowed in twitter is owed by twitter, not by Musk. To do the same with a house, you need to do it through a company.

          That is possible because companies can have limited financial responsibility, meaning the money they owe are not owed by their owners.

          It’s a pretty nifty arrangement, to help the rich stay rich no matter what happens.

          Am I being stupid or is the game more rigged than I thought?

          We are stupid for not being rich enough, and still allowing the rich unfair advantages.

        • zaph@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

          There’s a type of insurance for everything.

        • anlumo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          if I take out a mortgage for a property before I buy it and I destroy the house; the bank still comes after me for the value.

          Only if it was destroyed intentionally.

          Of course, it could be argued that Musk is destroying Twitter intentionally, but that’s for a court to decide.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s what bankruptcy is for. Twitter files bankruptcy, and they can officially tell the banks to stuff it.

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not quite. The the $33 Billion of equity Elon Musk put up junior to the $13 Billion loan.

        That means that if the company starts at $44 Billion then falls to $15 Billion, then Twitter still owes $13 Billion, but Elon Musk only has $2 Billion now.

        Leveraged buyouts are… well… levered. It grossly increases the risk of losing everything.

    • dbilitated@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      he has that much in stock, he doesn’t have that much cash. he also has to make huge payments on what he borrowed to buy twitter so that may affect cashflow and then value of his other companies…

      • sol@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not having that much in cash is a good way to not pay more taxes. If any of his stock is valued 1 cent less than what it’s supposed to be worth in the stock market i’m down to buy all of them.

    • sol@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      With the difference that a car is not the second most popular social network in the world and a big business