>diversif-ACKKKKKKK!!!!!!
>>58704690ok but steve can't cash out. unlike gates who can easily move money around
diversification is what you do when you're a pussy and you have no powerful convictions. simple as
>>58704698This
>>58704690Diversify doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers, most stocks are losers and most gains come from the few winners. The point is you don't know the winners before hand. By diversifying, you can guarantee you're exposed to the winners to some extent.
DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS DIVERSIFIERS
>>58704806unmanly thinking. we're built for high risk high reward. that breeds the best instincts, while taking the safe path breeds dull perspicacy. is this evolutionary psychology? maybe, but i believe that it has been many generations of men taking insane risks that has honed our ability to measure limits and take crazy bets that pay off. just look at the traders who actually take the plunge and find an edge. they ride 500 dollars to 4M. i know two people who did this. /rant
>He fell for the diworsification meme
>>58704698why?
>>58704877because all of that money is in the stock, and there isn't liquidity to sell all of it. he could absolutely get billions selling some of it, but $157 billion? lol no
>>58704882sure, but it's the same for Gates
>>58704704this. it's all or nothing in this clown world.
>>58704889it's a lot easier to sell into many different liquidity pools than only one. gates even rebalanced his portfolio not too long ago
>>58704821TrueAnd that's why I want to fuck a mentally ill 22yo girl.
>>58704690gates is poor because he generously gives away his wealth, balmers just a greedy kike who hoards everything
>>58704882They can take out loans against their stock r tard nigger. He has more than big tits bill
>>58705431Charity is evil (or at least a societal net negative if you're a utilitarian). Bill Gates is evil even beyond his """charity""". I may not like Ballmer but at least he's smart with money.If Ballmer was even smarter he'd be corrupting and taking over a small state with his many children, but it looks like Musk will be the first to start a dynasty of all the current new billionaires.
>>58704690Balmers got balls.
>>58704698you dont cash out. you just borrow against it. the interest is less than the tax of selling too. its a win win
>>58705431Yeah to his wife and those Epstein kids
>>58704690157 Billion is literally nothing tho, according to this board probably
>>58704690Now try selling 157 billion worth of ONE just ONE stock and see how you'll get 1/10th of that amount because you've caused a giant dump. Paper wealth
>>58704690Stupid statement and comparison that neglects facts and factors as follows:Gates had to 'share' with his wife.Gates put insane amounts of money into 'charity'.Gates put insane amounts of money into research (pharma and so on).Without these factors, he's be up 4x plus against Ballmer.Diversification is key and makes sense absolutely.
>>58704690but buffett was always against diversifying
>>58704690After a certain point, the value of more money isn't linear anymore. They both are billionaires, it's all the same there. To get from 1k to 100k, you need different tactics, and that's a much more important step.
>>58705457>(((Ballmer))) >He should start corrupting and taking over Anon, I've got some news for you...
>>58705828He might have even done it all on purpose, since being the world #1 in wealth is kind of a shitty situation, you're the first person every commie thinks about when they want someone to hateSeems like he's happy with being more like 10th and deliberately hemorrhaged his position
The funny thing is that Ballmer is legit an idiot, was simply in the right place right time and latched onto the right coattail. He almost ruined the company when he got CEO duties. Only smart thing he's ever done is not sell that stock.
>>58704896That's why I'm all in digital oil
>>58704690i just buy stock on the companies i personally like
>>58706398I don't like any of these kike globohomo companies though.
>>58704698>steve can't cash outhe can lol
>>58704882>there isn't liquidity to sell all of ityes there is lolyou're just making up a liquidity crunch
>>58704690Is there a way to find out how much liquidity exists on the exchanges which trade the assets giving Ballmer his net worth?
>>58704821stfu retard with that mentality you might as well go to a casino if odds don't matter to you big man, let see how long you can pay rent for "chad".
>>58706493Ballmer selling would definitely cause sippage would get far less than 157 billion
>>58705439what fucking bank is going to give him a loan for ANYTHING other than the average liquidity in MSFT? when you ask for a collateralised loan for billions you are now dealing with some 200IQ risk manager that will only accept your application if it benefits him and the bank. this psychopath would would attempt to crash MSFT if it would benifit him.
>>58706520The point is that he didn't sell manageable chunks off over time like most do, which causes no slippage
>>58704690Ballmer makes like 2billion a year off the dividend alone. Shit is insane.
