The Saving Advice Forums - A classic personal finance community.

"wealthy people do not pay interest"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Fishindude77 View Post
    In my view, true wealth is getting to the point where it is unnecessary to borrow funds and / or pay interest for your various financial needs. Using your own money and paying cash puts you at a significant advantage over someone else doing the same thing and borrowing.
    The richest of the rich use leverage, do so frequently, and do so wisely.

    Comment


    • #17
      pay interest only if they can make a big enough return to cover the cost of interest.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ~bs View Post
        pay interest only if they can make a big enough return to cover the cost of interest.
        And another important part is to have a backup plan, e.g. ability to pay debt off when conditions require it. Rich people I know seems to be able plan this escape hatch better than most.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by sv2007 View Post
          And another important part is to have a backup plan, e.g. ability to pay debt off when conditions require it. Rich people I know seems to be able plan this escape hatch better than most.
          Like *cough*Donald Trump*cough* filing for corporate bankruptcy three or four times.

          Comment


          • #20
            Rich people are often walking a high wire with risks that are simply untenable to the masses. We just don't have the stomach for it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nutria View Post
              Like *cough*Donald Trump*cough* filing for corporate bankruptcy three or four times.
              I view any bankruptcy of businesses closely associated with me as irresponsible. If I own somebody money, I'll pay him/her back even after a bankruptcy/no legal obligation. I'm not a fan of Trump.

              When I wrote the above, I had in mind the diversified holdings of the wealthy. They may invest into risky, highly leveraged hedge funds that are generally closed to us, but limits will be set on exit conditions.

              There are many other investments but I was just thinking about the above. In real estate, I feel you get more of the gamblers and new money rich people.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by sv2007 View Post
                I view any bankruptcy of businesses closely associated with me as irresponsible.
                Just to clarify: irresponsible by you, or by the person who says that your companies went bankrupt?

                Comment


                • #23
                  I wish I had the means to stay liquid in every transaction.

                  I have 2 kids and we stay well below our means so I can save up for their college education and some other necessities like insurance and gladly they understand why I can't buy them a brand new game console or let them eat out every week.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by sv2007 View Post
                    I view any bankruptcy of businesses closely associated with me as irresponsible. If I own somebody money, I'll pay him/her back even after a bankruptcy/no legal obligation. I'm not a fan of Trump.

                    When I wrote the above, I had in mind the diversified holdings of the wealthy. They may invest into risky, highly leveraged hedge funds that are generally closed to us, but limits will be set on exit conditions.

                    There are many other investments but I was just thinking about the above. In real estate, I feel you get more of the gamblers and new money rich people.
                    As an officer of any publicly traded company, you are an acting fiduciary on behalf of all of the shareholders. It is your lawful duty to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. That would include all legal remedies afforded, including but not limited to, bankruptcy protection from creditors if necessary.

                    It wouldnt be Donald Trump's call to arbitrarily refuse to protect a publicly-traded company from creditors if that option was the best one. As a company fiduciary, failure to act in the best interest of shareholders can land you in prison for a long, long time. See Enron as an example.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TexasHusker View Post
                      As an officer of any publicly traded company, you are an acting fiduciary on behalf of all of the shareholders. It is your lawful duty to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. That would include all legal remedies afforded, including but not limited to, bankruptcy protection from creditors if necessary.

                      It wouldnt be Donald Trump's call to arbitrarily refuse to protect a publicly-traded company from creditors if that option was the best one. As a company fiduciary, failure to act in the best interest of shareholders can land you in prison for a long, long time. See Enron as an example.
                      Of course, competently managing your company so that it doesn't fall into bankruptcy four times is even better than getting into a circumstance where the company having negative value is the best interest of shareholders.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nutria View Post
                        Of course, competently managing your company so that it doesn't fall into bankruptcy four times is even better than getting into a circumstance where the company having negative value is the best interest of shareholders.
                        Keep in mind that all company officers are ELECTED by shareholders. They had the ability to remove Trump any time. My best guess is that he must have delivered for the shareholders sufficiently to keep his job.

                        Additionally, they were NOT the same company - they were four different companies. And over a 25 year period. And these bankruptcies were Chapter 11, reorganization. It wasn't a situation where debts and obligations were discharged.

                        Finally, three of the four companies were directly tied to casinos - an entire industry that was in the tank for a decade.

                        If we are going to debate this, let's at least use some facts.
                        Last edited by TexasHusker; 05-16-2016, 09:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TexasHusker View Post
                          Keep in mind that all company officers are ELECTED by shareholders. They had the ability to remove Trump any time. My best guess is that he must have delivered for the shareholders sufficiently to keep his job.
                          Enron stockholders never ousted their company officers either.

                          Additionally, they were NOT the same company - they were four different companies. And over a 25 year period.
                          Ah, well... Only bankrupting a company every 6.25 years isn't that bad!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                          And these bankruptcies were Chapter 11, reorganization. It wasn't a situation where debts and obligations were discharged.
                          What would you say to a guy who came to this forum asking what to do about having filed 4 Chapt 11 bankruptcies in 25 years?

                          Finally, three of the four companies were directly tied to casinos - an entire industry that was in the tank for a decade.
                          How many casinos have not gone bankrupt in the past 35 years?

                          If we are going to debate this, let's at least use some facts.
                          Like how competently run casinos have somehow escaped bankruptcy?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Ok.





                            ............

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TexasHusker View Post
                              As an officer of any publicly traded company, you are an acting fiduciary on behalf of all of the shareholders. It is your lawful duty to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. That would include all legal remedies afforded, including but not limited to, bankruptcy protection from creditors if necessary.

                              It wouldnt be Donald Trump's call to arbitrarily refuse to protect a publicly-traded company from creditors if that option was the best one. As a company fiduciary, failure to act in the best interest of shareholders can land you in prison for a long, long time. See Enron as an example.
                              But I would pay back the money personally. That's the difference.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by sv2007 View Post
                                But I would pay back the money personally. That's the difference.
                                They didn't default on debt. They simply used Chapter 11 to provide a corridor by which they reorganized debt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X