47

If my friend gives me a thousand dollars for 0.0001% of my "company", am I technically a Billionaire now?

Ben Miller
  • 115,533
  • 30
  • 329
  • 423
Aditya_math
  • 511
  • 1
  • 4
  • 7
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. New comments will be deleted with no warning. – JTP - Apologise to Monica Aug 12 '21 at 10:56
  • 10
    An actual case of this: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/1941-press-release-37signals-valuation-tops-100-billion-after-bold-vc-investment – ceejayoz Aug 12 '21 at 14:12
  • 2
    @ceejayoz that whole article reads as an onion piece. – CGCampbell Aug 12 '21 at 14:31
  • @CGCampbell Yes; it's intended to point at the absurdity of this sort of valuation approach. – ceejayoz Aug 12 '21 at 14:33
  • 8
    Are you asking whether you can simply go around telling people you're a billionaire? Or is this for some other financial purpose... like securing a loan, fudging your taxes, etc? Telling your grandma that you're now a billionaire has few consequences. Telling your bank the same is wildly different. To whom do you intend to declare yourself a billionaire? – J... Aug 12 '21 at 16:41
  • 25
    if you only own 99.9999% of your $1B company, you're not technically a billionaire... buy those shares back :) – economy Aug 12 '21 at 17:25
  • You are probably interested in the term arm's-length transaction. – chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- Aug 13 '21 at 01:33
  • 1
    @economy as long as the OP has at least $1000 of other net assets, they'd be fine (the point of this question notwithstanding). Additionally, if they have negative net wealth asides from the "company" (more liabilities than assets) then even owning 100% wouldn't make them a billionaire. – Andrzej Doyle Aug 13 '21 at 11:55
  • This question doesn't make any sense. Why do you think you are a billionaire because you have $1,000? Do you understand what a billionaire is and how much 1 billion dollars is? What makes you think having $1,000 is equal to having $1,000,000? What does your company have to do with anything? – TylerH Aug 13 '21 at 13:14
  • 1
    You gotta take liquidity into account: are there buyers for the remaining 99.9999% of your company at that same price? – Tiana Aug 13 '21 at 15:53
  • 8
    @TylerH The unspoken assumption here is that by selling a tiny fraction of the company's shares for the given sum that the remaining shares would, by extension, have the same valuation. Elon Musk's or Jeff Bezos' net worth, for example, is largely tied up in equity, not cash; it assumes they can sell their shares in their own companies at some valuation around the market rate. OP is asking if their trivial transaction would confer the same valuation on their remaining "unsold" shares. – J... Aug 13 '21 at 17:42
  • @J... That assumption is doing some heavy lifting. SE sites typically have much higher standards for questions. – TylerH Aug 13 '21 at 18:42
  • @TylerH Yes, it's a poor question, hence my request for clarification. – J... Aug 13 '21 at 19:12
  • @J... yes, (in response to your last message), that is exactly what I was trying to mean when I wrote this, infact I had even clarified it in some comment, in response to your first question, I had not even thought about that, I mean I had probably just read about some company's crazy valuation and thought this might be quite funny/interesting, I know absolutely nothing about finance, I just thought it would be a cool question, and was curious, hence asked it here – Aditya_math Aug 13 '21 at 20:53
  • Indeed my main point was (is) if someone invests say 100 million in my company at a valuation of 1B$, ie, 10%, that means my company is worth 1B$ and hence as I own the rest of the stocks, I am worth 1B$ (assuming I have not spent that 100 mil), so I was just wondering, what are the limits to this kind of valuation, like what's the smallest amount of money investable for this to work. – Aditya_math Aug 13 '21 at 20:56
  • 2
    In a market, things are "worth" what they could be sold for, not what they have been sold for in the past. In the stock market when there are lots of shares in a company being traded all the time, the price some shares have just been sold for is a decent approximation of the value of the shares (used because you can't measure what they "could" be sold for). But if there's no reason to believe that other people than your friend would pay similar rates to own fractions of your company (i.e. if no one else is buying shares), then there's no reason to believe the whole is worth $1B. – Ben Aug 13 '21 at 23:17
  • 1
    Do you still pay taxes? Then you are not a billionaire. – Jens Aug 14 '21 at 09:02
  • @Aditya_math The limits to this kind of valuation usually start with your company, at very least, becoming a public company. – J... Aug 14 '21 at 11:03
  • 1
    If someone offered me a trillion dollars for my grandson, I would turn them down, so my worth is well over a trillion dollars. Suck it, Bezos! – B. Goddard Aug 14 '21 at 22:43
  • 1
    N.B.: This question was likely inspired by a joke post on LinkedIn that went viral in the last month: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yayimahuman_funding-ceo-startup-activity-6813149183210463233-Bpwi/ – Daniel R. Collins Aug 17 '21 at 15:14
  • @DanielR.Collins lol thats also funny, but i dont use linkedin – Aditya_math Aug 17 '21 at 15:47

9 Answers9

75

The unspoken point behind your question is that people often talk about the value of companies in terms of their market capitalisation which is the price of one share times the number of shares. This methodology has obvious flaws - if all the holders wanted to sell at once the price would plummet, and if someone tried to buy all the shares at once the price would go up a lot. So there's no sense in which the company can actually be bought or sold for that valuation.

On the other hand, for publicly traded companies, the price of one share is at least set by some sort of equilibrium between market participants and you can generally expect people to sell when it goes too high and buy when it gets too low, based on some assessment they each make of the underlying value. So people will often consider that even a large block of shares is worth the current market price, and hence that it forms part of the net worth of someone who owns that block of shares.

The phenomenon that arose this year (2021) of so-called "meme" stocks like Gamestop are a good counter-example. Many of the market participants aren't necessarily acting on a rational assessment of the company's financial prospects, and hence many people would question the current price as a basis for an accurate valuation. But still, there is a market and one could probably sell a reasonable number of shares at the "current" price.

Private companies funded by venture capitalists are another good grey area: they are often valued based on the last funding round. Very uncertain and risky, but someone has made a rational assessment of the value at some point in time.

Your own hypothetical example is on much shakier ground still: no-one who is independent of you and acting rationally is likely to actually think what you sell is worth $1000. And anyone trying to assess the value independently is going to realise that. So in practice it's unlikely you'll actually be able to convince someone you are a billionaire on that basis.

GS - Apologise to Monica
  • 29,974
  • 8
  • 93
  • 119
  • Thanks so much, this is exactly what I was looking for! – Aditya_math Aug 11 '21 at 20:54
  • 8
    More so than not convincing anyone you're a billionaire on that basis, you simply aren't. I think a good test, if you aren't looking to sell your ownership in the company, is what value would a lending institution assign to those shares as collateral for a loan. – TCooper Aug 11 '21 at 21:19
  • @TCooper founders of startups would probably have similar problems using their shares as collateral, but there's at least a reasonable basis for valuation. – GS - Apologise to Monica Aug 11 '21 at 21:24
  • 3
    @GS-ApologisetoMonica a reasonable basis, sure, but are you a billionaire if you can't spend the money? My point is that if a financial institution will lend you x dollars with that as the collateral, there's a concrete dollar value assigned to it. Until then, or until it's sold, it's pure speculation/has no actual value. It's just paperwork. If said company goes bankrupt two months later due to executive waste and public scandal - the valuation from two months ago means nothing. If it was used as collateral though, the loan is still valid (the bank just fired the underwriter though) – TCooper Aug 11 '21 at 21:30
  • 2
    @TCooper agreed. It all defines how you define it. A newspaper saying you're a billionaire might be another metric. – GS - Apologise to Monica Aug 11 '21 at 22:18
  • 2
    @TCooper That makes me wonder how many of the current millionaires/billionaires would be considered such? i.e. how many billionaires have a billion dollars (or whatever currency) to spend. – CGCampbell Aug 12 '21 at 14:22
  • 3
    @CGCampbell You don't have to have a billion to spend to be a billionaire, you have to have a billion in assets that have some fundamental value, assigned either by other's willingness to purchase that asset/portions of it, or a financial institution willing to loan against it as collateral. Without one of those things, the asset's value isn't defined. – TCooper Aug 12 '21 at 22:04
  • 1
    @CGCampbell I imagine vanishingly few billionaires would actually have a billion dollars cash on hand (they're likely to reinvest any significant cash in some kind of asset that will give them a return). The real question is "would this person have a billion dollars in cash, if they chose to liquidate all their assets?" And since we're talking about a hypothetical situation, it's a subjective call. – Andrzej Doyle Aug 13 '21 at 12:01
  • 1
    That said, I think we can all safely agree that should the OP try to sell the rest of their "shares", they would not be able to raise a billion by doing so. Hence: not a billionaire. – Andrzej Doyle Aug 13 '21 at 12:02
  • @AndrzejDoyle - Mmm. Well, if a billionaire wanted to sell their holdings, they could do it other than the stupid way. First, they could sell off their stock a bit at a time. This would not cause a price crash in the short run, and could provide considerable return, although it would take patience and would be vulnerable if someone figured out what was happening and started asking inconvenient questions publicly. Alternatively, they could find a single buyer who wants to take the whole thing for a bit under market value. – WhatRoughBeast Aug 13 '21 at 15:02
  • 1
    Another good example where this type of valuation becomes extremely nonsensical is when they talk of asteroids worth quadrillions of dollars, ignoring that if you actually extracted all the rare metals the prices would plummet to almost nothing (which is exactly what happened to spain when they brought back all the new world gold). – eps Aug 13 '21 at 18:36
45

The term "billionaire" is not a legal or technical term; it can mean whatever you want it to mean. Most people would define it as someone who owns at least $1 billion in assets.

If you own a company, and you convince one person to purchase 0.0001% of the company for $1000, you could argue that your company is worth $1 billion. Sure, call yourself a billionaire. :) However, that value is only an instantaneous value at that moment. Your company is only worth what people will pay for it now. If you don't have another person lined up to buy another share at $1000, then your company isn't really worth $1 billion.

Ben Miller
  • 115,533
  • 30
  • 329
  • 423
  • 26
    Indeed, a recent President called himself a billionaire despite some reports saying he has a negative net worth. – Barmar Aug 12 '21 at 13:35
  • In other words, the purchase in question implies a valuation of the company but good luck buying a yacht based on that. – JimmyJames Aug 12 '21 at 14:59
  • 3
    A single transaction for less than the total shares does not even imply that all the shares are worth that, especially in an extremely illiquid market. So I would say that a single share sale does not at all imply that the company is worth $1 billion. This can easily be chalked up to "outlier demand" which is not easily reproduced. Repeat the trick 10,000x and I'll change my mind. – Lawnmower Man Aug 12 '21 at 18:33
  • 1
    Guess it should actually be "If you don't have a MILLION persons lined up to buy another share at $1000". – MaxD Aug 12 '21 at 19:11
  • @LawnmowerMan Implied valuations are usually (always?) used in illiquid situations. If there's a market price, why bother with an implied valuation? So this does imply that valuation but no one is forced to believe it. – JimmyJames Aug 12 '21 at 19:12
  • @Barmar sure, you can lie, but but it's beyond absurd to think that the word "billionaire" can mean -- quoting Ben -- "whatever you want it to mean". – RonJohn Aug 12 '21 at 21:43
  • @RonJohn True. The lie is based on the fact that some aspects of a person's finances are more visible than others. It's easy to see all the properties with someone's name on it, while all the leverage they used to purchase them is a private matter. If you don't have a prominent facade of wealth, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to believe you're a billionaire. – Barmar Aug 12 '21 at 22:50
  • @RonJohn There is no need to lie. If you want to call yourself a billionaire, then there must exist some currency for which it is true. I am a ZIMBABWE trillionaire b/c I picked up a US penny. – emory Aug 13 '21 at 01:09
  • 2
    You don't need one other person lined up -- you need one million. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Aug 13 '21 at 13:51
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica It's not that you necessarily need one million people willing to purchase, but you do need a continuous demand at $1000 per share. Once the demand stops, the value of the company goes down until it reaches a point where the demand picks up again. – Ben Miller Aug 13 '21 at 14:21
  • @BenMiller-RememberMonica If it's a possibility for the demand to stop, can you reasonably call the company worth 1 billion? As far as I understand you can only call it that coupled with the assumption that the demand is NOT going to stop? – MaxD Aug 14 '21 at 20:17
  • @MaxD There is always a possibility for demand of a stock to go down; stock prices (and correspondingly, market cap) go down and up all the time. But as I said in my answer, your company is only worth what people will pay for it now. If you don’t have people ready to value your company at $1B and put their money up to prove it, it’s not really worth $1B. And whether or not you consider your business worth $1B and call yourself a billionaire doesn’t matter. What really matters in this case is what others think your business is worth. – Ben Miller Aug 15 '21 at 02:33
26

If my friend gives me a thousand dollars for 0.0001% of my "company", am I technically a Billionaire now?

$1000 is definitely 0.0001% of $1Bn. You'd be a billionaire IF:

  1. you own the other 99.9999% of the company, and
  2. have the $1000 from your friend and
  3. other people would pay -- and continue to pay -- just as much as your friend for shares. (If the next guy only wants to pay $100 for that 0.0001%, then the company is only worth $100M; this is the hazard of thinly-traded stocks.)

Step 3 is most important; otherwise, it's an exercise in vanity.

RonJohn
  • 50,666
  • 10
  • 106
  • 170
  • 3
    #1 is missing a 9. Also, why is #2 there? If the wealth is based on the company, why would having "$1000 laying around" matter? – nanoman Aug 11 '21 at 19:24
  • Thank you so much, I have one last question, I mean like we have seen so many highly valued companies (from private investments) completely flop in the public market, ie. people don't agree with that valuation. So, I am kind of confused about that 3rd point, exactly how many people would need to agree with that valuation for me to technically be a billionaire? – Aditya_math Aug 11 '21 at 19:34
  • 2
    Just one, if that person would buy out your share for $1 billion. Accurate valuations based on small transactions only occur on an open market where such small transaction occur regularly over a period of time. – chepner Aug 11 '21 at 19:56
  • 9
    @nanoman you need the other "$1000 laying around" because your fraction of the company is worth slightly less than $1Bn. – RonJohn Aug 11 '21 at 20:07
  • 3
    @Aditya_math the valuation of a company based on share price is point in time. Right now, you might be a billionaire, but tomorrow you might "only" be worth $500M if tomorrow people offer you $500 for 0.0001% of your company. This is a perfect example of the volatility of thinly traded shares. – RonJohn Aug 11 '21 at 20:11
  • @RonJohn , thank you for your response, this stuff seems pretty cool also! – Aditya_math Aug 11 '21 at 20:33
  • @RonJohn Your fraction of the company may be slightly less than $1B, but you also have the $1000 in cash that your friend just gave you. – Ben Miller Aug 11 '21 at 21:27
  • @BenMiller-RememberMonica point taken, so I edited the question. (Of course you don't have it anymore if you then go on vacation...) – RonJohn Aug 11 '21 at 21:34
11

tl;dr– Someone has a strong claim to billionaire-status if they have immediate ownership/control of at least a billion-USD and no debts/liabilities. Others might claim billionaire-status with various caveats. It'd seem reasonable to reject sufficiently unreasonable arguments.

Strict definition of billionaire and various approximations.

A reasonable definition of billionaire would be someone who could quickly-and-reliably produce at least 1-billion USD in cash while holding no debts/liabilities and breaking no laws.

The further someone's removed from meeting that definition, the weaker their claim to being a billionaire.

Examples of approximations of billionaires:

  1. Very clearly billionaires:

    • Alice has no debts and owns a parcel of land with a vault containing 10-billion USD in cash, with adequate security such that their ownership of that property seems secure.

  2. Pretty much billionaires:

    • Alice has no debts and a modest home. Alice is owed 10-billion USD by the US government, with strong expectation for delivery within 1 month.

    • Bob has no debts, 0.5-billion USD in cash, and a house that could probably sell for about 0.75-billion within a few months.

    • Charlie has no debts and 0.999-billion USD in cash.

    • Dave has no debts and a house that could probably sell for 1.5-billion USD within a few months.

    • Eliza has 2-billion USD in cash, though is currently liable for an amount that might reach up to about 1-billion USD.

  3. Arguably billionaires:

    • Alice owns 50% of a publicly-traded company with a market-cap of 2-billion USD, projected for a stock-price that might be inflated.

    • Bob fully owns rights to something with royalties projected to be about 1-billion USD over the next 10-years, after time-discounting.

    • Charlie owns 1.25-billion USD in cash, but has 0.5-billion USD in liabilities due in a year.

    • Dave has no debts and 0.95-billion USD in cash.

    • Eliza has no debts and owns a cache of historical artwork appraised to 10-billion USD.

  4. Probably not billionaires:

    • Alice has 1-billion USD in cash, but also 0.5-billion USD in debts.

    • Bob owns 1-billion USD in cash and has no debts, though they hid half of their cash in a safe buried underground in a location that was forgotten.

    • Charlie owns 1-billion USD of an asset, where the volume of that asset exceeds market-demand for it over 10 years.

    • Dave has no debts, but is owed 1-billion USD by creditors who're considered likely to default.

  5. Very weak claims:

    • Alice owns 1-billion USD of an asset, as assessed by a very dubious source.

    • Bob owns 1-billion USD in cash that they then loaded onto a rocket and blasted on a course to Pluto.

    • Charlie invested 1-million-USD in a scheme advertised to them via an unsolicited telemarketing call, with an assurance of a 1000-fold return within a month.

    • After reading about impending colonization of Mars, Dave purchased half of the real-estate on Mars from a website claiming to sell real-estate on Mars 4 CHEEP.

    • Eliza has just wrote a 25-word poem and plans to sell copies of it for 1-USD each to everyone who can access the internet.

Anyway, the point's that folks might make claims about billionaire-status based on various caveats, assumptions, and approximations. As such it's kind of a fuzzy-qualifier when not meant strictly.

Is someone a billionaire if they can sell a small portion of an asset for a similar portion of a billion-USD?

If someone claims billionaire-status on the basis of having sold x% of an asset for x% of a billion-USD, then presumably they're arguing that they could sell the remainder of that asset for the remainder of a billion-USD.

So, how plausible do you find that?

Discussion: Why net-worth isn't necessarily simple.

A naive definition of billionaire might be: someone who has a net-worth of at least 1 billion USD.

The issue's that net-worth isn't necessarily a simple issue. Rather, we might consider assets with various risks, time-delays, liabilities, etc., meaning that if someone wanted to assign a specific numeric-value to their net-worth, it'd tend to be pretty subjective.

So for the question:

If my friend gives me a thousand dollars for 0.0001% of my "company", am I technically a Billionaire now?

It's not really a technical issue. Rather, folks might accept the claim that you're a billionaire to the extent that they believe that the prior trade plausibly established the value of the company as being at least about that. If they don't believe that that assessment follows, then presumably they wouldn't consider you a billionaire.

Nat
  • 346
  • 1
  • 2
  • 11
  • Wow, this is a really well written answer, Thank you! I do have a question tho, so like Jeff Bezos prolly won't be able to produce 100B $ in cash quickly, cos if he tried, the stock prices would plummet and many other things, so can he not be called a 100 billionaire? (or replace jeff with some other person who owns stock valued at a billion in some company) – Aditya_math Aug 12 '21 at 12:40
  • 2
    @Aditya_math: Yeah, it'd probably be a stretch to say that someone whose wealth is primarily in an asset that can't be dumped at the marginal rate has a net-worth based on the marginal rate that they can't actually access. – Nat Aug 12 '21 at 12:44
  • 1
    @Aditya_math: This story about Elon Musk being told that he was ranked the richest person might be a good example. – Nat Aug 12 '21 at 12:46
  • 1
    @Aditya_math: "so like Jeff Bezos prolly can't produce $100B in cash quickly, cos the stock prices would plummet?" This is the same as the "Charlie has no debts and $0.999B USD in cash" case. Charlie cannot produce $1B by cashing out his savings; but he can use those savings as collateral for an easy and legal bank loan of $1B cash, which he'll repay to the bank over time with interest. Bezos can use his securities as collateral on a bank loan in exactly the same way: he's a good credit risk. See also https://github.com/MKorostoff/1-pixel-wealth/blob/master/THE_PAPER_BILLIONAIRE.md – Quuxplusone Aug 12 '21 at 20:21
4

Other answers explain nicely why you (as a person) aren't a billionnaire, at least solely on this basis.

I will add a perspective from the point of view of company valuation, i.e. how much is a company worth (with who owns what part and what that means about their personal net worth an incidental consequence.)

A company is worth what someone would actually pay for it. Valuation is an exercise in estimating that, based on whatever evidence is available.

For a publicly-held company, all or most of whose shares are publicly traded, with decent liquidity, extrapolating from the share price of recently traded shares is pretty good evidence (though not perfect, as other answers have discussed). If you believe in some form of the efficient market hypothesis, that share price should not materially deviate from the best average belief of market participants as to value of the whole company.

For a privately held company, extrapolating from transactions for a fraction of the company is more fraught, since there is little liquidity, less information transparency, and such transactions occur only occasionally and so may reflect a materially different situation.

As a result, such "evidence" is of some but quite limited value, even if it reflects meaningful investments by people who can be trusted to have done some amount of due diligence. This frequently happens with startups, where say the founders may have raised, say $2 million in initial capital for a 20% stake of the company, but it's only on paper that might mean the company is actually worth $10 million. Especially if that $2 million has been spent and the idea is going nowhere, and the company is worth (close to) $0. More complex ownership structures make this more complicated, but the idea holds.

Where the investment is for a minimal stake, not an arm's length transaction, and may be intended to pump up the (apparent) value of the company, that "evidence" is of no value whatsoever.

Houska
  • 191
  • 4
  • Exactly. The original poster would not make the Forbes World's Billionaires list because the valuation of the company would be far less than a billion. "Methodology: ... We value a variety of assets, including private companies, real estate, art and more. We don’t pretend to know each billionaire’s private balance sheet (though some provide it). When documentation isn’t supplied or available, we discount fortunes." https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ – Orange Coast- reinstate Monica Aug 13 '21 at 20:36
0

No. You would need a net worth (assets minus liabilities) of $1 billion to be a billionaire. So unless you own the remaining 99.9999% and it is worth $999,998,000, then no. There are many ways to valuate a business but only a few that are accepted. In short, it's worth what it will sell for.

A different example: You and I buy a house jointly for $500k, you invest $499k for 99.9999% ownership and I invest $1k for 0.0001%.

Are you a billionaire? No.

Ignoring any other assets or liabilities, you are worth $499k.

AbraCadaver
  • 1,125
  • 6
  • 13
-1

Yes, if the market agrees with your friend.

No, if the market don't agree with your friend.

John T
  • 107
  • 2
-2

If that's all the equity you have, then you're not even a thousandaire, since your interest in the company is 99.9999% of a company worth $1,000, and your friend's equity holding in your company is just a tenth of a penny.

seamux
  • 45
  • 2
  • wait I'm sorry but I am confused, surely a lot of tech companies sell some part of their equity for a high valuation right, for instance if I raised 50 million for 1% equity, that would value my company at 5 billion, so my net worth would be 5 billion right? – Aditya_math Aug 11 '21 at 18:59
  • 1
    You have it backwards. Someone would give you $50 million for 1% equity because they independently believe that your company is worth $5 billion. The investment is based on the valuation, rather than the investment determining the valuation. – chepner Aug 11 '21 at 19:55
  • 1
    @Aditya_math if you alone own the other 95% of the company. – RonJohn Aug 11 '21 at 20:04
  • @chepner There is absolutely no requirement that an investment must be made based on perceived or actual market value. My mom could give me $10000 for 10% interest to start a business while believing it will fail and be worth nothing. Motivation for investment is heterogenous, and people bid below or above valuation all the time for a variety of reasons. The actual wealth of equity holder is not based on the value of ownership, which is speculative, but what's on the balance sheet, of course including expected future earnings and intangible assets. – seamux Aug 11 '21 at 20:11
  • I never claimed that (or at least, I didn't intend my comment to be interpreted that way). I'm claiming that a partial investment does not set any realistic interpretation for the remaining share of the company. (In general, nobody is going to pay $50 million for 1% of my company without an expectation of that 1% being worth at least $50 million sometime later.) – chepner Aug 11 '21 at 20:30
  • 1
    @seamux: IIUC, when you say "...a company worth $1,000," you're using the word "worth" to mean "with assets totaling," is that right? The company has $1000 in its accounts because it just received $1000 from the friend; the company has no other assets (e.g. real estate, tools, cars); therefore its total capital is $1000; therefore it is worth $1000. Right? This logic is sound, if you agree that the words worth and assets mean the same thing, and if you ignore all possibility of "intangible assets" or "social capital" or whatever persuaded the friend to buy shares in the first place. – Quuxplusone Aug 12 '21 at 20:30
  • @Quuxplusone I think OP's use of quotation mark around "company" is telling enough of those questions. – seamux Aug 14 '21 at 01:49
-2

The answer is completely trivial,

No, because there is no liquidity.

I might say it's surprising the other answers are so long.

Fattie
  • 13,768
  • 4
  • 32
  • 60
  • 1
    You assert that there's no liquidity without evidence. (If it's worth a billion dollars, then someone will want to buy at least a fraction of it. That's why my answer says, "other people would pay -- and continue to pay -- just as much as your friend".) – RonJohn Aug 13 '21 at 15:20
  • "Evidence" is not related; the very point of the question is that it is a "company" (in "air quotes") - the whole thing the OP is asking is what's the company "worth" in the case of only the one sale. – Fattie Aug 14 '21 at 16:12
  • ie, "J..."'s comment ("The unspoken assumption ...") perfectly sums up this novelty question. – Fattie Aug 14 '21 at 16:12