Live data from Hacker News

The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

forbes.com

161–170 of 348 posts

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#161
post #154

Wealthy people of course do all sorts of financial optimization. The framing of this as being primarily a way to avoid CGT is imho just uninformed populist rhetoric. The main reason this is done is for leverage e.g. Elon wants to buy Twitter but he does not want to reduce his stake in Tesla (ignoring whether he could actually liquidate that much TSLA stock in the first place).

I'd disagree as due to the incredibly low amount of tax paid by the ultra wealthy it looks like CGT avoidance and Buy Borrow Die is a primary use case for borrowing against assets.

> the incredibly low amount of tax paid by the ultra wealthy

According to IRS data, the top 1% of earners pay roughly 40% of all federal income taxes.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#162
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree the framing is deceptive. A big reason this is done is to avoid paying taxes altogether - borrow against your equity, and then when you die your heirs receive a step-up in basis, so the gains are never taxed. To make it worth while you need to have a crap ton of money, such that the interest on your loans is less than the estate taxes you'd pay. Only very, very rich people pay any estate taxes in the first…

This sounds like a great idea but really fails the sniff test: - you’d need to borrow for decades, where, even at low interest rates were burn through significant capital (more than taxes would) - you’d need low interest rates to exists for decades which we know doesn’t happen - finally, all these Uber rich (Bezos, Musk) have all sold significant portions of their equity and paid taxes on it This seems like nothing m…

[flagged]

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#163

I borrow against my measly investment portfolio through my local banks "Loan against Securities" account. Interest rate is about 10%. My father was using this feature for past 15 or so years from same bank. We are solidly middle class in India. The only difference between what we do and what rich folk get is probably lower interest rates and higher percentage of loans against the securities value.

[deleted]

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#164
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another difference that is related to risk. Larger loans allow access to lower risk opportunities. If I had many millions in stocks, and I was greedy for more, I would borrow against it to develop residential real estate in a high rent neighborhood. Yes, there's some risk, but it's as close as you can get to buying a money fountain. I'd be very confident that the rents from the building would pay back the mo…

I've owned property to rent in the past. I feel it's worth pointing out to folks keen on this route that, while profitable, it's a Lot of work. Owning stocks is zero effort. You might glance at your results from time to time. Your fund manager does the heavy lifting (and gets a small % fee for it.) Owning a property is a pretty constant stream of work. Organizing maintainence. Dealing with complaints. Occasionally ev…

Or you just pay a property management company, which comes off pre tax.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#165
post #2

By borrowing against their holdings. The framing is deceptive. You can do this too: there is no requirement to have billions in collateral. If you own stocks, your brokerage will lend you money at a very low rate, secured by the equity - typically up to about half of your stocks' worth. The gotcha is market risk. If there's another crash akin to the housing crisis - and there will be - the bank will liquidate your ho…

I disagree the framing is deceptive. A big reason this is done is to avoid paying taxes altogether - borrow against your equity, and then when you die your heirs receive a step-up in basis, so the gains are never taxed. To make it worth while you need to have a crap ton of money, such that the interest on your loans is less than the estate taxes you'd pay. Only very, very rich people pay any estate taxes in the first…

Yes but that is because taxes are incoherent and abhorrent

Why do we tax realized capital gains at all and why based on the ruler of fiat which is controlled by those who tax (they keep making the ruler shorter)

If the goal is to creat drag on multiplicative dynamics then do so coherently

Tax should make sense at least in core targets. Yet there are no core targets.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've owned property to rent in the past. I feel it's worth pointing out to folks keen on this route that, while profitable, it's a Lot of work. Owning stocks is zero effort. You might glance at your results from time to time. Your fund manager does the heavy lifting (and gets a small % fee for it.) Owning a property is a pretty constant stream of work. Organizing maintainence. Dealing with complaints. Occasionally ev…

I agree with most of your comments. However, most tax authorities in highly advanced countries view income earned from rental property as passive income, regardless of how much work you need to do. This might be some minor deductions if you act as a real estate agent, but that is a lot of work in most jurisdictions, as real estate agency is normally a highly regulated area of work.

Indeed. Passive income is taxed at a much lower rate than working income in the U.K, and that includes property rents (after paying expenses like a managing agent) and dividends

Capital gains is taxed even lower than that.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#167
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should it be illegal? It’s not a realised gain. It has to be paid off … with money which has to come from somewhere (and be taxed as income or realised gains or whatever). What reason do you have for wanting it to be illegal, other than not liking it?

How is it not realized? When I can use it as "realized" to borrow against it? When it comes to paying taxes I go "sorry Uncle Sam, this is fictitious, I don't really have this" but then I head over to the bank and go "look at my brokerage accounts, I have ALL THIS MONEY, lemme borrow against this now all-of-sudden realized money..."

> How is it not realized?

Because of the definition of what realized income is. Borrowing is not income.

You mention below that you own a Washingtonian condo and a Virginian home. Let’s imagine that they are both $100,000 and that you have no other money or debts. Your net worth is thus $200,000.

You go to your bank and say ‘I would like to borrow against the value of my assets please,’ and they say, ‘certainly, here is $90,000.’ Your bank account now goes up $90,000, your condo is still worth $100,000 and your home is still worth $100,000. Your net worth is still $200,000 (not $290,000) because you also now have $90,000 of debt. You did not realise any income, even though your bank account is now full of money, because your debt account is now negative.

‘But I am paying property taxes!’ you might say. Sure, property taxes are a form of wealth tax, and there is no similar tax on stocks — but that is irrelevant to this discussion (although it could be relevant in a different one).

To illustrate why, let’s use another example. You still have the Washingtonian condo and the Virginian home, and they are both still worth $100,000 apiece. This time, you only borrow $45,000 against the value of the condo. That money moves from a bank on Washington to your bank account in Virginia. Do you owe Virginia income tax on that money? No, because it’s not income. But Virginia is not getting paid any property taxes for the property backing that loan! Irrelevant, again because a loan is not income.

Likewise, you can imagine owning another property in some state or country without property taxes at all. You borrow against it, is that loan income? Nope.

Now, let’s imagine the counterfactual, where loans count as income. You go to buy your $100,000 condo, put down $20,000, borrow $80,000, spend all $100,000 on the condo — and now you would owe income taxes on that $80,000. Gosh, that doesn’t seem fair. You had $20,000, spent it all borrowed the rest, and now you own a condo, owe property taxes and owe income taxes on $80,000, even though you have no money.

Does any of this help you understand? Owning an asset is not fictitious, it’s just not income. An income tax is levied on income, so an asset is not relevant to an income tax (relevant to an asset tax, of course!).

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

transfer the basis to whom? better not inherit anything

If I buy something for $10 and it's worth $10,000 when you inherit it, you should (obviously?) be taxed on the increase in value from $10 -> $10,000 if/when you sell. The purchase price shouldn't be "reset" to $10k. It'sutterly insane to me that the step-up basis exists in the US, it's such an obvious loophole that can fairly easily be closed without many adverse effects. In my country (Sweden) if you don't know the…

Why should you be taxed on it at all?tax is policy. You tax things you want people to consume less of.

Inflation makes nominal values to up.

More inflation more capital gains. Gov is now incengltivized to inflate to pull tax out of realized assets that have not even gained real value

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#169
post #2

By borrowing against their holdings. The framing is deceptive. You can do this too: there is no requirement to have billions in collateral. If you own stocks, your brokerage will lend you money at a very low rate, secured by the equity - typically up to about half of your stocks' worth. The gotcha is market risk. If there's another crash akin to the housing crisis - and there will be - the bank will liquidate your ho…

This explanation never made sense to me. Say someone gives you a $1M loan. Holy cow, it's not taxed, what a loophole! But wait, this was a loan, not a gift. So don't you eventually have to pay back the >$1M later from taxed income? So you still end up paying taxes on $1M either way? How in the world does this bypass taxes? Edit: To people bringing back the "buy, borrow, die" story: (a) Yes, I saw that a couple months…

It's leverage. That is all. And tax efficient.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because for a long time, the USA does not tax assets other than real estate. Our tax system is structured around the fundamental idea of taxation occuring on transactions, whether that's income in exchange for labor, income resulting from the sale on (non-real-property) assets etc. I'm not sure if this is a good thing (it might be, it might not) but it's the way it is.

The reverse approach has issues as well, primarily for assets that aren't easily divisible. The obvious example is family farms, or indeed the family house. Capital taxing the asset on death means a (potentially large) tax bill happens in many cases this can't be paid without selling the asset. If the sale was to another family looking for a farm, then that could be argued is neutral. But it won't be. It'll be sold t…

> in many cases this can't be paid without selling the asset.

Ok. And?

Why should someone get $5m for doing bugger all. If they were paid $5m for cleaning a car they would lose a fortune in tax.

Post reply on HN