I would assume that over time the property will have a better total return profile than the cost of the bank loan.
Short term this might not be true, but over longer time frames it usually is. So its just a question of the company staying afloat for long enough..
The stock may go to zero. Or it may to to $20 billion, or it may to to $5 billion, or it may go to $5.1487 billion.
My point remains the same. The whole "has it in paper" as if that has no relation to cash, is not correct. Having stock is the exact same as having cash. Actually, it is way better. Because if you get cash, you have to pay taxes on it, so on $15 billion, that would be $5 billion in taxes, let's say. But if you get stock, then there's no taxes, but you get to borrow against it and get the cash anyways, as much as you need.
Sure, it might go to zero, but that's a pretty lame argument.
Not necessarily true. The loan (especially if you're borrowing 1% of the collateral value) could be non recourse [0]. In such a case the bank can only depend on the stock value for recovery.
"Hey, bank manager, I have $15B in stocks, will you loan me $150 million to buy this really, really nice home in Malibu?"
Bank manager: "Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes"