[dylan604]

But if the money is coming from the company accounts vs his own personal accounts makes a huge difference. What an individual does with their money is up to them as they decide. What a CEO does with the money of a company is very much not theirs alone to make. The board might not like it. Other banking rules come into play. Employees not getting a raise might have something to say.

How you can even try to conflate the two as being the same is just short sighted.

[akhosravian]

Bloomberg is privately held, and Mr Bloomberg holds 88% of its shares.

In this scenario the board works for him, not the other way around.

[dylan604]

Do you honestly believe that the money used to operate the company comes out of his personal bank accounts? Are you just this unaware of how things work, or are you being a troll?

[SCSIfloppy]

That’s not what that person said though. Bloomberg, the company, is an asset of Bloomberg the man, a tool he uses to accomplish… whatever he is up to. It’s a legal fiction under his direct control, money in the bank.

[fatfingerd]

If he decides he'll need 500 million more for his personal goals he does a dividend amounting to a reduction of 568 million in Blomberg's money on hand, presto!

Huge difference there because it spent some time in his account, if you are his accountant or if you are Bank of America, but for the rest of us the distinction is largely a waste of time.