[JumpCrisscross]

What OP is missing is the role of collateral. It becomes more important the more perilous the borrower is or might be.

Apple borrows for 20 years unsecured at 31 bps above the U.S. [1][2]. That wouldn't contract much if they offered collateral, because the difference in relative risk is modest to the point of immateriality. Similarly, someone with a century of living expenses in marketable securities really only needs to be restricted from blowing their stockpile--other risks are absorbed by that wealth.

TL; DR The rich don't need collateral as much as the middle class and poor. Penalise the use of collateralised loans like that, and you just make collaterised lending go away or become much more expensive.

[1] https://www.bondsupermart.com/bsm/bond-factsheet/US037833AT7...

[2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...

[bdangubic]

> TL; DR The rich don't need collateral as much as the middle class and poor.

You really buy this? Elon could just go fetch $44bn from a bank to buy Twitter without anything to back it?

[consteval]

Yes, I would imagine it would be much easier for Elon to get 44bn as opposed to someone who is homeless.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Elon could just go fetch $44bn from a bank to buy Twitter without anything to back it?

Collateral "becomes more important the more perilous the borrower is or might be." It's immaterial to "someone with a century of living expenses."

Elon Musk could probably have borrowed even $100mm unsecured on terms damn close if not identical to that which he could get on a secured loan, ceteris paribus. But Elon is uniquely leveraged. That makes him a more perilous borrower. And $44bn isn't lifestyle borrowing, either.

Nevertheless, he could still probably get a hundred million lent unsecured on terms quite close to his secured rates--there are groups who would do that for relationship building alone.