“I don’t see any scenario where they’re responsible for less than 10% of the value destruction, so around $4 billion.”
In my head, he is comparing the minimum size of ADLs value reduction to be 10% or 4 billion.
10% of 44 billion is 4,4 billion.
In this comment he is not saying anything about the current value except that 10% of 44 is around 4.
This is the quote:
In my head, he is comparing the minimum size of ADLs value reduction to be 10% or 4 billion. 10% of 44 billion is 4,4 billion. In this comment he is not saying anything about the current value except that 10% of 44 is around 4.
How else can you read it?
He’s saying that 10% of the value reduction is 4 billion so the total value reduction is 40 billion (of the 44 billion he bought it for).
But you’re right, he probably meant it like you read it and just failed to express himself properly.
Are you saying that real life “Tony Stark genius, billionaire” is a bit thick and incapable of expressing his thoughts coherently?
I’m shocked I tell you. Shocked…
Don’t forget philantropist
You can read it as “being responsible for 10% of the [total] value destruction, equal to $4B”.
So if they’re responsible for 10% of the total value loss, and that’s equivalent to $4B, then 100% of the total value lost would be $40B.
Otherwise you would say “they’re responsible for destroying 10% of the value”.
Right. So it’s a Schroedinger’s quote…😑
But thanks for pointing out what was obvious for others
I think you replied to the wrong comment.