I know from the outside this seems very simple, but it's more complicated than that. Certainly, if the objective is (merely) security for one's children, that can be secured with much (much) less money (and likely was secured in the secondary that the author makes reference to); having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated. To appreciate this dynamic, read Graeme Wood's outstanding 2011 piece in The Atlantic, "The Secret Fears of the Super-Rich"[0].

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20190422235813/https://www.theat...

▲

afavour 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> having nine figures of wealth is not an unvarnished good, and in particular makes raising grounded, self-reliant kids pretty complicated

Sure, but I’m pretty sure if you asked those parents if they’d rather lose all their money to make parenting easier their answer would be a resounding “no”.

▲

bcantrill 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Those aren't the choices. You don't understand how the poster passed on nine figures -- but if the secondary sale netted 7 figures (likely), the choice is in fact between having enough wealth to have total security for one's family versus having so much wealth that the wealth itself creates anxiety.

	▲	afavour 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Then have someone manage the money away from you. Put it in a lifetime trust, whatever. The idea that you’d turn down that sum of money because of the anxiety it would cause you is simply not logical.
	▲	ridruejo 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Correct. The secondary provides the safety net to confidently swing for the fences.

▲

j7ake 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You forgot to account for the 100+ employees. The liquidity event would have helped their families as well.