They're not concerned about the wealthy, but the state of the economy. Bad things happen when the prices of things change dramatically. E.g., if you happen to own an asset that a billionaire now needs to fire sale, you'll lose out as well.
It’s not that simple. If hundreds of billions of dollars need to be liquidated across every asset class in every industry, the entire economy is going to tank. Not just “oh no the stock market’s down.” Asset prices would drop severely (housing being the most “regular-person” applicable), many business will fail meaning many people will lose their jobs, and mortgages will be foreclosed upon due to suddenly being incredibly underwater without jobs. Picture 2008, but worse.
“Hold your shares or buy more at a discount” is incredibly out of touch with the average person who will be affected by an economic depression.
Then it becomes a question of selling the needed asset now during the fire sale or waiting and having to sell even more as the price fails to recover over the years.
SVB would still be around today if it was possible to convince people to not panic sell
Price shocks in anything are generally bad for the economy (maybe with the exception of some commodities like oil, but even this can be bad since the producers of that commodity will be in trouble). You're too focused on the rich people, and not enough on the economy.
Price shocks are bad because they can cascade and cause businesses to fail, resulting in layoffs, etc.,. Stability is one of the most important things in the economy.
It’s standard practice when dealing with huge volumes of shares to sell over a long period of time, we’re not forcing them to sell everything 10 mins before taxes are due.
They will be incentivized to do this otherwise they will get nothing for their shares.
