"I'm not talking a $400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable, I'm talking about liquid"

Maybe, but Job's still doesn't get paid a wage if I recall correctly meaning he wouldn't be overly liquid unless he has cashed in a fair amount over time.

Jobs will still be liquid with or without Apple Shares. Remember he sold Pixar for $7.4 billion. And he still owns 7% of Disney.

Also, Don't forget the dividends he's been accumulating from his Disney stock. That alone has been tens of millions of dollars each year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't shares in a publicly-traded company (e.g., Apple) be considered fairly liquid?

No expert but wouldn't it depend on the scale of what he wanted to take out. Say for example Job's attempting to take a billion dollars off the table would have to effect the share price.

Exactly.

And this matters because?? I've heard Larry Ellison is the most illiquid billionaire, as he finances everything with loans against his massive equity in Oracle. He's still in the top 5 richest people. Zuckerberg is no different.

Larry Ellison is also more liquid than Zuckerberg.

Oracle has 25 years of cash flow to finance against. I suspect he gets good terms.

How exactly does one finance everything with loans against equity? What does that mean? How does he pay back the loans? With shares?

wow, borrowing against stock, how risky is that (for both him and his shareholders)?

apparently he has been sued about it http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-01-31/news/17279373_1_oracle...

The way I read your link, he was sued for something else, and this practice came to light during discovery.

Might be risky for him - I don't see why it's much of a risk for Oracle shareholders.