Other than "change of wealth," there is no word or phrase directly relating to this. English has a paucity of words to handle some of these concepts.
The English language has been heavily influenced by the ideas of technical accountancy because it has been so important in the last two hundred and fifty years. Just as many scientific terms have flooded the language, so have many business terms.
Jeff Bezos' official compensation from Amazon is $180,000. That may not be his entire personal income.
With some notable exceptions, such as may happen with options contracts under the tax code, something is only income in two circumstances.
The first, under cash accounting rules, is directly associated with a cash flow. Cash needs to change hands for income to happen. As a rule of thumb, that is the income method you usually run into with most taxpayers. The second, under accrual accounting rules, is associated with modeled income. There have to be cash flows but they do not need to happen at this moment.
Changes in wealth are not accrued income, however, they are generally changes in the valuation of others seeking assets to purchase.
Jeff Bezos has reduced assets due to gifting and his divorce. His assets are considered more valuable than before, so his wealth can rise even as he owns less. Some of his wealth is the result of indirectly accrued income.
Mr. Bezos owns between ten and eleven percent of Amazon. Amazon does not pay a dividend. He owns an undivided claim to all net assets in Amazon. If Amazon adds $1 in new income, his indirect income due to accruals is roughly eleven cents. He may not take or use that money. It is not his unless the firm is liquidated or declares bankruptcy. That eleven cents is something he owns but may never in his entire life be permitted to touch.
Last year, Amazon added about twenty-six billion dollars to its owner's equity. About ten percent of that belongs to Bezos. He is not permitted to use it, touch it, or even borrow it.
He could sell shares, but that is problematic. If you own and sell shares, nobody cares. When founders sell any appreciable amount of shares, that is often interpreted as due to insider information that the firm is about to self destruct. Mr. Bezos could see the value of the entire company fall simply because he liquidates a large position.
Additionally, the market does not have the depth to absorb that many shares at once. He would pretty substantially shift the short-run supply curve. His wealth would fall if he tried to liquidate his position. He can dispose of relatively small amounts with ease, but it would be a bit challenging to exit.
That is the rub. He has wealth and it changes based on the moods in the market. If we had a 1933 style collapse this year, his official wealth would be reduced by at least 90%. But is that a good characterization?
After all, his official income would likely not change. Likewise, assuming he stopped gifting shares, he would still own the same number of shares. The difference would be that nobody else would want to own them except at rock-bottom prices. His accrual would be the same, assuming Amazon's income didn't change.
If he has the same income, the same indirect accruals, and the same property claims, did his wealth change?
That is why accounting concepts are so important. That is also why so many Democratic and populist tax proposals are either unconstitutional or impossible to make functional.
There are close concepts to this state of affairs. In naval strategy, there is a concept called a fleet in being. It is a denial of sea control strategy.
A fleet in being never leaves its anchorage. If it did, it would be sunk. However, the opposing fleet cannot leave the area outside the harbor or the opposing fleet could be given a free hand. The dominant fleet cannot approach the harbor because land forces augment the naval forces and would also destroy the dominant fleet. The smaller nation cannot be attacked from sea, but only if the fleet in being does nothing.
Bezos's wealth and power are the greatest if he does nothing.
If he tries to exit his position, he is likely to take losses at exponentially discounted rates when compared to the market cap at the time of the decision. As long as he continues to hold his position, he holds considerable social, political and business influence. If he exits, he doesn't become unimportant, but there is no direct reason to take his calls unless he is donating money to you. Right now, if Mr. Bezos calls a head of state, that call will likely be taken.
The idea of wealth doesn't work well for the ultra-rich because they possess a restricted strategy set that also meets concepts of optimality.
A person with ten million dollars is wealthy. A person valued at one hundred and seventy billion dollars is also wealthy but can never access or even attempt to use all of that value. They are certainly wealthier than the person with ten million dollars. We lack ways to talk about it. A boulder is heavy. The moon is heavier. It is meaningless to discuss lifting the moon but you can lift a rock.
What we lack is a concept of accessible wealth.