On the off chance you missed it, Kanye West, who adorns his two-year-old daughter in pastel furs

and has boasted in rhyme about running suicide drills on private planes, sent the social-media

industrial complex into overdrive this weekend when he bashfully announced on Twitter that he

was $53 million in personal debt. The impecuniousness, he noted, was the result of following his

dreams in the fashion industry.

While commentators were perplexed by his lack of frugality, or surprising surplus of modesty, the over-leveraged rap icon’s state of affairs is a reflection of the brutally difficult fashion business—an industry that requires significant upfront costs and can promise little in return. Despite a growing popular appreciation of his designs, West has learned the realities of the industry the hard way.

In 2009, he put all of his musical endeavors aside to work on his label, Pastelle—which then shuttered after seven months. Add to that however much it cost to create his line of G.O.O.D. merchandise, marketed to fans of his record label. He was chewed up and spit out for his attempt at a high-end women’s-wear line called Kanye West in 2011. The line never made it to stores. According to a 2013 interview with Jean Touitou, the founder of the French line A.P.C., which created capsule collections with West, the experiment put the rapper out $30 million.

His collaborations with Nike, on the wildly popular Nike Air Yeezy sneakers, did not stem the losses. West has said he was not given a percentage of the sales—a sticking point that eventually caused him to defect for what would appear to be a more lucrative deal and more creative license at Adidas, where he was able to expand into clothing and elaborate fashion shows at sold-out arenas three times in the span of one year. In his first “season,” West told BET he went $16 million in debt getting his line off the ground.

Those numbers, while significant, are not surprising to industry insiders tasked with coming up with business plans for people like West, who have grand visions without the slightest idea of what they might cost to execute. The expenses related to production, sales, buying, marketing and setting up the infrastructure to manage the logistics of a fashion line are one thing, according to Jonathan Reed, C.E.O. of brand consultancy CS Global. But scaling the product and setting up a show is what really drives up the capital requirement.

“For a large show, you’re thinking about venue expenses, set and stage expenses, audio and special effects, labor costs, which at a place like Madison Square Garden, which is union, is more expensive. This can run into seven figures very quickly,” he said. “That doesn’t include any of the talent—models, hair, makeup, stylists. That’s its own huge bucket, another easy seven figures.”

The cost of recording the spectacle, which often requires multiple crews shooting front-of-house and backstage at the same time, plus back-end production, only adds to the cost. “As a general statement, it would be very easy to amass large amounts of debt in the costs of producing a collection, putting it together, showing a collection, and then selling a collection,” Reed saidThe fashion business is famously treacherous for novices. As Natalie Portman may have learned with her ill-fated 2008 footwear line, the sourcing is expensive, as is labor and marketing. It’s hard to get good counsel, especially for celebrities. “Musicians get terrible advice. They surround themselves with people who are fans or wannabe musicians who couldn’t make it on the stage so they became accountants or attorneys,” said Jane King, a money manager at Fairfield Financial Advisors, who works with clients in the entertainment industry.

“It’s an ego tip, because artists have plenty of money to get into other businesses. But has anyone done a five-year projection of what the bottom line will be? I doubt it.”