Mar 18 2009

Losing the Leveraged Lifestyle

Categories: Corporate Culture | Finance | Ethics

Posted by Paul Orfalea at 4:36 PM
4 comments

The New York Times reports that Goldman Sachs, a firm that received both TARP funds and some of AIG's bailout money, plans to offer loans to employees. Well, everyone's scraping by in this economy and if a coworker needs a little help through a rough patch, I suppose that wouldn't be so bad.

Except that the loans must be used to meet capital demands from Goldman funds, which the firm allows its employees to join. Goldman Sachs will loan taxpayer money so people can invest it in the company's funds. Yes, these are the funds that sapped the employee's wealth so severely that they must borrow money now to keep the fund - and their share in it - alive.

One needn't wonder why people with large obligations, like the taxes on six or seven figure bonuses, don't have money put away to pay those taxes, or for their private fund capital commitments. It's the myth of the leveraged lifestyle, the fantasy that we can borrow ourselves into wealth. People forget that when we apply too much leverage, sometimes the lever breaks.

According to the Times article:

Some Goldman employees got rich before the markets collapsed, allowing them to invest several million dollars in the funds, often on a leveraged basis. Only three years ago, Goldman paid more than 50 employees more than $20 million apiece...

But one former Goldman partner estimated that a quarter of the bank's roughly 100 partners are now worth $5 million or less because of losses on their company stock and other investments.

At some point, the masters of finance have to recognize that it just didn't work. We cannot live beyond our means, invest beyond our means, and borrow beyond our means forever. The alternative to the leveraged lifestyle - earning your own money, saving your own money, and investing your own money - has been reliably building wealth since money was invented. Perhaps the partners at Goldman Sachs should focus on earning enough money to repay the taxpayers before they try to salvage their employees' bad investments.

Comments

Dan G. wrote on 03/20/09 10:19 AM

Paul, Dean, and Lance,

I'm enjoying your posts tremendously and have begun disseminating this blog's URL to other like-minded individuals.

Please keep up the good work!
Dan

Rob Moore wrote on 03/22/09 12:46 AM

Paul,
It is understandable that from your examples in class and from this article that being over-leveraged is risky and not ideal.

What amount of leverage do you think is ideal or if that question is too broad then what industries typically have the amount of leverage that makes you comfortable?

-Rob

Dean Zatkowsky wrote on 03/23/09 4:18 PM

Rob,

Paul and I don't think there are any rules of thumb beyond the old David Bromberg lyric, "A man should never gamble more than he can afford to lose." For an individual, one's age plays an important role in the amount of tolerable leverage, because one has time to recover from losses. But every individual or business must take seriously the possibility and consequences of default.

Too many people think "worst case scenario" is synonymous with "unlikely" or "impossible" scenario. Not so, as we are reminded with surprising frequency. AIG and the banks playing with credit default swaps didn't have a margin of safety built into their investments. In fact, we heard many people say, with unbearable smugness, that their investments would only fail if the housing market collapsed. Anything can happen, and usually does... Z

Dentist Long Beach wrote on 08/13/09 1:58 AM

Very nice post. It's like what others said: "don't spend more than what you earn."

Write your comment



(it will not be displayed)