What's the Fun in Being a Billionaire if I Can't Spend Like a Billionaire?


For decades now management consultants have told us that one of the best predictors of a company’s success is whether or not the management of a company has put their own personal wealth into the company. The more a manager has at risk if the company’s stock price declines, the more likely he is to work hard to generate “shareholder value.” Investors got into the habit of monitoring management shareholdings – they would buy the stock if management was buying shares in the company, and sell the stock if management was dumping their own shares of the company’s stock. We are beginning to learn, though, that management shareholdings were a mirage, because behind the scenes and out of the view of investors, management was “hedging their bets” The most recent example is Boston Scientific.

This company has been a darling of investors all through the 90s and this decade. Founded by Peter Nicholas and John Abele, the company is a leading manufacturer of heart stents, pacemakers, and defibrillators. When, Nichols and Abele started the company they held patents on several such medical devices, but they cannot be considered as manufacturers. Their real strength was in buying small medical start-up companies, and providing them marketing and distribution muscle to sell their products. Both men became very wealthy, and between them owned over 8% of company stock.

While investors and analysts were keeping their eyes focused on the growth story that was Boston Scientific, and the steady appreciation of the stock price, they did not notice the fine print in SEC filings that indicated that Nicholas and Abele were borrowing over $1.0 billion from the likes of Goldman Sachs, Fleet Bank, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America and many other lenders. The borrowings were collateralized by their stock holdings in Boston Scientific.

One of the earliest loans, way back in 1992, was done by Peter Nicholas to finance a $900,000 home renovation, an aircraft lease, and a $100 million line of credit to build a “diversified portfolio of securities.” In other words, from the beginning, Peter Nicholas really didn’t have any personal exposure to declines in Boston Scientific stock, unlike the investors who believed he had put his fortune into the company. Instead, Nicholas was hedging his risks, and putting his wealth in a portfolio of other companies so he would be diversified. John Abele was doing the same, and along the way both of them would use this debt to purchase billionaire goodies like airplanes, vacation homes, and million dollar redecoration projects.

None of this lending was illegal, and Wall Street went along with the program not just because of the lucrative fees involved, but because it believed it made no investment sense for a wealthy person to put all their eggs in one basket. There are certainly questions of ethics involved if the founders of Boston Scientific, or street analysts, talked up the stock because of the supposed high ownership stake the founders have in the company. What some of these people were telling the investing public was very different from the reality found in small-print in periodic and little-noticed filings with the SEC.

Things started to come undone for Nicholas and Abele last year when Lehman Brothers went under, preventing the two of them from accessing one of their “diversified portfolio of securities” that was now subject to a bankruptcy freeze. The assets were needed because the stock market was starting to sell Boston Scientific, and banks all around the world were beginning to issue calls for more collateral to shore up their loans to the two principals. When Nicholas and Abele couldn’t come up with the collateral, the banks had no choice but to force the two of them to sell some of the collateral and pay back a portion of the loans. So far between them they have sold nearly half a billion dollars of Boston Scientific stock. The sales have been so large, that the stock has lost a quarter of its value since the collateral liquidation began.

In the end, the diversification program ended badly for Nicholas and Abele. Their diversified portfolio sits frozen at the bench of a bankruptcy judge, and has been losing value in the stock market rout, while the two have been forced to sell Boston Scientific stock for such large amounts that the price has dropped considerably.

Investors in the stock are very unhappy with this turn of events and there is talk of a shareholder lawsuit. But for small investors at least, they shouldn’t be surprised. What Nicholas and Abele have been doing over the past twenty years is what many Americans have been doing as well – treating their home like a piggy bank or ATM cash machine, and not paying much attention to the debt being created in the process. For Nicholas and Abele their “home” was their ownership interest in the company they founded – their principal asset. Like a lot of Americans, they decided to leverage their home to the hilt.

Investors do have some small comfort. After this debacle, a few of them are going to need some of the heart stents, defibrillators and pacemakers Boston Scientific sells. Maybe Nicholas and Abele will give them a discount.

(For more facts on the Boston Scientific stock sales see Bloomberg.com - reporter Alex Nussbaum)


Numerian January 26, 2009 - 2:47am

One thing I would like to see investigated is whether any of the top executives in the banking industry were covertly - through offshore shells or whatnot - betting against their own companies. I bet there be spiders under that rock. Also, I bet we will find that Moody's & friends gave positive ratings to both sides of CDO's and similar instruments that amounted to bets - despite the fact that both sides of the bet could not make a net win. However, for one rating the agency is paid by one side, for another by the other, and all of them are so sliced and diced that the simply two-sided model I am referring to gets well obscured.

mbento January 26, 2009 - 4:54am

As the civil case moves forward and the IRS gets the list.

creativelcro January 26, 2009 - 10:24am

The borrowed against their stock collateral to diversify.

Brilliant. There is no tax payabale on this loan. If they had sold their stock, they would had to have paid capital gains tax.

With this mechanism they could invest the pre-capital gains tax value of their stock.

The interest on the loan was offest by their income and gain on their investments.

Legally they were trying to minimize their taxes. Morally, they were stealing from their country.

Synoia January 26, 2009 - 11:18am

everything on this planet so multinational companies owned by really large numbers of shareholders are easily manipulated by owners with small numbers of actual shares. Owners who control these types of companies must rely on large numbers of owners holding even smaller amounts of shares. Further the likelihood of the numerous owners holding small amounts getting together is unlikely.

Is that how Nicholas and Ab1ele were able to raise large amounts without holding large numbers of shares?

There isn't much wrong with SEC and the way markets are operated except that all markets need Leviathan-sized, doses of "teethy" regulation! Hedge funds for the most part are completely de-regulated--able to balloon themselves into any size.

canuck January 26, 2009 - 4:12pm

With tens of millions of shares out in the market, it is very difficult for any one investor to amass a large stake in a company that even approaches 5% of shares outstanding, the level at which the SEC requires the buyer must notify the company and the public of their ownership interest.

Nicholas and Abele amassed such a large holding, like Bill Gates before them, by founding the company and putting in an initial seed capital amount of that percentage or higher. As new shares were issued they gave themselves sufficient amounts to keep their ownership stake high in order to ensure some control in the event of a hostile takeover.

It is a myth that individuals own massive amounts of corporate stock. For that minority of people who own any stock, they do so passively by buying mutual funds or hedge funds or ETFs. They cede their voting rights to the funds managers, and a lot of the funds managers are passive as well when voting in company proxy statements. They just rubber stamp management recommendations. Effectively, unless in times of great crisis for a company, management calls the shots. They act as both management and ownership, because the owners rarely step in and put any brake on management's actions.

Numerian January 27, 2009 - 4:20am

Having a diversified portfolio is not hedging. If they were shorting their company too, that would be hedging, but that is not implied anywhere.

Time to link this funny story:
http://agonist.org/singular/20090115/80_of_hedge_fund_employees_never_knew_what_the_word_hegde_means

(Diversification without short positions is bullshit but this a topic for investment pros).


--Storm brings only richness with it

Singular January 27, 2009 - 1:18am

Nicholas and Abele wanted to get away from having their investment wealth concentrated only in one industry and one company. If the medical device sector happened to suffer a downturn because institutional investors were selling that sector, the two of them would have been hedged to a degree if they held positions in oil, biotech, technology, consumer staples, or whatever the flavour of the month happened to be. This happens all the time, in that Wall Street behemoths move massive amounts out of one unfavored sector for a few months into a favored sector. Diversification is a form of hedging your risks, as is keeping your risk to any one stock or industry small.

A direct hedge would have been to short Boston Scientific stock or buy option puts on the stock. That would probably have required SEC notice, so defeating the purpose. Whether this is still true if the option puts are housed in the other invested portfolio, or whether they were placed on a competitor's stock if that stock tends to travel in tandem in Boston Scientific - we just don't know.

Leveraging their shares in Boston Scientific by buying a parallel investment portfolio allowed them to reduce their risk to that one large holding, though at an interest rate cost (probably pretty low back then). How hedged they were depended on how closely they got to shorting Boston Scientific shares or lending them out. The loans let them liquidize the Boston Scientific holdings, so now they could spend some of the money and act like billionaires. As Synoia pointed out, it also gave them considerable tax advantages.

Numerian January 27, 2009 - 4:08am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.