Today, a discussion of what I like to call Wealth Creep, the shift in perspective that can lead a person to understand the value of money less and less, the more and more of it they have. Please note that I said, “can lead,” not “leads.” I am not against money (I am all for it, in fact. Bring it ON!) and I do not think that all people who have a lot of money are heartless greedy bastards. I personally know quite a few people who are both lovely and wealthy; some are even healthy and wise. But I spent long enough in places where fantastic amounts of money were being handled to see a consistent shifting of the frame when it came to what those who handled those sums thought counted when things were counted, and I’m perfectly comfortable saying that the atmosphere on Wall Street is more than a little conducive to destroying people’s ability to do the simplest of math problems. Basically, Wall Street has a knack for making smart people dumb.
First, a personal anecdote:
Several years ago, after I finished writing school and before I started working at BigAnonymous, I was going over my personal finances with someone who worked at an extremely lucrative job in a (different) financial services firm.
“How much is your transportation?” he said. “81 bucks a month,” I said. “Food?” “$200 a month.” “Dog bills?” “$630 a year.” And so on, until we got to my student loan payment, which was $287 dollars a month. “$300,” he said.
“$287,” I said.
“Same thing,” he said.
Okay, break. While you ponder what reality it is in which 287 = 300, let me explain in very broad terms the kind of money BigAnonymous deals with.
Clients come in three main categories:
Institutional: Union pension funds, company 401(k)s, philanthropic funds, things like that – large entities’ bulk amounts of money. (Though often it’s not their money; it’s your money.) In 2007, when BigAnonymous hired sales managers for retirement products in the East and West Coast regions, the press release noted that they would “focus on accounts of $500 million or more.” In other words, what constitutes a vast amount of money in the outside world is the bare minimum inside the walls of BigAnonymous. I often heard phrases like, “it’s only a fifty million dollar account, so who cares?” The “who cares” wasn’t an expression of the speaker’s personal attitude, it was an explanation of the institutional investment division’s point of view.
Retail: The average investor. This group has the largest number of members with the smallest amount of invested money per capita. It is the broadest segment of the investment client world. It also has the shallowest pockets, but even then you don’t rate a thought from BigAnonymous unless you have at least $50,000 to invest. To me, and perhaps to you, $50,000 sounds like a lot, but according to BigAnonymous you barely rate their time at that level; better off heading to your local bank and opening a savings account or a CD. Which would be fine, except that all of the marketing literature I worked on talked about how much better it was to invest your money in the markets than to keep it in a savings account. I once wrote a blurb that explained how keeping your money in the bank was a silly, silly thing and almost guaranteed you’d wind up in the poorhouse in your dotage. Do the math, and there is a whole swath of people – specifically people who don’t have $50,000 to invest -- whose existence BigAnonymous doesn’t even bother to acknowledge. In other words their average investor, isn’t.
Private Wealth Management: Rich people. Also referred to in the industry as “Global Wealth Management,” “Private Client,” things like that. The ante for entry at BigAnonymous is $500,000. There were people in this division, quite wealthy themselves, whose job included making the actual bank deposits for these clients.
The amounts of money are so staggering you’re bound to have a shift in perspective. It would be practically impossible not to. And that’s fine. It would be idiotic, and probably criminally negligent, to run a half billion dollar institutional account as if it were a fifty-thousand dollar retail account, and vice versa; you have to understand and acknowledge the scale you’re working in to provide the best service to your clients.
What bothers me is that the shift in perspective seems to only go one way. As you start dealing with bigger and bigger numbers, the smaller numbers don’t just slide down to the low end of the scale, where they can still be referenced. They fall off entirely; they are simply not included in the equation, ever. And when numbers disappear from any equation, judgments are made using inaccurate information. Using only the bigger numbers on any scale describes an incomplete reality—and an incomplete reality isn’t reality at all.
The problem is that we make moral judgments based on financial realities all the time. Financial services firms create investment vehicles and entire marketing strategies around helping the average person (see Retail, above) do the “right” thing: save for their retirement, save for their kids’ college, save to buy a house, all the usual components of what we’ve decided in this culture is a successful life. But there is something fundamentally out of place when the people who are making judgments about what the right thing is don’t even think you exist unless you have $50,000 to spend with them. If you don’t think someone exists, by definition you can’t see things from their perspective, and if you can’t see things from their perspective, it’s hard to see how you can make an accurate judgment about them at all. It may be beating a dead horse to point out once again the amount of vitriol that was thrown, at the beginning of the housing crisis, at people who got stuck in impossible mortgages. Some of them were taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders, some lied to themselves and some were probably just plain greedy. But it leaves a bad, bad taste in my mouth when the people doing the judging can afford things that the people they’re judging can’t, and that was a lot of what I heard in the halls of BigAnonymous.
So, what about the original equation, the one in which 287 equals 300?
The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t. $287 isn’t the same as $300. I should point out here that my friend wasn’t judging me; he was simply helping me go through some numbers. But it was disconcerting to hear someone whose job is to tell people how to manage their money – even more, whose job is to manage people’s money for them – insist that $287 equals $300 without batting an eyelash. Aside from the raw fact that it just isn’t equal, the difference between $287 and $300 dollars a month is, for example, the difference between being able to go to a movie or not. Even without the popcorn, a movie a month versus no movies at all is a significant difference in quality of life, and it’s one that my friend didn’t see. It’s not because he’s a bad guy. It’s because he got so used to dropping numbers off the low end of the scale that he literally could no longer see what difference $13 a month could make. He was able to scale up, but not to scale back down. He was a victim of wealth creep.
You know who had it right? Spiky-haired avant-gardie and NASA artist-in-residence Laurie Anderson. She wrote, “Let X = X.”