Awful Leaving
What an awful leaving: First that guy risks the future of his companies and more importantly his employes by massive gambling, and then he commits suicide instead of helping to properly sell his now bancrupt companies.
Updated: Switched to political correct wording. Calling someone a "super asshole" sidetracks reader's attention.
His activities put thousands of people into job, and were feeding their families for many years in the first place. I find your comment about this human tragedy extremly impious.
Holger: This doesn't justify his gambling. It also doesn't justify just running away, instead of cleaning up the mess.
It would have been a tragedy if he suddenly died. By killing himself Merckle just once again revealed his weak character.
PS: Erm, of course it is a tragedy for his family and the employee's families, but on the behalf of Adolf Merckle himself there is no human tragedy, just some oversized ego.
I agree that this guy should have cleaned up after himself. But this seems like a quite normal sad ending for major personal failures.
He would likely be under major pressure and it is likely to be a quite different social situation that he was used to. Stress might push people over the edge.
I admire people who do manage their failures, but some people just don't.
The whole situation would have looked different in some Asian cultures like the Japanese.
Japan gripped by suicide epidemic:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...
90 suicides a day spur Japan into action:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...
Mathias: His aggressive investment strategies (or gambling, as you not without some truth put it) put 100.000 people into jobs for years. Investors without risk-affinity hardly achive that volumne. Nobody was complaining as long as it went well. It's always easy to know it better afterwards.
Concerning "not cleaning up after himself", or "not helping to properly sell": The headline on the very next day after the suicide was "Merckle Empire saved", stating that he did all the necessary signatures before his suicide.
But maybe we just have a different definitions of a "Super A...e".
(and it's quite ironic that I can't even cite your headline due to swear word prohibition on your blog comments)
> Mathias: His aggressive investment strategies (or gambling, as you not without some truth put it)
Short selling __is__ gambling.
Securing credits with stock shares __is__ gambling.
And that's what he did.
The first rule of stock market is: Only invest spare money you can effort to loose. Yes, he is not the only one who forgot about his rule. I just say "stock backed pension fonds" and such crap. This still doesn't justify his gambling.
> put 100.000 people into jobs for years. Investors without risk-affinity hardly achive that volumne.
Of course you need some risk-affinity to make any profit, but there still is a difference between risk-affinity and gambling. Risk-affinity goes like this: "Hmm, there are __some__ influences I cannot control, but this stuff is my business and I understand my business and think this is a good idea. So let's do it." Gambling is "Oh, I have no idea what's going on, and have absolutely no influence on the risks. Well, but there is profit, so let's do it". Stock trading almost always falls into the second category. Especially when it comes to stock options. This gambling is perfectly fine, as long as you do it with __spare__ money.
> Nobody was complaining as long as it went well.
There were enough complaints about stock exchanges turned into casinos. People just didn't listen.
> It's always easy to know it better afterwards.
Yes. On the other hand probably every serious financial consultant would have suggested Adolf Meckle to think about reconstructing the finances of his companies, and to think about new products, instead of wasting his time on gambling.
Well, ok. Maybe there really is some tragedy on his side: The tradegy that some entrepreneur got a gambling problem. In that case I probably should drop the "super" from the headline.
Commiting suicide isn't a easy thing to do. A**holes like you should try.
The guy may have been a coward who chose to avoid his problems rather than to address them, but that doesn't give you cause to call him obscene names.
Tom: Continue to live and deal with the mistakes you did is much harder. Believe me: As self-confessed ashole I know what I am talking about.
Jeff: Yes, my opinion is extreme, but after getting annoyed with all the positive press this guy gets in Germany, I finally had to publish my opinion. Already had this opinion before that guy commited suicide, his finally action just boosted my opinion. In Germany everyone just talks about "that poor Adolf Merckle". Nobody talks about his employees, his family, the train driver.
It seems he actually cleaned up and *then* took his life. Yes, his Volkswagen bet was wrong, but on the other hand it did not fatally damage the actual companies he built and owned.
Ratiopharm will belong to somebody else, but it will still be there.
This is a pretty insensitive post. Extreme gambling is an addiction, and suicide is hardly the first indication of good health. Have some compassion.
The Volkswagon deal was actually a small number compared to the big structure problems with his companies. I mostly like your blogging and I hope this one was just a faux pas because it is really outrageous.
Some soloists (mostly violin players) in the 17th/18th century always had a knife with them while playing in front of a big audience.
In case of negative feedback they wanted to be able to immediately kill themselves to »*defend* themselves against the audience«.
In the end it's all a question of the point of view and the culture, and to me Merckle is just another example for that...
First of all, that ass-hole played with his own money, and last I checked people can do with their own money whatever they want to do.
Second of all, I'm kinda sick of this attitude of the "think of the employees" attitude. This just leadds to a thinking that the small employees have no influence and are at the mercy of others. Which is just not true.
Benjamin: As soon as you start to permanently employ people you start to take some responsibility. Getting a permanent job is essential if you don't want to live from day to day and as employee want to do long term investments, like buying a car or a house.
Good employers know about that responsibility, and at least in Germany there is a long tradition of responsible acting businessmen. This tradition started at least in the middle ages with stuff like guilds and also was not forgotten by famous capitalists like Krupp, Borsig, von Siemens.
You also should not forget, that businessman with non-trivial business highly depend on motivation and loylity of their employees. Also employers utilize some quite some large amount of lifetime of their employees. So assuming there is no responsibility is plain wrong (IMHO).
> The first rule of stock market is:
[...]
I don't see anybody arguing whether option stocks are a good idea or not.
> On the other hand probably every serious financial
> consultant would have suggested
[...]
So how many people do they employ, if they are so incredibly smart? How many did you put into job, since you seem to be the smartest of all? What does give you the right to instruct him how to spend his time? How is he responsible for the way newspapers talk about him after his death? And how does all that justify such an insult post-mortem? This is crazy talk.
> Nobody talks about his employees, his family, the
> train driver.
Yeah, I am sure his family will feel much better should they read your post.
Regardless of being right or not, which is unarguable, it certainly could have been stated more sensitively (if only to act as a leader yourself). Suicide is an tragic last resort for those who couldn't find a way out. My heart goes out to his family and loved ones.
This is a global crisis. It isn't a question of one mans approach but rather a common approach that has bitten both corporate leaders, investors, and pretty well everyone else. You are obviously angry, as many are, but everyone has some accountability in this current situation (if only to have not outlived their means)
Mathias: I agree that he took on responsibility. But once again: AFAIK Merkle did not gamble money that belongs to his companies (e.g. Ratiopharm or HeidelCement). His heirs will have to sell Ratiopharm (and maybe more), but this should (at least theoretically) not affect those employed there. So, yes he gambled and lost, but he did not destroy viable companies doing so.
Well, jumping in front of a train is definitely one of the most a**shole-y ways to leave this world. That's one train-driver usually in shock, it has large cleaning costs and lots of people miss their connections or get to work or home late. Just ask a train commuter.
I think people shouldn't commit suicide in general, but if they fell they really have to, they should at least choose a way that does not put that much misery on other people.
I generally believe that the owners should be able to invest their money as they see fit as long as they are within the borders of the law.
There are a lot of well known assh**** in business that cross the borderlines of the law on regular basis.
John Fredriksen is a known criminal that chose to escape from Norway when the police and the media found out how he made his billions. He was heartily welcomed to become a Cypriot citizen by the that government.
John Fredriksen is globally known to have zero interest in the matter of life and death of his own employees.
He was described to be "the lifeline to the Ayatollah." by his biographer.
He was the guy who delivered oil to South Africa during the apartheid.
His oil transport ships stole from the customers by pumping fuel directly from the customers oil containers.
Low quality boats, fake companies, stealing from his own customers, delivering goods/oil to the worst of the dictators, putting his own employees under a very high risk of death, breaking any law on regular basis, hiding behind a large network of front companies, and so on.
There are a lot of "ass*****" that seems a lot worse than the guy you mentioned. John Fredriksen is one of the richest in the world and he is still a free man.
Adolf Merckle, actually Adolf Merckle was one of the few investors who never fired even one person in his companies.
He actually cleaned up the mess before he killed himself by signing for all the necesarry credit and renegotiating with the bankys.
Beeing an enterpreneur includes taking risks. Just the mere fact that something resulted in a bad outcome doesnt tell you anything about the quality of the decision.
It is sad that your mind seems not to be capable of understanding - thats ok most people narrow minded, but please dont insult other people!
What a mortifying blog entry.
As I see all of your comments, the man made some mistakes, tried to make it better in some ways, and then commited Seppuku.
What I dislike about this the most is, that he killed himself by a train.
I mean, that destroys not only the life of himself, but probably also the one of the train-driver...
If people are willing to give their _life_ for any reason, couldn't they do it at least for sth. good?
BTW: why cant I write æsshole in the comments ;)
I'm sure his grieving family would love to read your post. Good of you to attack a dead man Mathias! Very brave.
Chris: Interesting point of view. I am not allowed to have an opinion about Merckle because he commited suicide. Interesting.
Anonymous (dytbp): I seriously doubt that Adolf Merckle never fired a person. It's just a matter of time until you hire some harmful person, or until employee turns harmful. In the interest of your company and its other employees you have to remove such person. Everything else is irresponsible.
jpo: Merkle lend money to increase capital of HeidelCement and gave the bank stock shares of other companies as security. There he quite obviously played with the money of one of his companies.
Mathias: Interesting point of view. I am not allowed to have an opinion on your frankly offensive post, just because I'm offended by it. Interesting.
If you state an offensive opinion, be prepared to have people get annoyed at your point of view. Nowhere did I say that you weren't allowed to have that point of view, what I did express was my disgust at the way you expressed it. If you can call a dead man an a******e, then I can tell you that I think you are a coward.