Michael Jackson Leaves A Money Mess

Published in Investing on 30 June 2009

As the startling revelations about his extraordinary life continue, when it came to money, Jacko ignored the simplest of rules -- he spent more than he earned.

Michael Jackson's life was a series of extreme highs and wrenching lows.

He had the best-selling record of all time (Thriller sold more than 104 million copies), yet he narrowly escaped foreclosure on the vast Neverland ranch funded by his string of hits.

He showed a Midas touch in 1985 by shrewdly outbidding Paul McCartney for a catalogue of royalty-rich Beatles songs. Then a decade later, according to Reuters, he was forced to merge ATV with Sony's song library and sell its music publishing rights to raise some much-needed cash. And when that money was spent, he put up his share of the ATV assets as collateral in exchange for $200 million in loans from Bank of America.

With Jackson's sudden death last week, the billion-dollar boy king's musical contributions end, but, sadly, his legacy of debt will live on.

Comeback, Unplugged

At the time of his death Jackson was readying for a 50-concert stint in London -- a sold-out extravaganza that would reportedly inject more than $50 million into his bone-dry bank account. Various media reports say that he owed between $400 million and $500 million.

Now ticketholders are left in the lurch and Jackson's heirs are stuck with a massive tab to pay. How his IOUs will be repaid is already up for speculation. Right on cue, just hours after Jackson's death, questions surfaced about the will: Does it exist? Is it up-to-date? Who gets what and how much (if anything)?

Jackson's messy state of financial affairs should come as no surprise to anyone with just a passing familiarity with the singer's strange life trajectory.

Running Up A Tab in La-La Land

The details of Jackson's financial woes were made public during a 2005 trial for child molestation charges (of which he was acquitted) where a forensic accountant testified that the singer suffered from a common money malady: Overspendingitus, also known as "spending more money than you make."

According to the accountant's testimony, Jackson blew through $20 to $30 million more per year than he brought in.

Lavish shopping sprees and big-ticket lawn-care bills weren't the only reason Jackson was drowning in debt. His unpaid bills and unfulfilled deals brought on a constant stream of lawsuits -- nearly 20 -- from managers, lawyers, producers, financial advisors, and even a Bahraini sheik.

Publicity appeared to have little impact in his overindulgent ways. Last March, Neverland was nearly nevermore. The bank threatened to foreclose the property until a billionaire real estate investment banking pal stepped in to bail him out.

The lesson? Evidently, it's not how much you owe, but who you know.

Debt: Celebrity Destiny?

Perhaps Jackson's financial implosion was inevitable: celebrity investment blunders certainly appear to be par for the course.

The list of famous folks turned financial train wrecks is long and illustrious (Mark Twain, Mike Tyson, Billy Joel, M.C. Hammer). Yet so many of the high-and-mighty fall in the most pedestrian ways -- bad investments, brutal divorce, costly illness, and simply spending more than they earn. Hardly a spectacle to be had… until Michael.

But should we mere mortals really be so smug? Sure, we're not leveraging our Beatles catalogue or calling in favours from billionaire bankers. But our collective behaviour isn't that different from Michael's; we live on borrowed pounds, rely on leverage, and push the limits of plastic. And we, too, eventually have to pay up.

And we may even bear some of the blame for the fate of our icons, a point made eloquently by The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan. In a brief tribute to Jackson, he writes: "I grieve for him; but I also grieve for the culture that created and destroyed him. That culture is ours and it is a lethal and brutal one: with fame and celebrity as its core values, with money as its sole motive, it chewed this child up and spat him out."

More on the economy and the markets:

> Are you spending more than you earn? Addicted to plastic? Check out the very popular Dealing With Debt discussion board.

> A version of this article was originally published on Fool.com. It has been updated by Bruce Jackson, who is not related to Michael, but is a member of his very own Jackson 5 family.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

supasap 30 Jun 2009 , 11:18am

got to be one of the most overrated acts of all time....... it's back to 1983 when he last did something good..... talk about living off a legacy....

miseryguts 30 Jun 2009 , 1:02pm

And how many dance moves have you invented supasap?

Beat it.

Iniq 30 Jun 2009 , 1:03pm

"Michael Jackson Leaves a Money Mess"

Well, WHAT a surprise!

("Ah, but he was the PEOPLE'S weirdo.

The Freak of Hearts."

Await conspiracy theories that he was actually poisoned by the CIA ... you heard it here first.)

nickitaly 30 Jun 2009 , 1:32pm

104 MILLION copies of an album is not what one calls overrated Supasap!!

It is a real shame that he ended up like this. So agree with Andrew Sullivan's comment.


May he rest in peace !


bojotools 30 Jun 2009 , 2:05pm

Yet another media-made freak wasting air time and ink. Jackson was a disgrace to every aspect of honest society and it is about time we lavished some genuine respect on inventors and researchers in the medical and other fields who make the world a better place for all. I am sick of all the hype and adoration of this sick pervert, for that he surely was whether convicted or not. Next time some weirdo comes up in court with a 'trapped in the body of a child' defence, think how you would react if the accused justifying bizarre behaviour had been sleeping in the same bed as your kids.

IDJ1109 30 Jun 2009 , 2:41pm

I am not too surprised to hear that MJ spent more than he earned during his career. He was an entertaining genius that gave back to fans ten fold. I agree with Andrew Sullivan’s wise words....
Although some would consider MJ financially irresponsible, maybe there is some truth in the words
“ why concern oneself with material items as one enters this life with ‘no things’ and leaveS this life with ‘no things’… "
I am sad MJ has passed away but know that HEAVEN IS GLAD HE CAME!!!
RIP MJ… one love

supersol42 30 Jun 2009 , 2:41pm

Sic transit gloria mundi; plus ca change, plus c'est l'a meme chose.

We all die one day. Each of us should go back to his Bible and start with John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave us His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life".

Sadly, it appears that the crazy mixed up Jacko did not do this.

PeterJ42 30 Jun 2009 , 2:57pm

Surely managing to spend as you like when alive and leaving the banks in the poo when you die is perfect money management!?!

tigerroach 30 Jun 2009 , 2:59pm

Whilst he may have spent more than he earnt his assets outweighed his liabilities significantly.

GeoffDea 30 Jun 2009 , 4:22pm

I am not a Michael Jackson fan, but it is too early to tell if he has left a money mess. If he has it is his mess and not a world mess like Madoff and such like financial @ss#'$£%&*.

ashleymarks 30 Jun 2009 , 4:26pm

supasap- surpising commment. the man, despite his personal issues (which are irrelevant to his achievments), was a genius:

-He danced better than professional dancers.
-He wrote songers better than professional writers
-He sold more music than anyone else
-He was more entertainging than almost any other act in the world.
-His music is known around the world - literally. -How many other artists can say the same.
-He has at least 40 (thats what I saw on VH1) songs that almost EVERYONE knows. who else can say that?

Overrated? Compared to what????

supasap 30 Jun 2009 , 4:37pm

sales indicate popularity not quality, just look at the best selling newspapers in this country.... nothing against the guy, I too have danced to stuff from Off the Wall and Thriller but those songs are over 26 years old yet people still go on as if he was a creative genius...... he was OK but only for a few years ..... pales into insignificance against Dylan, Neil Young, Ray Davies, Lennon McCartney, Beach Boys all of whom wrote far many more great songs than MJ - or take a modern act like the Killers or Arcade Fire, already their numbers of great songs has surpassed MJ's 4 or 5........ it really is excessive hype about this bloke...... thank goodness for Jarvis Cocker who saw through it all.... let's hope he sticks to his guns on Question Time against what will be unreasonable pressure to go along with this emotional tidal wave a la Princess Di mania and speak about him positively......

tedphill 30 Jun 2009 , 4:39pm

Hey! I thought this site was about money.
Just goes to show that even the best (or worst) people don't look after their money, or their advisors ain't as good as they thought they were.

ashleymarks 30 Jun 2009 , 5:50pm

if popularity, in this case, does not signify quality. Define quality music? You cant without being subjective. So therefore the only way is to calculate how many people have "subjectively" liked the music i.e. bought it.
So therefore music sales is the only way to define quality of music in terms of its appeal...
done.

tigerroach 30 Jun 2009 , 6:03pm

Music sales isn't all there is to it as some acts shine brightly then fade quickly whilst others stay popular for decades. Take Neil Young as mentioned above; been around since the 60s and still going very strong if Glastonbury was anything to go by. Stood the test of time. Now Lilly Allen is very popular these days but will she be in 10 years? Hard to say. Anyway, Jacko does seem to have stayed popular, though obviously his death is helping on that front at the moment. Indeed he's so popular that accusations of child molestation are ignored by most, which is perhaps right as never convicted, but hard to imagine many others that would get off so lightly from the general public.

TheGinger1 30 Jun 2009 , 6:27pm
mercury104 30 Jun 2009 , 8:46pm

Re : ashleymarks comments.. to equate musical quality to sales is a truly ignorant proposition.
This is the Micky Most approach.Would you say that Suzy Quatro made quality music?,me neither,yet she sold a hell of a lot of records.
Michael Jackson was a truly talented artist,but Supasap has a point;since the mid 80s he has been famous for being famous.
The intriguing question now is"whos the daddy"

supasap 30 Jun 2009 , 9:33pm

good point re popularity and sales...... they'll be telling me next that Westlife are as good as the Beatles because of the number ones they have had ....... most people that know anything about music will know that Westlife simply don't count... absolute tosh....... now I agree that MJ did some good songs about 5 but compared to the greats I mentioned in my earlier post that is very small potatoes...... hence overrated

spidercorp 30 Jun 2009 , 9:44pm

S'funny how the news today suggested that his assets had miraculously blossomed into a dividend of $1 billion. So hurrah for that.

It's also mildly amusing (and a distraction from doing something worthwhile right now) to read Supasap shore up the comments made in the last paragraph. Bravo there sir, your life must be dull if you want to criticise someone because of what the press is forcing down your throat. How unimaginative!

supasap 30 Jun 2009 , 9:48pm

who is being criticised

Klawman 01 Jul 2009 , 3:22am


JS Bach died over 250 years ago. His music lives on. Does Ashleymarks really think that anyone will even remember the name of Michael Jackson in 50 year's time, never mind 250?

He was not a musician, but an entertainer - a rather ephemeral species.

Supasap is spot on. Jackson was well past his sell-by date.

tiith 01 Jul 2009 , 7:16am

Supasap/Klawman - you obviously both do not have a taste for modern music!!!

His music was listened to by my Dad's generation (he is 79), myself and now my kids (7 & 5 years old who love the likes of "ABC", "Ben" etc) that is 3 different generations.

Yes, the man may not have the financial genius of Warren Buffet but without a doubt he was a musical genius and a gifted entertainer - I am not sure there is any living or dead artist that matches his ability. The only reason why subsequent albums since "Thriller" seemed not to have done so well was because he had already surpassed himself with that album.

Oh by the way it already is looking like he is set to earn more in death than in life - what does that tell you? I'll let you both decide!

CHERRYCRESTA 01 Jul 2009 , 7:52am

A great artist but he had his day 2 decades ago and spent the rest of his time as one of the oddest people on the planet. Theres a lot of guff written about the man, repeated by ashleymarks;

-He wrote songers (sic) better than professional writers. He only wrote 4 of the 9 songs on Thriller.

-He sold more music than anyone else - NOPE, the Beatles p1ssed on him from a great height there.

-He was more entertaining than almost any other act in the world. Depends on your perspective; as a black man that bleached his skin and had plastic surgery to look like Diana Ross and slept with pre-pubescent boys, I found the man highly amusing, in a very, very strange way.

-His music is known around the world - literally. -How many other artists can say the same. Ummm... the Beatles, Stones, Nirvana, The Who, Prince...

-He has at least 40 (thats what I saw on VH1) songs that almost EVERYONE knows. who else can say that? Credit where its due, his tunes are annoyingly catchy.

And tiith; "modern music"? You want to get out more; his 80s disco pop style isnt modern and has never changed or evolved - he hasnt released any original material for almost a decade.

I would say that he's overrated, and you are free to choose your idols, but it says a lot about you if your choice includes acquitted kiddy fiddlers.

supasap 01 Jul 2009 , 9:36am

well said Cherrycresta and Klawman...... listening to the others reminds me of how I felt when Princess Di died..... all this overblown emotion and the media exaggerating the significance..... all this pressure to agree about how great he was..... MJ did about 5 good songs, ok if you like dancing then yes he could dance but give me good songs over "entertainers" anyday....... you lot have just got to get perspective here..... go watch Jarvis Cocker on Youtube intervening over a decade ago because of the lack of perspective.... and feel proud of our fellow countryman (another one I would say that has written well more than 5 good songs)

Whoyoufooling 01 Jul 2009 , 9:57am

Supasap, what an appropriate username! Your record collection must be...um, INTERESTING!

tiith 01 Jul 2009 , 10:00am

CHERRYCRESTA my use of term "modern music" was in reference to Supasap's comparison of MJ with JS Bach.

Yes it is universally accepted that MJ's personal life (including finances) was a tragedy but it still does not negate the fact that he was one of the most talented artist of our time.

In the rural towns of West/East Africa MJ's music is relatively well known, can I say the same for the likes of Prince, Nirvana, Rolling Stones? From my knowledge of the place - "Nope"

Supasap, Jarvis Cocker's childish stunt (back then) was simply an attention seeking act - which he successfully achieved (& it probably boosted his album sales too!!) so I guess that's now his claim to worldwide fame?


PS. Finally MJ was/is not my idol I simply recognised his musical ability.

ashleymarks 01 Jul 2009 , 10:27am

wow -there are a lot of angry people here. Ok - i dont care anymore - you miserable posters can continue to rip him apart and let the majority of the world enjoy his achievments.

and cherrycresta's comment on world reknowned artists including Nirvana, The Who and Prince? Im not sure where you have been in the world but if you exclude Western Europe, US and Oz then I think you will find yourself mistaken. Its a hard one to define but you cant honestly put those 3 bands in the same category of infamy as MJ.

Anyway - I do recognise the difference between popular and "good" music. However, "good music" is a little harder to define, isnt it? My point with MJ is that he was unquestionably talented, appeals to all ages and i would bet 50 to 1 odds that he will still be popular in 50 years time.

I love this idea that everyone derides him for doing "nothing" in the last 20 years - so what? neither has Elvis and his memory lives on - stronger than ever! Rolling Stones have done nearly nothing (other than touring and singing their old songs)and who can argue they are not musical legends? Oh - and his last album which was number 1 in US and UK, came out in 2001.

I dont understand this wall of negativity from some of you - for a man than has done nothing to you and has made music which made millions (if not billions) of people smile. And Im not even a massive MJ fan - I just recognise that he was immensely talented.

ashleymarks 01 Jul 2009 , 10:46am

tiith - well put.
jarvis cocker is an idiot. his most famous act was trying to degrade someone else. we should be so proud... Typical english attitude of trying to tear everyhing down to make yourself feel better.

funkytomato 01 Jul 2009 , 11:21am

Crikey, I love this debate!
At first, I disagreed with Supasap's comments, but he has made some good points. I mean, who actually bought and liked his History album, and that song about the Earth, surrounded by loads of kids running up a hill?

I love his old stuff, Billy Jean, Dirty Diana (or was that Prince?), Smooth Criminal, etc.. Fantastic dance tracks, but they are very 80s, and his style has never evolved. Take Madonna for example, and all of her albums. Her style has always evolved and delivered music that suits the generation. MJ never did that in my opinion although he did set the tone for music videos, and changed who MTV broadcast. He did have a big influence on the music industry.

I now feel sorry for his "kids", as they are going to read a whole load of wierd sh*t about their father in time to come.

Let the debate continue!!!

supasap 01 Jul 2009 , 1:23pm

ashleymarks, my analysis fell into both camps:

- done little of value since 1983
- even during his prime 78 to 83 he only did about 5 good songs

the acts I have mentioned in my posts have produced far more great songs than MJ

bobmoo79 01 Jul 2009 , 2:05pm

I pity the fool who put this article together. they missed what should be the cornerstone of any good article - accurate facts.

Bloomberg reported the other day that Michael Jackson's 50% share in Sony/ATV was worth in excess of $1billion. (yes, contrary to what you may have read in the gutter press, Michael Jackson didn't sell/lose any of it) So Michael Jackson was not broke.

Over the past few years he had been responsible. He had cut down on his spending massively. He closed Neverland long before he nearly lost it - saving $12million per year. The income from his stake in Sony/ATV was redirected to paying off loans through several trusts he had set up. He had consolidated debts and was benefitting from reduced rates of interest too. He nearly lost Neverland due to poor management, not lack of funds. the same can be said for all those items that were nearly auctioned off. He had bad people around him who he wrongly trusted to look after his interests. Celebrities such as Jackson don't look after these things themselves and can fall foul of others' bad intentions or incompetence. This was Michael Jackson's financial downfall.

Only now are the general public realising what I have known for years. Michael Jackson was not broke. He was just not as rich as he was.

Some estimates are now saying he was $250million+ in the black. My personal estimation, using information I have acquired over the years is that it is quite a bit higher than that. Perhaps when the dust has settled, the truth will be released.

bobmoo79 01 Jul 2009 , 2:35pm

The debate on Michael Jackson as a talent is rather pointless if all you're going to do is rely on your own biased opinions.

Michael Jackson was one of the most successful artists of all time. FACT.
He was one of the most influential artists across the world. FACT.
He recorded the most successful album of all time. FACT.
His follow up albums, BAD and Dangerous were also incredibly big sellers - some of the best in the world. FACT.
His HIStory album was the 5th best selling album in the year of release (1995). FACT.
The HIStory album produced his most successful singles performance across the world. FACT.
His 2001 Invincible album was the 5th best selling album of that year. FACT.
His world tours set attendance records. FACT.

In terms of music sales, it is very difficult if not impossible to determine who was the biggest selling artist of all time due to the way in which music sales have been tracked over the years, particularly in the 50s, 60s, 70s. But the FACT is Michael Jackson is certainly in the top 3 best selling acts of all time.
Elvis' and the Beatles sales have been grossly exaggerated over the years, and only a fool would believe either one of them had sold anywhere near the billion records that their labels and fans would claim. I frequent several chart related forums and the people their would laugh you off the site if you suggested it was true.


As for music quality. That is personal opinion, but I have to say that given the success he achived right from the 60s to the early 00s, he was not just a one trick pony. His music sold and was legitimately successful. I personally prefer Off the Wall to Thriller. BAD is also an excellent album and deserved it's success. All 3 were produced by Quincy Jones, who speaks very highly of Mike's talent. Quincy (and others who work for Mike) has always said that Mike was a gifted writer and composer. In fact his most successful single in the UK (Earth Song) was written by him. As were many other of his biggest hits.

Less known is that he was also a gifted musician, playing several instruments (e.g. Piano, guitar etc.) very well.


Michael Jackson was the pioneer of music video and it was his personal vision that brought the Thriller video to life. He even paid for it out of his own pocket because Sony chiefs couldn't see the point in the investment. It went on to compound the success of Thriller and has become the most successful music video of all time. His videos in general have shaped the art form.

So Michael Jackson didn't do much in his final years. So what? elvis did't either. Does that make him any less great? Paul McCartney hasn't done anything great or particularly successful for decades either. His post-Beatles music hasn't ever been able to live up to his earlier work. does that detract from his success? Or the Beatles? No.

It really seems that some people here are determined to undermine Michael Jackson's success and are blinded by their own opinion. Whatever your personal thoughts, he was a ver successful artist, competing at the top level for decades. The fact that he can even be compared to Elvis and the Beatles goes to prove how successful he was. By doing so, you're undermining your own case against him.

supasap 01 Jul 2009 , 4:49pm

bobmoo....... no-one is denying his success but questioning the basis of that success or rather that success equals quality ..... MJ did a handful of good songs ages ago, McCartney did many more great songs with Beatles and on his own up to 1973 he wrote more than 5 good songs...... so I am saying that the impact of MJ has been totally disproportionate to his talent and contribution....hence he is overrated.... quoting sales figures misses the point..... like the News of the World is a better newspaper than the Observer? As for your financial analysis of MJ's situation who cares..... I managed to switch this into a far more interesting debate

tiith 01 Jul 2009 , 5:35pm

bobmoo79 thanks for your detailed analysis in which you highlighted the facts about MJ's career.

I am suprised at Supasup's feeble response to bobmoo79 outlined facts considering that you did originally deny MJ's success even far worse you attempted to rate Jarvis Cocker alongside MJ!!

With such a weak response I guess you've backed down and scampered away into oblivion to lick your wounds at least you live to fight another day. And yes you did make it an exciting debate!!

supasap 01 Jul 2009 , 7:50pm

suggest you read the posts again tith..... the assertion is that MJ is overrated.... and yes Jarvis Cocker is one of many artists who have written more good songs than MJ..... debate would have been more exciting if people could grasp difference between success and value and come back with something substantive other than sales figures... intellectual laziness to be expected from tith who wrongly attributed the comparison to Bach to me, it was Klawman ..... how hard is it to read

mercury104 01 Jul 2009 , 9:31pm

This debate has sure changed direction(thanx supasap)
We are now assessing MJs world standing as regards his musical contribution.
I was sorry to read Bobmoo belittling Paul Mcartneys contribution,in this respect;dont forget that Paul & Michael chose to work with each other on several occasions.This could only have happened because of their mutual respect.
As regards Ashleymarks comments as to how quality music is defined,some would say we could judge this by how many other artists cover your compositions-on this basis McCartney would be a mile in front of the field with Jacko nowhere in sight.
I feel however that this would be a gross oversimplification.
tough one eh! Ashley?

Klawman 02 Jul 2009 , 6:27am

tiith: "Supasap/Klawman - you obviously both do not have a taste for modern music!!!"

Depends on what you call "modern music". The last CD I listened to is by John Petrucci and the most recent one I bought is by Voodoo Six. As it happens, I know quite a bit about music and theory, from Renaissance/Baroque through to jazz and neoclassical, and I'm a keen amateur musician/composer and spend as many hours a day as I can spare practising scales and arpeggios, etc.

But I admit I can't dance and I'm not very good at making chimp-like noises.

bobmoo:
Please do NOT confuse popularity with quality (in the Sophist sense). Just because Jordan's autobiography outsells Shakespeare does not make it great literature.

Jackson was an entertainer. Arguably a great one. But that's all he was.

supasap 03 Jul 2009 , 7:57pm

no-one bothered to challenge my comments about Westlife..... so there is some hope perhaps....

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.