Skip to main content

Pyramid Schemes II

The prohibition of pyramid schemes does not amount to a prohibition of all multi-level marketing (MLM). Tupperware lawfully sells storage and serving products branded with its name and the well-known “burp” on the one hand. It also lawfully offers to some individuals the right to offer its products to other potential customers in return for initial entry costs (in effect, purchasing a Tupperware franchise) on the other. That much is uncontroversial. Nor is the sale of a Tupperware franchise a security requiring registration as such.

Where controversy begins to enter the picture is when these individuals are themselves empowered to sell the right to sell the product to third parties, creating another downstream level, and where the second level retailer not only thereafter gets a commission from the sale of the company’s products herself; she gets a share of the downstream profits: she shares in the proceeds of sales made by individuals she recruited to be sales people.

This kind of arrangement can, critics contend, shift the incentive from selling to recruiting, and that in turn makes the payment of the upfront costs seem like the purchase of a security, arguably running afoul of such precedents as a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, SEC v. Koscot, (1974). The participants buy into it as an investment contract.

The distinction between Tupperware and Koscot is a tricky one, a matter it seems of degree. Note the following points: the fact that an actual product is involved does not save Tupperware from the charge that it is a pyramid scheme. Koscot, too, sold products: ‘Kosmetics.’ Also, the fact that there is a financial incentive for recruitment is not by itself forbidden. What is forbidden is [more] and what saves Tupperware from condemnation is [more].

Even constitutional law seems to have conspired to make this tricky, because advertisements for a Tupperware Party were central to an important first amendment case, and were found to be protected by that amendment. The case is SUNY v. Fox (1989).   

All this brings us naturally to a recent controversy about Herbalife (HLF) and its accounting practices. Herbalife (NYSE: HLF) sells nutritional and skin care products through an international MLM network. It’s headquartered in California, though it is incorporated in the Caymans. The recent controversies over whether its MLM has crossed over the rather fuzzy line into pyramid scheming became Big News in May 2012, soon after David Einhorn asked pointed questions during HLF’s May 1 earnings call.

This was the same David Einhorn who, in May 2008, gave a very perceptive an accurate talk at the Ira Sohn Investment Research Conference about how Lehman Brothers would be the next big bank to come under pressure. Since then, when Einhorn talks, people listen. Further, Einhorn had made a very influential bearish case about Green Mountain Coffee Roasters in October 2011 in a slideshow he presented to the Value Investing Conference. The point Einhorn was making in connection with HLF is a close kin to the method he had employed in regard to Lehman Brothers in 2008 and Green Mountain in 2011: he laid special emphasis on what he plainly saw as the accounting trickery involved.

Einhorn asked first, “How much of the sales that you’d make in terms of the final sales are sold outside the network and how much are consumed within the distributor base?” This is important. If the distributor base is consuming much of the product itself, that’s a ‘tell,’ indicating that the distributors see buying the product as part of the dues they pay in the hope of making real money themselves by … expanding the distributor base. If people outside of the distributor base are actively buying Herbalife in big numbers, that is obviously better news for the company.

After a little back-and-forth, HLF’s CEO, Michael O. Johnson, admitted to Einhorn that the company doesn’t “have an exact percentage,” though it believes it is selling approximately 70 percent of its products to customers. 

Just by asking the questions, Einhorn set off speculations that he (a) thought HLF an unsustainable pyramid and (b) was short its stock – or was about to go short – on that presumption. Two days later, the stock price was near $46 (before the conference, the price had been above $70). 

What happened next? Nothing much … for some time. HLF proceeded to treat $46 as the floor of a new trading range. It back and forth between there are $55 over the next few months.


Popular posts from this blog

Calenders for 2016

I have a Dilbert day-by-day calendar again this year.

Saturday and Sunday share a single page, each day of the work week has a page, and a comic, of ots own.

I'll quote here the comic for January 9/10. Dilbert is sitting at his desk, the pointy-haired boss is standing behind him.

Boss asks, "Do we have any actionable analytics from our Big Data in the cloud?"

Dilbert, "Yes, the data shows that my productivity plunges whenever you learn new jargon."

Boss, "Maybe in-memory computing will accelerate your applications."

Dilbert, "Plunge, plunge, plunge."

I also have a month by month wall calendar, aptly titled "Puppies," in which I'll be greeted each month by another cure dog-child. January greets me with a photo of a babe beagle, running about in grass with an orange ball in his mouth.

Finally, am the proud possessor of a desk book for appointments. For the first time in several years, I'm NOT using one from American Exp…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…


I made five Resolutions last year. I have kept, let us say, 2.5.

The resolutions were these:

1. Get my car through December 2012 in good working order. I'm happy to report that the car is doing fine.

2. Make an entrepreneurial investment. Did absolutely nothing in this line. Oops.

3. There was a computer-tech related resolution concerning entry into the 21st century. I'm giving myself half a point for this one. I have gotten Skype and and did get the audio problem resolved, but I'm still not comfortable scanning and can't work the printer due to some software problem.

4. My book did come out early this year, but sales fell far short of where I had resolved they would be, so this one counts as a Fail.

5. Venture outside the borders of the US. Success! I did get to London for the Trading Technology conference.

So, counting (1) and (5) as full successes, and   (3) as a half success, I get my 2.5 score.  Well ... I've had worse years.

For the year 2013, let's t…