Vote totals:
Yes:
100%
No:
0%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: IS DICK FULD TO BLAME FOR THE LEHMAN BROTHERS' BANKRUPTCY?
IS DICK FULD TO BLAME FOR THE LEHMAN BROTHERS' BANKRUPTCY?
Mr Fuld should have been aware of the changes happening around him
Mr Fuld joined Lehman Brothers in 1969 and has never worked for another firm since. He started as a commercial paper trader, slowly rising through the ranks to become the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. In 2006, Mr Fuld was named the number one CEO in the Broker’s and Asset’s Managers category and received a $22 million bonus in 2007(1).
It just does not make sense. How can a man, who has worked for Lehman for 39 years and is of high business intelligence, not take preventative and protective measures to save his company in time? His work employed thousands of people and made many of them very wealthy. Was he not looking out for the best interests of his company and his colleagues? Mr Fuld was so concerned with his own earning potential that he wrapped himself in a cocoon and ignored the trouble his company was in until it was too late.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/opinion/18kristof.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
Lehman Brothers was one of the four biggest banks in the world. It is strongly possible that Mr Fuld never anticipated such a big player in the banking world to be so strongly hit by a recession.
IS DICK FULD TO BLAME FOR THE LEHMAN BROTHERS' BANKRUPTCY?
Top analysts warned him of the dangers
As early on as March 2008, people were warning Dick Fuld and his company of the potential dangers that could devastate Lehman. Erin Callan, who was the chief financial officer at the time, was warned of the dangers in March(1). So why did Mr Fuld not take any action? Lehman Brothers was in the position where it would not have been difficult to take preventative measures. It is not as if the bankruptcy came out of nowhere and Mr Fuld left helpless. Despite sale negotiations beginning in August, with firms such as Blackstone (the private equity group) and BlackRock (the fund manager) nothing was enough to save Lehman from disaster. Had he acted sooner, he would have been able to avoid bankruptcy. A series of interested buyers surfaced in recent months, but Mr Fuld would not sell at the prices offered. By the time he appeared to face up to the situation at the end of last week, it was too late: Lehman was past the point of no return.
(1) http://evnucci.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/12-crisis-management-lessons-from-lehman-brothers/
With Mr Fuld taking Lehman Brothers from strength to strength, he would have assumed that he himself had the most knowledge about his company as opposed to any analyst.
IS DICK FULD TO BLAME FOR THE LEHMAN BROTHERS' BANKRUPTCY?
Many of his workers seem to believe Mr Fuld is too blame
The real losers of the collapse of Lehman Brothers were the 25,000 workers and their families. Mr Fuld paid many of them healthy salaries and ensured job satisfaction for all. Yet so many of them believe he is the one to blame. Not only do they face a most uncertain future, but those who hold jobs where 75-80 per cent of their salary comes in share-based bonuses will be left with next to nothing. And given the state of the financial market, getting a job elsewhere won’t be easy either. Gawkers – Lehman employees among them – are paying a poster’s artist $1 to write a comment around Fuld’s severe-looking mug. The comments are unforgiving: “Crooks”… “Greed and power it was”… “I hope his villa is safe.”(1)
(1) http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/09/15/wheres-dick-fuld/
However, many of Mr Fuld’s workers have nothing but praise for him. He assisted in making many of them lots of money and it was a good time, while it lasted. Despite what anyone’s personal opinions might be, Mr Fuld was a very intelligent man, good at his job and assumed a last minute save would rescue Lehman. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
IS DICK FULD TO BLAME FOR THE LEHMAN BROTHERS' BANKRUPTCY?
It is the culture to blame
It is quite obvious that people do not complain when things are going well. But the ordinary public are not the ones who offered this lifestyle, the banks did. These banks offered loans to the sub prime market, they should have known that giving this category of borrowers 125% mortgages was a bad idea. People ae responsible if their homes get repossessed, just as Dick Fuld is to blame for Lehman Brothers sinking.
If I was able to lose billions of pounds like Dick Fuld then I would expect to be called to account (and be called an idiot).
Is it not strange that Mr Fuld is in the firing line as opposed to the culture? Why were workers not raving ten years ago when people like Mr Fuld were making portfolios and salaries grow? No one was being blamed when people took advantage of cheap and easily obtained loans which gave many a first time taste of home ownership. Without people like Mr Fuld, individuals would not know the exhilaration of selling a home for double its value in two years of buying it or the fear of watching the market drop out 500 points in losses in a day. Perhaps it would be fair to say that the mob is fickle: looking for the first person to point the finger at when times get hard. Perhaps it is the culture to blame.
IS DICK FULD TO BLAME FOR THE LEHMAN BROTHERS' BANKRUPTCY?
The board should have attempted a stronger stance
Mr Fuld was the face of Lehman Brothers, and turned around the business very successfully when he joined all those years ago. As the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer, any decisions must go through him, including any that would include a save.
The Lehman Brothers board is made up of eleven educated and loyal individuals. Despite Mr Fuld being the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer, he was still assisted by his board. Why did they not make more of an effort to prevent the collapse of Lehman? And why is all the blame falling on the shoulders of Mr Fuld, when the board should at least accept partial blame?
IS DICK FULD TO BLAME FOR THE LEHMAN BROTHERS' BANKRUPTCY?
Mr Fuld attempted a save
Mr Fuld did attempt a save of his firm. He offered up a radical plan to save Lehman Brothers: to sell 55% of its money management franchise, and spin off almost $33 billion in distressed real estate securities. Lehman actively shopped itself and was said to be in talks with the Bank of America and British bank Barclays. But, unfortunately, it was all too little, too late.