Skip to main content

Lehman Managers Portrayed as Irresponsible


By BERNIE BECKER and BEN WHITE
Published: October 6, 2008
WASHINGTON — Richard S. Fuld Jr. blamed the news media. He blamed the short-sellers. He blamed the government, as well as what he characterized as an “extraordinary run on the bank.”
The chief of the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard S. Fuld Jr., told irate members of Congress that all his decisions “were both prudent and appropriate” given the information he had at the time.But the chief executive of Lehman Brothers Holdings, the bankrupt remnant of a once-great investment house, never really blamed himself.
Instead, in his first public appearance since Lehman’s collapse, Mr. Fuld said in sworn testimony before a Congressional panel on Monday that while he took full responsibility for the debacle, he believed all his decisions “were both prudent and appropriate” given the information he had at the time.
That stance did not sit well with angry members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who peppered Mr. Fuld with hostile questions about the hundreds of millions he made over the last eight years.
Members of the committee, several of whom mispronounced Mr. Fuld’s name as “Fold” or “Food,” also hammered the Lehman chief executive for making what they described as rosy public statements about the bank’s health that did not reflect a scramble for cash behind the scenes.
“People want to know if you defrauded investors,” said Representative John L. Mica, Republican of Florida, who also informed Mr. Fuld at one point that he needed to understand his role as the designated “villain” of the day.
Describing himself as a “Lehman lifer” who joined the bank 42 years ago and had never worked anywhere else, Mr. Fuld said he was haunted by the collapse.
“I wake up every single night wondering what I could have done differently,” he said. “This is a pain that will stay with me the rest of my life.”
Mr. Fuld, by turns combative and contemplative, and often pained by interruptions of his answers, repeatedly denied that any misrepresentations took place. Even when confronted with internal documents that seemed to tell a different story, Mr. Fuld said he believed until five days before the Sept. 15 bankruptcy filing that Lehman remained in decent health.
“No, sir, we did not mislead our investors,” Mr. Fuld said in response to a question from Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, who wanted to know how Mr. Fuld’s public statements could be valid in light of efforts by JPMorgan Chase to secure $5 billion in extra collateral from Lehman in the final days.
“To the best of my ability at the time, given the information I had, we made disclosures that we fully believed were accurate,” Mr. Fuld said.
He said that Lehman might have survived had the Federal Reserve moved faster to help investment banks borrow from the Fed. He also noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were allowed to transform themselves quickly into bank holding companies after Lehman’s collapse. Lehman had tried a similar move months earlier without success.
Mr. Fuld and other Lehman executives are facing preliminary inquiries by federal prosecutors into whether public statements about the bank’s position amounted to fraud. That might have explained the lawyered tone Mr. Fuld often adopted during two hours of questioning.
At one point on Monday, Mr. Fuld was confronted with an internal memo dated June 8 that included warnings about Lehman’s condition and asked the question, “Why did we allow ourselves to be so exposed?”
Mr. Fuld, after a long scan of the memo, said, “This document does not look familiar to me.”
With November’s elections just a month away, Democrats said their constituents were most upset at what they viewed as exorbitant severance packages that Wall Street executives received, even as companies like Lehman Brothers were staring down bankruptcy.
“The people in my block in Baltimore, if they perform poorly, they get fired,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland. “They certainly don’t get a bonus.”
Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who heads the panel, began the hearing with an assault on Mr. Fuld’s pay, bringing out a chart showing that the Lehman chief executive received nearly $500 million in salary and bonus payments in the last eight years.
“That’s difficult to comprehend for a lot of people,” Mr. Waxman said. “I have a very basic question for you, is that fair?”
Mr. Fuld first took issue with the numbers, saying the accurate figure was probably less than $250 million. “The majority of my compensation came in stock and the vast majority of the stock that I got I still owned at the point of our filing,” referring to the firm’s bankruptcy filing.
Mr. Fuld was once worth close to $1 billion and now has a net worth estimated at about $100 million. He and his wife have been forced to sell some of their renowned art collection.
While defending his own pay, Mr. Fuld also noted that Lehman employees owned about 30 percent of the company’s shares. “When the company did well, we did well. And when the company did not do well, we did not do well, sir,” Mr. Fuld said to Mr. Waxman.
Later in the hearing, Mr. Fuld was asked why Lehman approved nearly $20 million in payments for two departing executives about a week before the bankruptcy filing.
Mr. Fuld said one payment, $2 million for Andrew J. Morton, the head of fixed income, was deemed “appropriate for his years of service.” Another $16 million, paid to Benoit Savoret, who was leaving as chief operating officer for Europe and the Middle East, was a result of a contractual obligation.
The committee also released e-mail messages sent in June in which Mr. Fuld and George H. Walker, a Lehman executive and cousin of President Bush, responded in what Mr. Waxman called a mocking tone to a suggestion that executives at the company decline bonuses.
Asked what mistakes, if any, he had made, Mr. Fuld said he wished he had moved more quickly to reduce Lehman’s commercial real estate holdings. “I, like a number of other people, thought that the mortgage crisis was contained to residential mortgages, and I was wrong,” he said.
After the hearing — which started before a crowd of journalists and a smattering of protesters, then ended almost five hours later before a half-full room — a weary-looking Mr. Fuld approached Mr. Waxman and said he hoped his testimony was helpful. He then left under protection from Capitol Police officers, going to a waiting sport utility vehicle while members of the protest group Code Pink pelted him with insults and called for Mr. Fuld to be jailed.
Sharon Otterman contributed reporting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Rabbi Against the State: When Faith Refuses Power

In a world where identity is weaponized and religion is drafted into political armies, the sight of an ultra-Orthodox rabbi standing beside Palestinian flags unsettles nearly everyone. Yet there stands — black coat, beard, sidelocks — calmly declaring something that scrambles modern assumptions: “ Judaism is not Zionism.” For him, this is not rebellion . It is obedience . Affiliated with , a small and highly controversial Haredi sect, Rabbi Beck represents a theological current that predates modern nationalism. His argument is not secular. It is not progressive. It is not post-modern. It is ancient . And that is precisely the point. The Interview That Disturbs Categories In one widely circulated long-form interview, the exchange unfolds with almost disarming simplicity. Interviewer: Rabbi Beck, how can you oppose Israel as a Jewish rabbi? Rabbi Beck: Judaism and Zionism are two completely different things. Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political movement founded little more ...

The High Priest of “Serious” Wars Discovers Bibi

  There was a time when rode into every Middle Eastern catastrophe like a TED Talk with a press pass. If there was a war to explain, a regime to modernize, or a “vital message” to send with cruise missiles, Tom was there — sleeves rolled up, metaphors polished. Back when the invasion of was sold as a democratic software update, Friedman wasn’t exactly storming the barricades. He was midwifing “creative destruction.” The region would be shocked into sanity. History would bend toward market reform. Fast forward. Now he’s discovered that might be bending something else entirely. When an Ex–Prime Minister Uses the Words “Ethnic Cleansing” What jolts Friedman’s latest column is not campus rhetoric. Not activist slogans. Not fringe NGOs. It’s — a former Israeli prime minister — using language that once would have detonated diplomatic careers. Olmert wrote in Haaretz that: “A violent and criminal effort is underway to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.” Let...

Sanctions, Selective Morality, and the War That Never Ends

  On Feb. 28, 2026, The Editorial Board of NYTimes  warned that President Trump’s latest strike on Iran was reckless, unconstitutional, and strategically undefined. The board expressed concern for “the many innocent Iranians who have long suffered.” Eleven days earlier, on Feb. 17, 2026, wrote something even more explosive: “ Israel’s far-right government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is spitting in America’s face and telling us it’s raining. It’s not raining. Bibi is playing both President Trump and American Jews for fools.” Friedman was not questioning Israel’s right to defend itself. He was questioning whether American power was being drawn into a strategy shaped less by U.S. national interest and more by Israel’s domestic political calculus. That distinction matters. Iran as the Permanent External Threat For over four decades, Iran has been under American sanctions. Since 1979, layers of financial, oil, trade, and banking restrictions have been impo...

Blood in the Car Park: Islamophobia and the Fear That Follows Us to Prayer

  On a cold February evening in 2026, 18-year-old Zeeshan Afzal was stabbed to death in the parking lot of Oldbury Jamia Masjid, near Birmingham. He had just prayed. He had just stood shoulder to shoulder with other worshippers in Ramadan — the month of mercy, of restraint, of forgiveness. Minutes later, he lay bleeding in the dark. Police have said the investigation is ongoing and that the killing is not currently being treated as religiously motivated. That is an important and responsible clarification. Motive must be established by evidence, not emotion. And yet. Across Muslim communities in Britain and Europe, the question whispers through homes and WhatsApp groups alike: Are we safe? Even at the mosque? The Atmosphere We Cannot Ignore Even when a specific case is not officially labeled a hate crime, it unfolds within a larger social climate. And that climate matters. Across Europe, reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes have surged in recent years. Mosques vandalized....

When a Journalist Becomes a “Hybrid Threat”

  The Administrative Erasure of Hüseyin Doğru Europe prides itself on being the global capital of press freedom. And yet, in 2025, the Council of the European Union placed a German journalist under sanctions using a legal regime originally designed to counter Russian destabilisation. The journalist: The legal instrument used against him: Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 Concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities CELEX: 32024R2642 Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 Restrictive measures framework (Common Foreign and Security Policy) CELEX: 32024D2643 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2021 (3 October 2025 – listing amendment including Doğru) CELEX: 32025R2021 These are not criminal statutes. They are foreign-policy instruments. And under them, a journalist inside the European Union was designated as supporting destabilising activities. What the Official Listing Says According to the Official Journal entry (Annex t...