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

Dr. Randa Abdel Fattah. De-Invited by Association: When Grief Becomes a Pretext and Palestinian Identity a Liability

How Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah Was Silenced in the Name of “Sensitivity” In a remarkable feat of moral gymnastics, Australia’s literary establishment has once again demonstrated how grief can be weaponised, principles suspended, and Palestinian identity rendered dangerously “inappropriate ” —all in the name of cultural sensitivity. Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah , a respected author, academic, and public intellectual, was quietly de-invited from Adelaide Writers’ Week following the Bondi Junction massacre. Not because she had any connection—real, implied, or imagined—to the atrocity. Not because she endorsed violence. Not because she violated any law or ethical standard. But because, apparently, the mere presence of a Palestinian Muslim woman who speaks about justice is now considered culturally unsafe during national mourning . One wonders: unsafe for whom? The Logic of the Absurd Festival organisers were careful—almost impressively so—to state that Dr. Abdel-Fattah had nothing to do wi...

Ana Kasparian: The Voice That Won’t Be Silent — A Call for Truth in an Age of Power

  Ana Kasparian is one of the most recognized and outspoken voices in contemporary political media. As a co-host of The Young Turks — a trailblazing online news and commentary program — she has spent nearly two decades dissecting U.S. politics, media, power, and foreign policy with unapologetic clarity and fierce conviction. She is not just a commentator — she is a truth-seeker who challenges power at every turn , refusing to soften her words for comfort. Schooled in journalism and political science, Ana’s commentary continues to mobilize millions, especially younger generations who feel unheard in mainstream discourse. A Voice Against the Status Quo Ana’s rhetoric can be bold, controversial, and deeply passionate — because she refuses to accept narratives that obscure the underlying truth about power and influence. On American democracy and foreign policy, she strikes at the heart of what many hesitate to articulate: “ We don’t actually live in a true democracy here in t...

Gaza and the Collapse of World Order: When the Guardian of Human Rights Sounds the Alarm

There are moments when the language of diplomacy fails, when caution becomes complicity, and when silence becomes an accomplice to destruction. On January 9, 2026, Agnès Callamard—Secretary General of Amnesty International—crossed that threshold. Her words were unambiguous, unprecedented, and devastating: The United States is destroying world order. Israel has been doing so for the last two years. Germany, through complicity and repression, is helping govern its demise. This was not activist rhetoric. It was a diagnosis from the very institution tasked with guarding the moral and legal architecture of the modern world. The Collapse of the Post-War Moral Architecture The international order that emerged after World War II was built on a promise: never again . Never again genocide. Never again collective punishment. Never again impunity for powerful states. That promise was codified in international law, human rights conventions, and multilateral institutions. But Gaza has...

Rebranding Genocide: When Killing Learns New Words

  There are moments in history when crimes do not end — they simply learn new language. Gaza is living inside such a moment. The bombs have not stopped falling. The children have not stopped dying. The displaced have not stopped freezing in tents pitched atop rubble that was once their homes. What has changed is the vocabulary . And in the modern age, vocabulary is power . If you can rename atrocity, you can anesthetize conscience. First, it was called self-defense — a phrase emptied of meaning by its repetition. Then it became a war , despite the grotesque imbalance: one side armed with one of the most advanced militaries on earth, backed by the world’s most powerful empire ; the other a besieged civilian population without an army, navy, air force, tanks, or safe shelter. Now it is branded a ceasefire — a word invoked not to stop violence, but to conceal it. This is not peace. It is genocide with a quieter soundtrack. The Illusion of Restraint A slowed rate of killing is not m...

Citizens on Paper, Expendable in Practice Arab Israelis, October 7, and the Failure of International Law Inside the “Only Democracy”

  Israel tells the world it is the only democracy in the Middle East . Democracies, we are reminded, protect all citizens equally—especially minorities—especially in times of crisis. Now look at Palestinian citizens of Israel , roughly 20% of the population , in the months following October 7 . Then ask: what exactly does citizenship mean when the state will not protect your life? The Forgotten Fifth of the Population Arab citizens of Israel vote. They hold passports. They pay taxes. They are citizens in the narrow, bureaucratic sense. But international law does not define citizenship by paperwork. It defines it by: Equal protection Non-discrimination The right to life Equal access to justice On those measures, Israel is not merely failing—it is structurally violating its obligations . A Murder Epidemic the State Chooses Not to Stop Long before October 7, Arab towns inside Israel were drowning in violence: Illegal weapons proliferated Organized crime flourished ...