Lehman CEO Punched at Gym!!!

[Deadly Sushi]

Knock Out: CNBC Confirms Lehman CEO Punched at Gym
Network verifies reports Richard Fuld was attacked for financial institution's bankruptcy.

[/URL] By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
10/6/2008 3:59:29 PM
It seems anxiety from the financial crisis is reaching new highs, but the tipping point for one individual came at the Lehman Brothers gym in the midst of the company’s collapse.

While former Lehman CEO Richard Fuld was [URL="http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/10/06/congress-washington-fuld-biz-beltway-cx_bw_1006blame.html"]testifying before the House Oversight Committee (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20081006150152.aspx) Oct. 6, CNBC reported he had been punched in the face at the Lehman Brothers gym after it was announced the firm was going bankrupt. CNBC and Vanity Fair contributor Vicki Ward said Fuld was attacked at the gym on a Sunday following the bankruptcy.

“Frankly, I sat there and listened and I’m with the guy who apparently, the day before Barclays announced they were coming in and Lehman had already filed for bankruptcy, went over to him in the gym and punched him because that’s how I feel when I, you know, when I watched that,” Ward said on the Oct. 6 “Power Lunch.” “I didn’t think he was contrite at all, I thought he was arrogant.”

Ward confirmed previous reports about the incident (http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/business_news/8265.cntns) that reportedly occurred Sept. 21 and said the information came from “two very senior sources.”

“From two very senior sources – one incredibly senior source – that he went to the gym after … Lehman was announced as going under. He was on a treadmill with a heart monitor on. Someone was in the corner, pumping iron and he walked over and he knocked him out cold. And frankly after having watched this, I’d have done the same too.”

Ward determined Fuld deserved the beating based on his testimony before the committee.

“I thought he was shameless,” Ward said. “I thought it was appalling. He blamed everyone. He blamed, as you say, ‘naked short sellers’ over and over in case we didn’t get the point, when in fact hedge funds like Harbinger had money locked up in Lehman and was shorting it to try and make the most of the money that they already had. He blamed everybody but himself.”

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080915/bs_afp/useconomymarketsfinancebankbanking) and its assets were later snatched up by the British bank Barclays for $1.35 billion (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/20/business/main4462393.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_4462393) , which included Lehman’s Midtown Manhattan office tower with a $960 million price tag.


WATCH VIDEO: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081006150152.aspx

[The Tourist]

I can understand the frustration as people fear for their future. But there is a myriad of nuances here, and that I learned in working thirty years in finance. My specialty was distress companies.

Here's a simple over-view. Let's suppose Sattie wants to buy my sharpening company for any one of numerous reasons. She might want to cherry-pick my assets. She might have her own company and I'm the competition. She might have a cooking empire and my company is the missing piece. It makes no difference.

She approaches me. We negotiate. I agree to the concept, if and only if she throws a bucket of money at me. Additionally, I'm an older worker, so I negotiate an "exit strategy," what many call a golden parachute.

Sattie and I sign a contract.

Due to the buy-out, Sattie has limited liquid funds, she is "cash poor." So she goes to Jim_Slagle and borrows a set amount, agreeing to his payback and interest terms. She might even offer him a slice.

The money he uses may have been amassed by selling premium memberships in Net Cooking Talk.

All of this is legal, all of this is common, all of this is good business. Everyone makes good money for years.

I get paid more, Sattie expands her business, Jim_Slagle gets interest paid on his investment in two distinct revenue streams. The members of NC get enhanced services. Pretty good business ideas.

Then one bright spring day the bottom drops out of the Razor Sharp Japanese Knife market. Even after numerous strategies to save the assets, the place tanks. Sattie decides to cut her losses. She fires me.

Of course, I provide a copy of our contract. She leverages even more money from Jim_Slagle, pays me big bucks as negotiated, and liquidates the company.

But there's a ripple effect. In paying me what she owes me, she also closes the sharpening company (which is "service" only, no hard assets) and lays off one hundred people. If she defaults on her agreement to Jim_Slagle, she might even go bankrupt. If Jim has leveraged any of the money he has used, he defaults. In a desperate attempt to secure additional revenue, he sells the forum. With no forum, the common "joe lunch box" loses his investment in those "premium services."

So one day I'm at the gym. Since he is a former forum member, JoeC took a financial hit. He's also a gym member, recognizes me and assaults me. Everyone cheers because they feel they have been "cheated" when I made a bundle.

That's what happened folks. When the money flowed in this scenario, I was the hero. When the money stopped, I became the villain--all just for showing up for work.

And had I denied you a chance at profits in the early stages, you might have sued me for "red-lining."

[Doc]

Very good analogy Chico. :thumb:
But, I do believe the government bailout comes into the situation somewhere. And wasn't the head of Lehman personally involved in some of the sub prime loans / stewpid business dealings which in turn caused the company to fail?

Here is a link to "How the market really works". on Forums Forums.
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=20259

Tell me what you think of that one

[Deadly Sushi]

Doc I agree 100%:thumb:

[The Tourist]

The problem with most of these overall opinions is that they are based on fairness or being "right." We all have known a company where the boss hires his daughter because she has no skills whatsoever, or his son, who goes from detox to rehab on a regular basis.

The fact is that I can pay anyone anything I want, even if I have to borrow to do so.

One of the long-distance resellers I worked for was so incompetent with ready cash that he had to borrow high-interest "quick cash loans" to make payroll despite the fact there was ample cash flow.

If the lender decides that a borrower meets the criteria for the advancement of funds, then the focus should be directed at how those funds are to be repaid--not on how they are ultimately disbursed or spent.

If you believe me to be a good credit risk, and you loan me 1,000 dollars--which I immediately spend on 1,000 dayglo yo-yos--you opinion of my hobby means nothing.

Now, if money is loaned out to poor risks, that's another matter. However, loans, insurance and new auto sales where often directed due to "red lining." If you were poor, lived in the wrong neighborhood or were of the wrong ethnic group, you were a poor risk.

Ahh, but government dictated that loans must be available to all. Hence, Freddie Mac and other disasterous ideas. BTW, they are underwritten with your money.

There is a modern expression, "Hate the game, not the playa." That's the problem here. If I am ordered to make stupid decisions by a strong central government, then my advice is to go use a voting booth. However, my job was to recoup money for a client.

[Doc]

Well said Chico. Now to carry it one step further .... we realize that our representatives in Washington DC caused this mess with the sub prime mortgages and Fannie and Freddie. So why would anyone in their right mind expect these same bozo's to be able to come up with a plan that will get us out of this mess?
Analysisof the 1929 Great Depression has shown that Government action at that time actually extended the depression. I do believe we are witnessing the same dang thing with what our congress just passed last week. And the thiefs added over 100 billion to the freaking bill in pork!!!!! I am so outraged. I'll never relect any of them. :angry:

[The Tourist]

Because it's never the lender who is at fault. It is always the borrower. The debtor is the one who is responsible for the investment and the repayment.

And let's be honest. There's a whole generation of folks who believe that investment is like a slot machine. You put the nickel in the top, pull the lever and riches flow out into your hands.

Let's suppose you have 1,000 dollars to risk, amassed by savings, sale of an asset or just leveraging the money. You invest the entire amount.

Over time it grows, and it also is adjusted over this time for inflation. (You might have invested the money in 1980, but it is valued by the currency of the day.) You little investment is now worth 100,000 dollars.

Then one day the company in which you invested tanks big time. A new buyer picks it up for a penny stock.

You check the market, and your entire portfolio is now worth 5,000 dollars.

"Those greedy bankers! Those irresponsible lenders! Those top execs who fled the company in golden parachutes with my money! I hope that Congress investigates these guys! I lost 95,000 dollars!"

Lost what? You lost nothing. You made 4,000 dollars. And no one did one thing illegally. Those executives kept your investment afloat, and in ways you'll never know about.

This is an investment. Your home is an investment. It is an asset like stocks, money in the bank or a classic car parked in the garage. A "paper profit" is only worth what someone is willing to pay.

You cheer when the system grants you rewards. Then you should belly up to the realization that loss is part of the equation.

[Doc]

Again, very well said Chico. It's all part of taking responsibility for your actions.

Speaking of stocks I'm glad I'm not heavily invested in Ford. Their stock dropped to less than 2 dollars today. GM's not far behind. GM was 40+ dollars a few months ago is now at 6.50. :eek: The dealerships that own all the stock have to be sick about this.