Reviewing a Book on the Collapse of Lehman Brothers

Recently Dan and I both started trying to read less military history because the books tend to be depressing. Knowing that I was going to be stuck on an airplane for a few hours and needing some light “by the poolside” reading I picked up A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers by McDonald (yes I do realize that this sounds strange to most folks).

A bit of background; Lehman Brothers is a famous financial firm that failed during the 2008 crisis and became the biggest bankruptcy case in US history, since it had a balance sheet of over $600 Billion in listed assets at the time of its collapse. Here is a wikipedia summary of the bankruptcy proceedings. Note that at the time of its bankruptcy Lehman had a 33-1 asset leverage ratio, meaning that only a small decline in asset values wiped out the equity and made the firm insolvent. The US Government declined to rescue Lehman Brothers, which remains controversial to this day, and the fall of Lehman also caused an immediate crisis at AIG which led to a huge US government backstop of $85B to halt further failures of other investment institutions.

While the book is interesting, the author, who is a trader, misses most of the essential elements of WHY Lehman was doomed to collapse, focusing on the remoteness of the CEO Fuld, the exposure to toxic real estate mortgages that couldn’t be “packaged” into assets and sold (because the securitization market had collapsed), and Lehman’s purchase of real estate at the “high water” time of 2007 (virtually everything bought in 2007 turned out to be a bad idea, look at your portfolio at the time).

Note that I think that the book is very interesting and entertaining and recommend that readers buy it. These are more “conceptual” than “literary” or typical journalism reviewer type concerns.

PUBLIC COMPANY CEO CAPTURE

However, these items are merely symptoms of the root cause. The author inadvertently stumbled upon the root cause while discussing the history of Lehman and Fuld’s rise to power, when disputes among the partners led to partners leaving the firm, taking significant amounts of their capital with them (the firm had to utilize their cash to buy back their stock).

When Lehman was spun back out as a public entity, in 1994, essentially the partners no longer mattered, regardless of their title, because Lehman was a public company and the board was “captured” by Dick Fuld. The board was admirably satirized in the book:

Nine members of the ten-person board were retired. Four of them were 75 years of age or older… only two of them had direct experience in the financial services industry – and they were all from a different era.
 
From this disparate group of old stagers, Lehman created a risk committee, chosen and controlled by Fuld himself. It met only a couple of times a year, which is an unusual way to monitor the company’s ongoing risk.

In addition to “capturing” the board and stuffing it with out-of-touch retirees, and nullifying its risk management capabilities, Fuld did what many CEOs do, installed a #2 who was in no position to challenge him to ever run the company.

A key factor in the appointment was that his ambitions did not apparently include becoming CEO. His great concern was with what he called the “culture” of Lehman Brothers.

Packing the board with retired and out-of-touch geezers, ensuring that no one competent is in place to succeed you, and limiting opportunities for your already-supine board to govern your actions are often immediate actions of CEOs that want to ensure their reign will be long and profitable (for themselves).

Read more

IKC Dog Show Chicago 2011

On Saturday I went to the IKC Chicago Dog Show. I don’t really go to see the events or judging that they typically show on TV; I like walking around and looking at all the dogs and their owners while they are being groomed and resting before and after the performances. The dogs are all so well behaved and trained and the vast majority of the owners are happy to show off their prizes, although many of the owners are extremely busy grooming so I try not to bother them.

Read more

Minimal Investment of “Wooing”

Over the years the process of “wooing” the better half by men has changed significantly. Even the simplest reading of the literature classics contained balls, letters, furtive meetings, worries about parental views, etc… Certainly this has changed over the years in the US, as formal dating became less and less formal.

To some extent it can be viewed as an “investment”. The man is investing in a relationship with an attractive woman so that he can date her, and presumably do even more. The variable that is interesting to me is the COST of those dates, or the amount of investment that he has to put INTO the relationship before he is able to extract what he desires OUT of the relationship.

In the NY Times today they had a brief advice columnist discussion in the “Social Q’s” section. Here is the question that was asked:

I’ve been on two dates with this girl. We get along great and have a blast together. Problem is, I end up buying all the drinks. She doesn’t even pretend to offer, even after I hint. This doesn’t seem right, especially in the age of $14 Belgian beers. My friends tell me she’s a mooch and I should ditch her. Or should I just keep paying?

I find this to be amazing. The guy ISN’T EVEN BUYING HER DINNER. He isn’t picking her up at her place and taking her to a movie. He isn’t even springing for cab fare. He is merely buying her drinks at a bar (probably a bar located conveniently for him, no less, but I am just speculating here).

And he, and his friends (whom he cites in the letter) think that BUYING HER DRINKS to presumably loosen her up a bit is TOO HIGH A PRICE to be paid for what appears to comprise “dating” as it is defined, at least by this guy.

In one of the classical economic concepts – people put a VALUE on items that they acquire based on their COST, whether or not that is truly relevant to the current value. One great example of this is “anchoring”, where people stick to certain stocks or other investments based upon what they paid for it regardless of its current actual value in the marketplace; I for one fell into this trap with Nokia stock as I watched it fall down the drain in value but continually referenced what I paid for the damn stock in the first place.

While taking economic costs and applying them to social relations isn’t always clean, neat or even applicable, in this case we might want to think of the value that this guy is putting into the relationship IF HE WON’T EVEN PAY FOR HER DRINKS, especially when drinking is so clearly in his benefit (dinner or a movie, not so much).

I guess you are part of the older generation when you just can’t understand what the younger generation is thinking. This is where we’d part company. At a minimum I’d at least pay for drinks, in this case.

Cross posted at LITGM

Even Iran is Calling Out Libya

In an amazing display of “the pot calling the kettle black” Iran’s dictator figurehead Mahmoud has condemned the use of overwhelming force in Libya.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has condemned the killings of protesters in Libya, calling the government’s actions there “unimaginable.” Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Arab leaders must listen to their people, and he questioned how leaders could use “machine guns, tanks and bombs” against their citizens.

Like the use of anti-aircraft weaponry against unarmed protesters, getting the government of Iran to call you out represents new and un-precedented lows for Gaddafi.

Now we need to start thinking of what the end game will look like for Gaddafi and his cronies. It is hard to see what country would be willing to take him in now that he has been thoroughly discredited. You never know, but even when Iran’s dictator who has no qualms about calling for the execution of opposition leaders says that your actions are “unimaginable” it is hard to see where you are going to find a happy home.

I briefly thought about putting a “humor” tag on this post but I can’t bring myself to do it.

Even if Gaddafi Holds On…

Gaddafi is not going to give up without a fight. He is using African mercenaries and all of the military assets at his disposal (fighter jets, anti-aircraft guns, apparently naval vessels moored off Tripoli) along with his thuggish militias in order to hold on to Tripoli and parts of the West. The East has fallen to anti-Gaddafi protesters and to date he doesn’t seem to have made significant efforts to retake that portion of the country.

The difficulty for Gaddafi is that even if he is able to hold on to some segment of the country around Tripoli, he is finished economically. Even the most die-hard sanctions buster won’t do business with him now that he has used these types of heavy weapons against unarmed demonstrators. The Western nations won’t help him; paradoxically because he is weak now they will wait out his downfall and do business with his successor (or many successors, if the nation splits up) rather than paying the immense public relations price of working with a dictator with so much blood on his hands.

It is interesting that people assume that the borders are inviolate. As it has been noted many times the borders of Africa that the colonial nations agreed upon do not necessarily make sense; but for many reasons it hasn’t made sense to attempt to re-map them along different lines. The one recent exception is South Darfur and this could prove contagious.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that Egypt would attempt to take dominion over the oil rich provinces of the Eastern half of the country. There are many affinities between tribes in adjacent areas along their border. This could be done under the guise of a humanitarian mission if Gaddafi attempts to re-take the East; the Egyptian army could intervene (and would swat away Gaddafi’s militias) and then de-facto control the East under the “boots on the ground” theory. While no one knows for certain it seems that there are > 500,000 Egyptians on the ground in Libya; I don’t know about ANY of these numbers because I have heard that many Africans from neighboring countries are also there but when you add up all of these non Libyan residents it seems like an impossibly large proportion of the population.

Given that no one expected Libya to fall in the first place and that Libya seems to be a nation with little civil society and cooperation between regions it could just splinters into multiple, smaller states each tethered to their respective oil wealth. Ironically the disappearance of Gaddafi could re-invigorate the oil industry which had been crippled by sanctions until ENI (Italy oil major) came in and basically signed deals with him to bring more capacity on line.