Why Should Richard Fuld’s House Even Matter?
I’m confused about the current litigation against Richard Fuld and the belief by some that he sold his house to his wife for 100$ to make sure it couldn’t be touched in a lawsuit. It doesn’t make sense for people to believe this man’s personal assets should be seized simply because the company he was running (Lehman Brothers) went under. His poor management costs those shareholders billions of dollars, was probably partly responsible for the current problems we see in the financial sector, and may have been fraud, (Though so many other institutions were engaging in the same behavior this seems unlikely). But, none of these things should impact Fuld’s personal assets.
It is important to understand that the ‘Man’ is not the ‘Company’. A board of directors determine the details of Fuld’s compensation for working at the company, not him. The one’s who screwed up were the directors who hired him and payed him so much. Obviously, he didn’t do a very good job running Lehman Brothers but that is hardly his fault. This law suit is analogous to me costing my employer 10 million dollars (Which I could do if I screw up bad enough) and the shareholders of the company wanting to seize my small home and car to offset a small portion of their loss. It just doesn’t make sense. When someone is bad at their job you fire them. Fuld failed miserably enough that he will likely never be able to get another job and that’s all the punishment he deserves. Even if there is evidence of fraud the guilt will need to be spread around to every executive and not just laid at Fuld’s feet.
If you think I am wrong you are welcome to let me know and I to I’ll be sure to let your employer know he has the right to sue you for your home the next time you screw up at work.