Who’s to blame for Lehman Brothers bankruptcy?

The general consensus was “jail not bail” for Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld, Jr., at a hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the causes and effects of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. This view was held by the Committee, panel, and Code Pink protestors (who were eventually thrown out of the hearing). Congressman Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said, “Is this Wallstreet or a casino? Lehman did not find itself in this situation by accident. It as the unlucky draw of a consciously made gamble.” Dr. Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago pointed out that by bailing out these investment banks, we are giving them incentive to gamble at the cost of taxpayers down the line.

Nell Minow of the Corporate Library said that Fuld, “intentionally surrounded himself with people who are complicit. These were people who were getting side payments from the company. They had no incentive to provide any kind of independent oversight.” Minow said that by doing so, Fuld created a false idea of the value of his company. These false ideas created high leverage rates, leaving little security in times of economic trouble, and eventually the downfall of Lehman Brothers. Minow proposed a general rule be mandated to pay executives based on the value of business rather than the volume of business. Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute agreed that the only protection taxpayers have at this point is more government regulation.

Additionally, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said, “there is an apparent conflict of interest permitting Treasury Secretary Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, to be involved in these discussions on the survival of Lehman Brothers.” The panel agreed it was clear that Goldman Sachs benefits from Lehman Brothers going under, due to the competitive market they’re in. As long as Goldman Sachs’ interest is in Paulson’s pocket, Kucinich says, his role in the bailout goes “against the free market.”