Dick Fuld may be widely seen as an ogre guilty of hubris and ineptitude, but some people are coming out on his side.
The argument in favour of Fuld goes a little like this....There was no need for a company generating an operating profit of $600m a quarter to go under simply because it had a $6.4bn non-cash charge to revenues - particularly when that non-cash charge related to potentially spurious mark-to-market valuations of currently illiquid products.
According to Fuld's few remaining fans, Dick had simply bet on the housing market. That call was wrong - in the short term. Longer term, all could have come good, if only mark-to-market rules hadn't intervened.
Give Dick a break below...
