 Writers' Community! |
|
| Home Page Two Columnists Q&A Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login |
Joseph-Tibman blogJoseph Tibman (42)     Author - Murder of Lehman Brothers Anonymity Bites - Joseph Tibman, Author of Murder of Lehman on writng under a pseudonymPosted Friday, November 13, 2009 (11 days 6 hours ago.) Viewed 5 times. I explain in my book that I wrote it under a pseudonym to preserve my ability to work in finance. After all, how many financial firms will want to count among their ranks one who has authored a book that points out that regulation of the financial sector is inadequate, that many (including myself) sometimes work deals that reduce the resiliency of companies, but make money for financial firms and investors, that Congress almost entirely lacks the background to cogently debate economic and financial matters, that the last couple of presidential administrations helped create the conditions for the financial disaster, that the rating agencies failed miserably in rating subprime and related securities, etc. 
I suspected early on, and now it's crystal clear, that it would have been far easier not to write this book. So why did I do it? As I wrote the book I thought perhaps I could make a late-in-the-day switch from investment banking to writing. But that notion seemed to disappear soon after the ink dried on the various contracts signed with my literary attorney, my agent and my publisher. It was by then very clear to me that a book written anonymously would not serve as a launching pad. And still I signed. Other compelling reasons, at odds with common sense, pushed me across the Rubicon. First, Lehman had been my second home for many years - about twenty. The collapse of the firm set off a global crisis that hurt many. With twenty-twenty hindsight, it's quite clear that our financial sector was headed for a reckoning, but the Lehman bankruptcy at most was a catalyst, though it likely sparked a far worse financial crisis than would otherwise have occurred. And so it was personal. The bankrupt firm that sparked the crisis could easily have been Bear Stearns or Merrill Lynch. But it was Lehman, a firm I joined when it was a laggard, and with my colleagues played a minor role in lifting to far greater heights. So, yes, the Lehman-sparked crisis was personal. It was clear to me that there would be numerous accounts of Lehman's fall. I feared that the list would include simplistic and tabloid accounts, as well as volumes by financial journalists who would amass facts -- even revelations -- but as observers they would at times misinterpret. I wanted to be certain that both today and a hundred years from now, gathering dust in the Library of Congress, there would be at least one fiercely honest and true account, the sort that could only be written by someone who lived at the firm and experienced its evolution. Certainly there are individuals more qualified than me to tell the Lehman story, but books have also been published on the financial crisis by many less qualified -- or in some cases, authors less true to their topic. A second reason I write the book relates to many of the problems in our financial markets that I listed in the first paragraph. I have rarely seen a business book written in plain English for a mainstream reader that takes on these sorts of issues. In fact, I am hard pressed to name one. And so I thought it was high time one be written. Most people outside of finance understand about as much about economics and finance as I do about brain surgery. Yet it is the economy that is most consistently on people's minds when year after year they step into the voting booth. For this reason I decided to write a book that would explain the key factors that created the financial crisis, so that most people could fully understand it. Invariably in writing the book, my personal opinions scattered across the pages. At the same time, I stuck to the facts and certainly did not let any political views or other personal biases of this nature rule the book. I am satisfied that it is apolitical, though interestingly some Democrats and some Republicans feel I am too hard on their respective parties. That most don't consider the book ideological, and that proponents of both political parties raise objections, leaves me satisfied that I have been even-handed. I suppose the most difficult aspect of writing this book, as the title of this piece indicates, is the damned pseudonym. It's a lonely business, writing under a pseudonym. What bothers me most about it is the pervasive sense of concealment. After all, I wrote the book with what I believe was an honest pen, but at the same time hide my identity. Indeed, on the inner flap of the book jacket, the promo reads, "Writing under the pseudonym Joseph Tibman, the author bares all..." Oxymoron? I'd say so. I can divide what "bites" about writing under a pseudonym into a couple of categories: 1. I'll start with the most mercenary one: promotion. Without question, promotion of a book is considerably more difficult when one can't show one's face. Indeed, major publisher's who were interested in my book insisted that they would only publish it if I dropped the anonymity. I was fortunate to find an independent publisher who was willing to move forward without this requirement. Nonetheless, I have been forced to turn down or not come to terms for television appearances with most of the mainstream television news and business outlets. There are some that have been willing to tape interviews where my identity is hidden. This has been done in a variety of ways, generally involving darkening my form or placing me in a shadow with my voice either digitally altered or voiced over by another speaker. Needless to say, while this may create an air of mystery, I have no doubt that these interviews would have far greater impact if my face was on camera and the inflection of my true voice heard. I have also learned that the major publisher's receive a more enthusiastic welcome from the major newspaper and other key book reviewers. My book has been uniformly well-received by the serious reviewers who have critiqued it, but alas I have not received the same attention as an author from a major publishing house. And of course, any reviewer of quality comments on the anonymity as at least somewhat problematic. On this point I always agree. But the limited attention due to the scale of my publisher saddens me -- not simply because of the implications for my book, but for all authors who publish with independent publishers. How many fine books are certainly out there but due to limited visibility are read by few? Not only do the authors lose. We all lose. To the extent that I have received publicity -- and I've received far more than most authors writing for an independent publisher -- I attribute this to several factors. First and foremost is the subject matter. A book on the Lehman bankruptcy is a media magnet -- particularly a couple of months ago during the Lehman bankruptcy anniversary when news organizations were starved for Lehman content. The second reason I've gained a decent amount of attention is essentially due to my own determination and industry. I had heard that first-time authors must work hard on their own to promote a book. I could not accept speaking engagements or do book signings. However, for one in my fairly unique circumstances, the Internet is a powerful tool. I taught myself how to construct a website and a blog - even to customize it inputting html code - though admittedly; this code is still pretty scary. I researched all the major and minor print and on-line reviewers, and unleashed a campaign in which I hit them all with manuscripts, emails, phone calls and so forth. It seemed the first couple of reviews from respected sources led to more reviews, and I was fortunate enough to recently be reviewed by The London Review of Books. That was satisfying. Many of my news media contacts were initiated through social media. I started off finding the media people and as my Internet presence grew they began to find me. I could go on and on about the trickiness of anonymous promotion and the many odd occurrences that derive from doing all of this behind a mask, but I think I've provided enough of a flavor for this. 2. What bites most about the anonymity is a falseness that fills many moments. Only a very few people know that I wrote this book. And so, I have many friends and family and certainly countless acquaintances who know nothing about it. The unspoken quality of something that has taken up so much space in my life for a number of months now is uncomfortable. "So what's new? What have you been up to?" It is rare these days that I answer that I answer those questions in ways that feel true. There are a few people very close to me who have asked whether I feel cheated of the recognition I would receive had I been free to write under my own name. I honestly don't think about that. I think more about the dishonesty that pseudonym inherently involves. Yes, anonymity, and the double life that goes with it bites. And still I continue to schedule media interviews, amass additional reviews, and write the occasional column, safely entombed in my bunker. The real me goes about my weekly routine, spends time with various friends, and no doubt seems like the same fellow many have long known. Joseph Tibman -- well, he only comes out under cover of darkness. lehmanbook.blogspot.com joseptibman@live.com 
Permalink Comments (0) Sec Enforcement Appointments - Cats Watch the CanariesPosted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 (27 days 22 hours ago.) Viewed 33 times. The most recent major SEC appointment is worrying. In general, Obama's appointments in finance have disappointed. Geithner was touted as the only choice for Treasury -- causing many to conjecture that Congress looked the other way regarding his obvious tax dodge. Indeed, necks had to do a one-eighty in light of the fact that the IRS would report to him. Moreover when he testified that Lehman had not been kept out of bankruptcy due to legal impediments, a revisionist and dishonest rationale, none in Congress asked questions. The congressional approval process was a mere formality in the extreme. It seemed desperate economic times required our elected officials to overlook dishonesty in testimony. Of course there was little to be gained by grandstanding in these circumstances, unlike that which we witnessed when wrongdoers from Wall Street were skewered by incensed congressional interigators. This selective disparagement should leave us all incensed. And so it was initially refreshing to see Mary Schapiro appointed to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Unlike her two Bush era predecessors, Donaldson and Cox, she had neither ties to Wall Street, nor a history as a "business friendly" legislator. Indeed, she has spent most her career at the SEC, a technocrat free of direct ties to Wall Street or its influential lobbyists. On the other hand, in a 1993, then a senior SEC official, she delivered a worrying speech in Davos Switzerland advocating a flexible regulatory regime. This she asserted would permit innovation. Schapiro also questioned whether consolidated regulatory structure for securities firms was worth considering. Of course, all of this was in keeping with the hands-off SEC protocol of the period. Since her appointment to head the SEC, Schapiro has shaken it up. She quickly dismissed Chief enforcement official, Linda Thomsen, who was correctly criticized by David Kotz, SEC independent Inspector General during her tenure for lax enforcement. Indeed Kotz recommended sanctions against Thomsen, though during the Bush years his sensible and consciencious outcry against lax oversight were routinely ignored. She also reinstated enforcement powers to the enforcement rank and file that had been taken from them during Cox' tenure. The changing tenor of her pronouncements and decisions under two administrations do require one to question whether she changes direction like a weather vane aligning itself with the prevailing White house wind. Still, whatever her motivation, she appeared working hard to rebuild a broken regulator. However, a couple of enforcement appointments lead one to question whether true change will come or whether what we see is little more than window dressing. In certain respects, Thomsen's replacment as head of enforcement, Robert Khuzami, is credentialed. With eleven years spent as a prosecutor in the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office white collar crimes division he appears a sound choice -- that is if one ignores the roughly six years he spent on Wall Street, beginning in 2002 as Deutsche Bank's New York general counsel. Hve we learned nothing? Does, at minimum, the appearance of conflict not warrant concern? This potential conflict in an enforcement division now entirely discredited -- the final nail in its reputational coffin, Kotz' report on the Maddoff affair -- has been compounded by the selection of Adam Storch, a Goldman Sachs Vice President, for the newly created slot of Enforcement chief Operating Officer in mid-October. He is a certified fraud examiner, but does this provide sufficient comfort that he too will not be conflicted in his new job. A career on Wall Street is not synanonymous with corruption and conflict when appointed to a government regulatory oversight position. It is popular folly to assume that everyone on Wall Street is corrupt. To that point, while there are rampant alligations that Former Treasury Secretary Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs CEO, was conflicted, there is certainly no hard evidence whatsoever that his actions, as imperfect as they were, reflected the alleged conflict. Still, the dismantling of regulation during both the Clinton and Bush presidencies, along with the appearance of conflict among senior government finance and regulatory officials has alarmed many Americans. Would it not be wise to appoint SEC enforcment executives who are both squeeky clean and not hampered by any possible appearance of conflict? It doesn't always follow that where there is smoke there is fire. Still, confronted as we are with a Wall Street financial crisis that resulted from both faulty judgment and very bad behavior, it seems fundamentally unwise to assemble an SEC regime that is not unquestionably above reproach. Have we not learned that it is dangerous to appoint regulatory chiefs that lead many to grow wary that the cat is watching the canary. At a time when true reform is so crucial, appointements such as those in enforcment at the SEC at best create unnecessary noise. Joseph Tibman Author, "The Murder of Lehman Brothers, An Insider's Guide to the Global Meltdown" lehmanbook.blogspot.com book at Amazon
Permalink Comments (1) |
Archives:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home |
Page Two |
FAQ's |
Contact |
Terms of Service |
Article Submission Guidelines |
Questions & Answers |
Privacy |
Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company