A year after the death of Lehman Brothers, after the government refused to put it on life support, we're still talking about it. A lot of people view it as a mistake. Others say the crisis would've have been triggered by some other implosion. But the question, "why didn't the government save it?" is interesting for reasons not really discussed.

Lehman was the only bank left to die. It was in roughly the same shape as Bear Stearns and Citigroup, and both of them were saved. Could the answer rest with the CEO somehow? As he negotiated for investment from partners toward the end, he may have been way too optimistic about what his company was worth. No private bailout deal materialized, not on his terms anyway.

So, one unspoken issue here is the leadership of Lehman and whether it struck the right tone in the face of meltdown. It is a negotiation, after all. And if you are deluded about the value of your enterprise, you will find it much harder to secure bailout partners and secure favors from others. In the end, could Lehman have done anything more to convince the right people it needed access to the discount window? Sometimes, it takes a personal touch. I'd like to see this as a management case study.   

For more:
- here's a New York Times look back

Related Articles:
Lehman still a big issue
A Lehman Brothers movie to air
What's Dick Fuld up to?