Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the username or e-mail address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

A Friend Stopped By | 03/10/2009 8:55 am

Did Jimmy Cayne's Sexism Kill Bear Stearns? by Janet Tavakoli

By Janet Tavakoli
Courtesy of Janet Tavakoli

In late 1989, Jimmy Cayne, former president and chief executive officer of Bear Stearns, told the now-defunct M magazine that Wall Street, like bridge, is not a game for women. Cayne alleged women can’t take the pressure and that a woman will "probably have to go to the ladies’ room and dab her eyes." Grand Master Judi Radin, James Cayne’s female bridge coach at the time, was probably surprised to hear it. [Cayne later denied that the quotes were accurate, but reporter Duncan Christy claimed they were “meticulously accurate.”]

Mr. Cayne seemed to fancy himself the undisputed authority on how the opposite sex may or may not relieve pressure in the privacy of the bathroom. His pretension remained unchallenged for years. But The Wall Street Journal’s Kate Kelly turned the tables on Cayne in a front-page profile on November 1, 2007. Cayne later seemed huffy, saying, “This story about smoking marijuana with some woman in a [men’s] bathroom at a tournament site is pure fiction.”

The very same day The Wall Street Journal article appeared, The New York Times’s DealBook leapt to Cayne’s defense, calling Ms. Kelly’s article "unflattering and at times highly gossipy" (yet, I do not recall The New York Times’s protests over Mr. Cayne’s much-earlier allegations about women).

In the summer of 2008, I heard from a former Bear Stearns colleague that Jimmy Cayne was still steaming over Ms. Kelly’s profile. Based on the venom Jimmy Cayne spewed in Ms. Kelly’s direction as related in William D. Cohan’s new book, House of Cards, my news was accurate. But not only are Mr. Cayne’s allegations with respect to Ms. Kelly untrue, his argument was so weak he had to hurl the "c" word. An apology may be in order over representations of who is or is not fit for Wall Street (or bridge). So, Mr. Cayne: You first.

I have spoken with Kate Kelly, author of her own upcoming book on Bear Stearns, Street Fighters; and I have known Mike Siconolfi, senior editor of The Wall Street Journal, for almost two decades (I mention him in the acknowledgments of my own book on the financial meltdown, Dear Mr. Buffett: What an Investor Learns 1,269 Miles From Wall Street). Jimmy Cayne said some harsh — and untrue — things about both of them (among others) and his opinions are related by Cohan in his book.  

As for the actual causes of Bear’s implosion, I relate my firsthand take on Bear’s meltdown in Dear Mr. Buffett. I know Ralph Cioffi, former co-head of the Bear Stearns hedge funds, and Warren Spector, former co-chief operating officer of Bear Stearns, and worked with them early in our careers at Bear Stearns.

As for Jimmy Cayne, his view is supported by junk scientists around the globe, including Cambridge professor John Coates, who seems to blame the credit-bubble risk-taking on testosterone. One could pose an equally "scientific" alternate theory that in a world where women got equal pay and equal job opportunity on Wall Street, they would be equally happy to take high risks. In my experience, women working on Wall Street don’t expect to be protected by their peers or bailed out by the government after a major screwup. Besides, if hormones are the excuse, then a woman has much more incentive for seeking to score, since she can experience the thrill of victory many times in a single go — if the theory had any validity.

15 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

LilaKuh

In business, it’s all about the bottom line.  This guy clearly has issues, and no Board wants an embarrassing CEO, but the real overriding concern cited in the article was "…what the fallout of the firm would be in the fourth quarter—ended November 30—from its exposure to hard-to-value “Level 3 assets,” of which Bear had $20 billion, including $2.4 billion in subprime mortgages."

My question is, why didn’t the Board replace him when they knew that he was not only embarrassing, but also leading the company into financial ruin?

By LilaKuh on 03/10/2009 9:10 am
fp1
Or was it his pot-smoking? Or his fanatical bridge playing? Or his laissez-faire management style? Or his vague understanding of exotic securities the imperiled the firm’s liquidity? Or the alienating and forcing out of Warren Spector who knew more about the business than anyone in the firm?  Or the nearly no oversight of the hegde funds run by Ralph Cioffi who loaded them heavily with toxic investments in sub-prime mortgages despite assurances to the contrary to the investors. Or when Little Jimmy left for a bridge tournament in March 2008 when the firm closed its failing hedge funds? Or was it the opportunistic milieu of Bear Stearns that set in motion its downfall? Or all of the above?  Or was it just plain stupidity by Jimmy and Ralph and the boys? All the above is from a new book, House of Cards, by William D. Cohan.
By fp1 on 03/10/2009 9:17 am
DianaT

Beau,  did you happen to listen to Morning Edition this morning?  The interview with the author of the new book atout him absolutely blew my mind.  No wonder we are in so much trouble with these jerks floating around:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101681538

By DianaT on 03/11/2009 6:02 pm
fp1
Nope Di, didn’t hear it—will do though—this isn’t the first book on the disaster these highly overpaid cretins have led us into. They belong in jail the entire lot.
By fp1 on 03/12/2009 8:02 am
DianaT
Try to find some time to listen to it, Beau.  The whole story about the Bridge obsession and the author’s tone of voice had me riveted.  That guy had about as much business running the place as you or me.
By DianaT on 03/12/2009 10:08 am
JanetTavakoli

Neither pot nor sexism killed Bear Stearns.  In my book, DEAR MR. BUFFETT, I devote two chapters (seven and eight) to the mispriced risky assets combined with leverage that toppled the Bear Stearns hedge funds, the Peloton fund, and Carlyle Capital’s fund.  All of which led to financing pressures for Bear Stearns itself.  This is a tongue in cheek article meant for entertainment rather than explanation of the real causes (but I also say that in the article).   Janet Tavakoli

By JanetTavakoli on 03/10/2009 9:31 am
fp1
RE Jimmy and pot—I wouldn’t be too sure about that :-)  Along with all his other foibles.
By fp1 on 03/10/2009 9:37 am
MommyDearest1
As usual with your writing, Ms. Tavakoli dahling, your titles are so much more interesting that your content.
By MommyDearest1 on 03/10/2009 10:39 am
LilyRose1

My friend Janet, I find your unabashed attempt to sell your book on this site somewhat distasteful.

Namaste.

By LilyRose1 on 03/10/2009 1:01 pm
JanetTavakoli
Radley: I don’t mention pot in my book or whether or not Cayne indulged.  Cohen says he has sources that said they witnessed Cayne smoking pot.  What interested me about Cohan’s article in The Daily Beast (linked to at the end of my article) was that he chose an excerpt from his book that has Cayne verbally trashing Kate Kelly’s reputation, and she has an upcoming book that competes with Cohan’s.  Yet I didn’t see a qualifying statement in Cohen’s article about how WSJ has sources when it says it has them, and WSJ checks its sources.   I have first-hand experience (P. 165 of DEAR MR. BUFFETT) that WSJ double checks with sources.  It quoted me when I publicly challenged AIG’s accounting statements in August of 2007.  I even supplied my analysis at the time (in the notes section of the book) and WSJ gave me the choice of being named or unnamed.  Ms. Kelly did not author the AIG article, but like the reporter that interviewed me, she has sources, contrary to what Cayne said.
By JanetTavakoli on 03/10/2009 1:13 pm
DianaT
Hmmm. I guess the old boy’s finding out what goes around comes around.
By DianaT on 03/10/2009 1:27 pm
JanetTavakoli

For those of you who are interested, this is an adapted excerpt from p. 165 my book about AIG and the WSJ’s protocol with respect to sources:

 

I told Dave Reilly at the Wall Street Journal: “There’s no way these aren’t showing a loss.”4 That is simply a market reality. This is Wall Street speak for: In my humble opinion, you are a big fat liar.  AIG responded: “We disagree.” That is Wall Street speak for: No, YOU are a big fat liar!   Before Dave Reilly wrote his article, he talked to experts, including me, for background.  Then he called AIG to ask them for their thinking.  AIG stood firm.  Then Reilly called me again.  He didn’t want the Wall Street Journal to look stupid, but told me “they pay me to go out on a limb.”  He said he needed me to go on the record.  It would make the article more forceful.  I did not think that AIG would tell Reilly: You know, you have a point, maybe we should recheck our homework, but I did not anticipate arguing with AIG in the Wall Street Journal’s “Heard on the Street” column.  I hesitated.  AIG has the resources to crush me like a bug.  On the other hand, I am not fat.  I finally agreed to go on the record. 

By June 2008, AIG recorded two back-to-back quarters of its largest losses ever.  AIG took more than $20 billion in write-downs on its derivative positions through the first quarter of 2008; net losses for the fourth quarter of 2007 were $5.3 billion, and in the first quarter of 2008, AIG reported losses of $7.8 billion.  In February 2008, its auditor said it found “material weakness” in AIG’s accounting.

[End of Excerpt]

 

What is not in the book, is that Mike Siconolfi (Cayne makes unjustified remarks about him) also double checked because of the sensitive nature of the information, and urged me to allow WSJ to use my name.  Had I refused, he would have respected that choice.  At the time, I was alone in challenging AIG.

By JanetTavakoli on 03/10/2009 2:19 pm
JanetTavakoli
Just to be clear, that article was written in August 2007 regarding AIG’s accounting statement of June 30, 2007.
By JanetTavakoli on 03/10/2009 2:24 pm
RainbowPower
Perhaps old Mr. Cayne should have stayed in the bathroom admiring himself and let a grizzly bear woman take the reins over the big Bear……Bear Sterns might still have been in business and running smoothly had he done that!     ~~~~~~  :0)
By RainbowPower on 03/12/2009 8:58 am