aqnt

Now we know why Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. Since it did not get a taxpayer bailout like its peers, it can pay its bankers as much as it wants. I bet all those top banking executives who had to agree to no bonuses are really feeling sorry for themselves now.

How so? The Daily Beast reports -- based on three sources close the situation -- that an obscure Lehman banker, Hugh "Skip" McGee III, the former head of investment banking at Lehman Brothers, negotiated a two-year, $25-million-a-year contract to remain global head of investment banking at the British bank Barclays plc (NYSE: BCS) as part of the deal where Barclays bought Lehman Brothers' U.S. banking business out of bankruptcy. (The Daily Beast has indicated that Barclays declined to corroborate the information from the three sources).

This alleged $50-million man helped negotiate the deal in which the British bank stole -- I mean, picked up dirt cheap -- the Lehman investment banking business. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James Peck approved Barclays deal to buy some Lehman assets -- including paying $1.29 billion for its headquarters and two data centers -- and assume some liabilities such as the accrued bonuses for any Lehman bankers still on the Barclays payroll at the end of 2008.

Satyam Computer Services (NYSE: SAY) stock has not opened for U.S. trading in days -- and if it did it would be down 91%. As I posted, its CEO announced that Satyam's financial statements were fraudulent and that means that its clients and 53,000 employees are up for grabs. In a world of shrinking budgets, Satyam's competitors ought to be eagerly feeding on the flesh of this crippled company.

Which competitors are likely to pick up the slack? Both Accenture (NYSE: ACN) and and International Business Machines (NYSE: IBM) are best positioned to feed on Satyam's corpse. And with the $50 billion a year market for offshoring experienced a growth slowdown from 29% in 2008 to 10% in 2009 -- those Satyam clients could help plug the growth gap,

There are three reasons why Accenture and IBM should gain:

• They each already supply most of Satyam's blue-chip corporate clients;
• They each have built up their Indian operations in recent years, so they offer Satyam customers the same skills at competitive prices; and
• They are not Indian companies and therefore are not under the same corporate governance cloud that Satyam's revelations spread to all of India's outsourcers.

It may not be too late to invest in Accenture -- which is much more focused on consulting -- to take advantage of this possibility. In the case of IBM, the pickings from Satyam may not be big enough to move its stock.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. His eighth book is You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

President-elect Obama seems quite attached to his BlackBerry. This hand-held communications device made by Research in Motion (NASDAQ: RIMM) has received what looks to me like the most valuable free publicity any product could hope for. Not only would Obama's BlackBerry love be worth millions to RIMM, the fact that it's free makes it all the more valuable.

How has Obama expressed his love for the BlackBerry? He told CNBC's John Harwood, "I'm still clinging to my BlackBerry. They're going to pry it out of my hands." (I wish he would say the same thing about my new book.) But just how much is this free publicity worth? Doug Shabelman, the president of a firm that arranges deals between celebrities and companies is among the marketing experts who estimate that Obama's BlackBerry addiction could be worth between $25 million and $50 million.

How so? Obama is the ideal endorser -- he's popular, constantly in the news and clearly attached to the product. Since he is a talented communicator and knows important people around the world, Obama's endorsement could help boost BlackBerry's global sales. And that global element is what leads Shabelman to put a $50 million price tag on the value of Obama's "endorsement."

No doubt, the pain of giving up that BlackBerry -- because of presidential security and legal concerns -- will be difficult for Obama and RIMM.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. His eighth book is You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing. He has no financial interest in Research in Motion securities.

Steve Rattner -- a major Democratic party fundraiser who heads the investment firm Quadrangle Group is the leading candidate for a position that does not formally -- and should never in my view -- exist. That is, Rattner for Car Czar. The Car Czar's job -- if Congress creates it -- will fix the U.S. automobile industry by using the threat of throwing the companies into bankruptcy to force economic "haircuts" on labor unions, dealers, bondholders and others.

I worked with Rattner in the Kerry presidential campaign and hold him in high regard. He worked to raise money for Hillary Clinton and when she did not win the nomination Rattner raised $100,000 for Barack Obama. And Rattner does not just serve Democrats -- reportedly he is managing independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $13 billion fortune. I find that feat to be a remarkable testimony to Rattner's investment acumen.

Nevertheless, I think it would be better to find a different way to use Rattner's talents. If the Car Czar position does get created, it should go to an individual with demonstrated experience turning around large organizations in deep trouble. The person who comes to mind is Louis Gerstner who fixed International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM). Gerstner is not a car guy but he knows how to fix a big organization and could bring in automotive expertise as needed.

Rattner would be an asset to Obama's administration, but if there must be a Car Czar -- find a better fit.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. His eighth book is You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing. He has no financial interest in IBM securities.

Today's markets are likely to move based on the higher-than-expected unemployment rate. At 8:30 a.m., the Labor Department announced a mixed employment picture: lower-than-expected job loss, yet higher-than-expected unemployment rate. But the more important questions for the economy are how many jobs were lost in 2008 and how many more will perish in the next few years.

Despite being better than expected, the numbers of jobs lost in December are still awful at 524,000. Not to mention, that the unemployment rate rose from 6.7% to 7.2%. Economists had forecast 550,000 lost jobs in December and an unemployment rate of 7%. The actual 7.2% unemployment rate is the highest in 26 years. Also, the 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008 marks the worst level since 1945. If things keep going along those lines, the unemployment rate could top 10%.

Last fall, Boeing's 27,000 machinists went on strike for 52 days. Not surprisingly, this put a crimp in Boeing's ability to meet its production schedule. Until today, it was hard to know just how much damage that strike did. Now we know that Boeing's 2008 aircraft deliveries dropped 15% thanks to the strike. But big questions remain for investors.

The numbers are not pretty. Boeing delivered 375 commercial planes in 2008, 15% fewer than the 441 it delivered in 2007. Prior to the strike, in early 2008, expectations for the year ranged from 475 to 480. But Boeing fell far short. Boeing finished 2008 with 662 commercial airplane orders, bringing its total backlog of unfilled orders to over 3,700. But the 2008 figure was less than half 2007's record order amount.

Meanwhile, Boeing's 787 Dreamliner -- which accounts for 900 aircraft in that backlog -- is about two years behind schedule. The 787's delays are taking engineers away from other projects, such as the one to update its 747 jumbo jet, which has now been delayed nine months. Despite all this bad news, we still don't know how much these delays will cost Boeing in lost revenues and profits. And it remains to be seen whether the fourth 787 production delay will be its last.

Bernie Madoff -- who continues to luxuriate under house arrest in his East Side apartment -- keeps losing more of his camouflage. Specifically, prosecutors found checks totaling $173 million, which he had made out to his family members and friends prior to his arrest last month.

He had received a $250 million loan from Carl Shapiro, the 95 year old who lost $545 million with Madoff, around the same time. Did Madoff take Shapiro's cash and then write checks against it to his family members? That detail has not yet been revealed, but it could certainly have happened.

It seems a bit odd that Madoff is not in jail at the moment. Since he moved $160 million of his money into his UK operations, it would seem logical for him to leave the U.S. and go there. Unless he has even more money stashed away in some bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

He may have passed a legal test to keep him free on bail. But morally, he definitely belongs in the clink.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. His eighth book is You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing.

My definition would be that the plan creates three million new jobs and gets GDP to grow again in the next few years – but also jump-starts economic activity so we don't need to keep borrowing and spending to keep the economy going.

By that standard my guess is that the plan has a 50% chance of succeeding. It will get economic activity going in the short-term but I am not sure if it's enough to revive economic activity in the longer-term. In my view, the plan has the following pros and cons:

• Positives. In general the idea of fixing roads and bridges is good and there are about $323 billion in plans prepared by the states that need funding. I think having broadband in schools is also a good investment in the future education of American students, and that spending on health care information technology could boost its efficiency. Finally, alternative energy is crucial if we hope to free ourselves from dependence on oil and gas from people who don't like us very much.
• Improvement opportunities. However, the problems of this plan are significant. First, getting involved with significant tax cuts to satisfy the Republicans in Congress will slow down the process of getting the legislation passed and it will ultimately bring the U.S. to annual budget deficits that could top $2 trillion.

Satyam Computer Services (NYSE: SAY) has not opened for trading today but it was down 91% in "pre-market." When you hear why, you'll realize that Satyam could be India's version of Enron. There were glimmers of trouble a few weeks ago when Satyam's chairman, Ramalinga Raju, unilaterally decided to buy his son's construction companies -- Maytas Properties Ltd. and Maytas Infra Ltd -- but when the stock collapsed after the announcement, he pulled back within 12 hours.

While that was bad enough, the biggest shocker came today when Raju resigned after announcing that he had faked Satyam's numbers for several years. It turns out that the reason he wanted to buy those construction companies was to plug the $1.03 billion gap between the falsely accounted for and real cash on Satyam's books.

Here's an irony: the word Satyam means "truth" in Sanskrit. And when the truth came out, Satyam got into a rapidly cascading wave of troubles. First, shareholders blocked his asset purchases, then the World Bank banned Satyam from bidding for orders for eight years, alleging that improper benefits were given to World Bank employees. Then four directors quit, and finally, Raju quit the company and announced his fraud.

Bank Of America

Today's capital raising move looks good on the surface. Bank of America sold 5.62 billion Construction Bank shares at 3.92 Hong Kong dollars -- that amounted to $2.83 billion in proceeds and a profit of about $1.13 billion on the stake sale, based on Construction Bank's initial offering price. (Bank of America now holds 16.6% of the Chinese bank.) But Bank of America sold that stake at a 12% discount to the stock's Tuesday close -- and that makes me nervous.

Why? Because it ought to be able to sell at the market price by breaking that sale into small lots and executing it over a relatively long period of time. Its decision to sell at such a huge discount hints at desperation. It is difficult to know what kind of financial shape Bank of America is in because it has not released financial statements following its merger with Merrill Lynch. At the end of September it had $11 of assets per $1 of equity, but when it bought Merrill it probably added a significant amount of debt and the potential for big asset write-downs.

I'd guess that Bank of America could use much more capital -- but just how much more it needs and where it will get that money is hard to know.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Crude oil has risen 52% from its December 19th low of $33 a barrel to $50. Can gasoline prices be far behind?

What's behind the move? Supply is down. For example, Kuwait and Qatar indicated they will implement the supply cuts that OPEC announced last month. A dispute between Russia and Ukraine reduced natural gas shipments to Europe -- it must be cold there. And Iran is calling for a suspension of crude exports to Israel's allies as the conflict between the Israeli army and Hamas hits its 11th day.

Will demand fall further as prices rise? That seems to be the only hope for a reversal in the price of oil. But so far there seems to be a bit of a delay between the rising price of crude and the price of gasoline. So if you're paying $1.66 now it looks like $2 won't be too far away. Maybe it's not too late to look into buying energy stocks.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Since December 2007, Washington has committed $7.2 trillion to bailing out the bad investment bets of our financial system. It's even thrown in a few billion for the pathetically managed automobile industry. And with the incoming Obama administration, that figure is likely to hit a nice round number -- $8 trillion.

To put that in perspective, $8 trillion is 57% of our $14 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But here's the beauty part -- there is no way of knowing where the money went exactly and whether it is doing any good. Much of the money was supposed to go to borrowers. But the banks refuse to disclose what they're doing with it. If Wall Street pays itself $16 billion in bonuses this year -- down 50% from the 2007 high -- that money will come from us taxpayers.

Am I the only one in the U.S. who thinks it's a mistake to use taxpayer money with no strings attached? Is our system so badly skewed that the very people who caused the economic disaster are getting multimillion dollar bonuses from taxpayers who are losing their homes, jobs, and stock portfolios?

Freedom of speech has its limits -- even in Vermont. That's the conclusion I reached after reading about the controversy of a Burlington, VT-based snowboard manufacturer -- Burton Snowboards -- that puts an image of a naked woman on the surface of its snowboards. These boards are inflaming local passions -- more than 100 protesters marched in front of its headquarters in October to protest the boards and urge consumers to boycott its products.

Burton opened its operation in Burlington in 1992 and it has a reputation as a good citizen. It matches child-care payments and pays for half of a worker's gym membership. But according to the Boston Globe those good citizen points are outweighed by the anger ginned up by the surface of its snowboards. One office manager in Burlington said, "When you really think about it, it's a young man standing on top of a naked woman's body. I probably could have gotten past it, because I try to have an open mind, but seeing it like that, it's offensive."

Burton may move its operations out of Burlington rather than cave in to the protesters. Do you think Burton's should change its product or does it have a right to put those images on its snowboards? Would you buy one of its products?

Gallery: Burton Snowboards: too sexy for the slopes?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. Portfolio published his eighth book, You Can't Order Change: Lessons From Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing on December 26, 2008.

Today Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) will grill the SEC on why it missed the $50 billion Madoff Securities Ponzi scheme. After all, over the last 16 years, the SEC investigated Madoff eight times and each of those times, it failed to discover the scam. This -- and so much more -- means it's time for a change in the way Washington regulates Wall Street.

And Frank is sure to use today's stage to talk. Last Monday, I appeared on a TV program in Boston "with" Frank. I put "with" in quotes because when Frank arrived at the TV studio, he made sure that me and any other guests who were to appear got thrown out of the green room so he could have it to himself. And while I was on the set with Frank -- I was scheduled to go on the show right after him -- he never even looked at me -- by contrast, every other person I have appeared with was happy to introduce themselves.

Frank likes to talk -- he used 25 of the 30 minutes (he was supposed to take up about 15 minutes). (And in the four minutes Frank left me, I gave out a few Bernie awards for the worst financial foibles of 2008.) So when he chairs hearings today, Frank will no doubt do quite a bit of talking. And he'll probably ask why the SEC officials failed to discover the Madoff scandal after receiving emails from a New York hedge fund that described his business practices as "highly unusual." As I posted, I think Frank should focus on the village that enabled Madoff.

Let's hope things get better this year.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. His eighth book is You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing.

Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) CEO, Jim McNerney, is managing a 159,300 employee aircraft manufacturer with $66.4 billion in sales and $4 billion in profits (both 2007 figures). If you're running a small business or aspire to start one, is there anything you can learn from McNerney that could help you achieve your business goals? Yes.

Portfolio is publishing my eighth book, You Can't Order Change, which studies how McNerney manages Boeing. To write this book I interviewed people who worked with McNerney and scrutinized how he manages people, strategy, operations, and communities. What I discovered is that McNerney has come up with very effective techniques for addressing 11 common CEO challenges.

Though McNerney is far from perfect -- for example, Boeing's popular 787 Dreamliner is two years behind schedule -- here are six such techniques that I think are the most useful to small business leaders:

• Make your people 15% better. McNerney motivates people to get 15% better every year -- and in so doing, boosts financial performance. Specifically, he focuses on people who have the potential to change due to their openness, courage, and teamwork. And he views his job as removing the bureaucratic obstacles that keep them from "igniting." To get there, he encourages the flow of information up and down the line. He gets phenomenally talented jerks out of the line, and he invests in leadership development.