May 3 (Bloomberg) -- New York prosecutors last month uncovered the curious career of Mark Sabia.

Since 1998, Sabia had been a fixture in the clubhouses of New York sports teams, as a beat reporter for something called Westchester Cable Services. The Knicks, Giants, Mets and Yankees provided him with media passes to their games and free roam of their locker rooms.

After games, like any good sports reporter, Sabia turned up with his microphone and grilled players about their performances and coaches about their decisions. ``He always seemed to be in the middle of everything,'' recalled a baseball writer for the Journal News of Westchester County, New York.

For seven years, Mark Sabia was the picture of a hard- working sports journalist until someone figured out that he wasn't, in fact, a journalist. Westchester Cable Services didn't exist. Prosecutors were unable to find any evidence that he'd ever written or broadcasted a peep about the professional basketball, baseball and football games he'd attended. He was a fraud, the Queens County district attorney alleged.

Even Yankees manager Joe Torre, who never seems to be interested in anything, was unable to contain his awe. ``Isn't that wild?'' Torre told the Journal News. ``That's sick, man.''

• The Sabian Model

Mark Sabia's story tells you something about sports and journalism, and even more about New York City. But it also raises a question: How many careers lend themselves to this sort of approach?

Obviously no one would want Mark Sabia for a heart surgeon or a housekeeper, but there may be other, less necessary, occupations for which he might be well suited, in which the difference between doing something and doing nothing is trivial. At any rate, when I read about Mark Sabia, I couldn't help but think of Phil Purcell.

Purcell is the embattled chairman and chief executive officer of a leading Wall Street investment bank, Morgan Stanley. He isn't an imposter, of course, but the actual possessor of a job given to him by others, along with tens of millions of dollars in paychecks.

And yet ... one of the first traits Morgan Stanley's bankers noted in Purcell, after he took over the firm in 1997, was his tendency never to be seen at work.

• Faceless Boss

Morgan Stanley employees working very near Purcell's office claimed they wouldn't be able to pick their boss out of a line- up. When Purcell made a necessary public appearance after the Sept. 11 attacks, which destroyed Morgan Stanley's World Trade Center headquarters, a number of Morgan Stanley employees told Bloomberg News reporter Adam Levy that their first response was: So that's what he looks like!

Of course, Phil Purcell may have spent so little time inside Morgan Stanley because he had more important things to do outside the firm. On the other hand, there may be more complex explanations for his curious absence. He may, for example, have sensed that if he hung around all those smart bankers, they'd sense that he was just faking it.

• Deflecting Scrutiny

It will be noted that the few times Phil Purcell has had to make a decision likely to invite public scrutiny, he has behaved like a man who was attempting to deflect public scrutiny.

Item: When he took the job, we now know, he stacked the Morgan Stanley board with his friends, and then passed a rule that required that they muster a 75 percent vote to oust him -- thus limiting the incentive for any individual board member to question the CEO too closely. The rule was so extraordinary for a public company that it was scrapped once dissidents began clamoring for a change.

Item: After the bust of the Internet boom, fueled in part by the enthusiasms of Morgan Stanley's stock analysts, Morgan Stanley's share of the subsequent industry settlement over tainted research was smaller than rivals Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston and Merrill Lynch & Co., in part because the firm was somehow lucky enough to have deleted many of the employee e-mails that proved so embarrassing for others.

Item: When small investors discovered that Morgan Stanley had invited former President Bill Clinton to speak at one of its conferences, and became upset, and threatened to stage a protest, did Purcell do what any ordinary Wall Street CEO would do and tell them to stick it? No! He told clients that the firm ``clearly made a mistake'' and that it understood that some investors were unhappy with ``Mr. Clinton's personal behavior as president.''

• No Paper Trail

Mark Sabia was able to convince a lot of people he was a journalist without doing any journalism. The fact that he didn't do any journalism probably helped, as he never called attention to his work.

Similarly, Phil Purcell has convinced a lot of people that he is running Morgan Stanley, even as the firm's stock price has trailed its rivals, its top bankers and traders have fled in disgust, and its shareholders have formed a consortium to protest his rule. Even as, in short, Morgan Stanley has behaved exactly as it might if NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE.

But let me be fair to these two interesting men. I can't say that Phil Purcell hasn't lain awake nights staring at his ceiling, worrying about how to fix Morgan Stanley, any more than I can say than Mark Sabia didn't stare into his computer and wonder how to capture the glory of the 2000 Yankees.

I can't say that, as the Wall Street firm plunged into chaos, Phil Purcell reclined in a Barcalounger in his Chicago home and cackled at the folly of those who had employed him. But when you step back from his performance on the job you can't help but ask: How much different would life inside Morgan Stanley be today if the man who has called himself CEO for the past eight years had been merely pretending to run the place?

• Career Choices

Mark Sabia isn't an unsympathetic villain. If he wanted to hurt people, he would have gone into another line of work. Unwritten sports journalism causes no harm, and, indeed, may do some good. (Think of all the negativity Sabia spared Mets fans!)

How much better he would have done for himself, if not for others, by taking his skills to Wall Street. Really, it's a good lesson for any young imposter wondering what he should do with his life.

If all you want is a job worth not doing, journalism may be your calling. But if you want to get rich in the bargain, you ought to at least consider running Morgan Stanley.

 To contact the writer of this column: Michael Lewis in Berkeley, California, at mlewis1@bloomberg.net.