Mikell
October 1st, 2009, 11:24 pm
"Lewis' decision to throw tens of billions of shareholder dollars at Merrill when it was on the brink of collapse even drew chortles from the likes of Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who last month dubbed Lewis the "ironic hero" of the meltdown.
But with BofA shares down two-thirds from their 2006 highs, Lewis will depart as no hero to investors -- ironic or otherwise."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/01/news/newsmakers/lewis.payout.fortune/index.htm
Remember this?
75% Of Latest Bank Of America Bailout Used To Pay Merrill Lynch Bonuses (BAC)
"By the time it paid its bonuses, Merrill knew about the $21 billion of operating losses for the quarter and Ken Lewis and BOFA knew they would need more capital. Bonuses are supposed to be based on the full year's performance, so the Q4 losses should have reset the bonus pool for the whole year. If most of the bonuses really were paid prior to December (which would be highly unusual--it's almost always a one-time lump sum), then at the very least, the last payment should have been stopped.
Meanwhile, if Merrill hadn't paid out $15 billion in bonuses, Bank of America presumably would only have needed $5 billion from taxpayers, not $20 billion."
And in case you're beginning to have sympathy for BOFA's argument that "bonuses weren't paid with actual taxpayer cash," recall that BOFA has ALREADY RECEIVED $25 billion in taxpayer funds, $10 billion of which were for Merrill. So Merrill used all of the original $10 billion PLUS $5 billion of the latest $20 billion to pay bonuses. Now are you mad?
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/75-of-latest-bank-of-america-bailout-paid-merrill-lynch-bonuses-bac
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::crazy::crazy:: crazy:
But with BofA shares down two-thirds from their 2006 highs, Lewis will depart as no hero to investors -- ironic or otherwise."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/01/news/newsmakers/lewis.payout.fortune/index.htm
Remember this?
75% Of Latest Bank Of America Bailout Used To Pay Merrill Lynch Bonuses (BAC)
"By the time it paid its bonuses, Merrill knew about the $21 billion of operating losses for the quarter and Ken Lewis and BOFA knew they would need more capital. Bonuses are supposed to be based on the full year's performance, so the Q4 losses should have reset the bonus pool for the whole year. If most of the bonuses really were paid prior to December (which would be highly unusual--it's almost always a one-time lump sum), then at the very least, the last payment should have been stopped.
Meanwhile, if Merrill hadn't paid out $15 billion in bonuses, Bank of America presumably would only have needed $5 billion from taxpayers, not $20 billion."
And in case you're beginning to have sympathy for BOFA's argument that "bonuses weren't paid with actual taxpayer cash," recall that BOFA has ALREADY RECEIVED $25 billion in taxpayer funds, $10 billion of which were for Merrill. So Merrill used all of the original $10 billion PLUS $5 billion of the latest $20 billion to pay bonuses. Now are you mad?
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/75-of-latest-bank-of-america-bailout-paid-merrill-lynch-bonuses-bac
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::crazy::crazy:: crazy: