![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-930037-100x100.png\")
I think it's pretty disturbing that Obama's new pay czar forced Lewis to take NO salary this year, because his retirement package was \"enough.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-363287-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: Agreed. Disturbing. It would have been much better to take back the outlandish retirement package and leave his salary alone.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1226904-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: Imagine if a private company had invested a billion dollars into BofA. Would they let BofA do whatever they wanted? Hell no, that's irresponsible, they'd demand the bank make changes do that there investment doesn't go down the toilet.
Shouldn't the gov't do the same that a private investor would? Nothing disturbing about that, just business 101.
Of course, if BofA didn't want the gov't control, they didn't have to take the money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@Dondegroovily: BofA was forced to \"purchase\" Merrill Lynch by the government. Bank of American can only support of Merrill's debt because public funds were used to purchase bad assets off Merrill's balance sheet, and public funds purchased preferred shares from Bank of America.
So, actually BofA is being forced to take public money.
@Dondegroovily:
A private investor doesn't get that kind of control. A private investor simply gets the rights of a shareholder, which is not much more than the right to vote for the Board and to vote on extraordinary transactions.
@Esquire99: You know, I keep seeing this kind of comment more and more with stories related to the banks, where there's all this outrage about how DARE the government step in and interfere with private business. So let me just say this:
THEY TOOK FEDERAL FUNDS.
They took -twenty billion-, in fact. As far as I'm concerned, they are no longer private businesses. They stopped being that when THEY relied on taxpayers bailing them out from their OWN bad decisions. They have placed themselves in their own mess. And yet still, somehow, their CEO is walking away with a $53 million pension, still pays their executive board obscene amounts, and still managed to pay $1.24 billion in dividend payments to 'preferred shareholders'.
Not only do they have no right to complain about not getting a salary, but they should be thanking their lucky stars that the government hasn't taken MORE control. I think that as long as BoA hasn't paid back the federal bailout, there are wonderful public policy arguments to be made for eliminating pensions of executives, eliminating dividend payouts, and taking greater control over the bank in general.
@Zeratul010:
Shouldn't those conditions have been attached PRIOR to the govt. giving them the money, rather than after?
I have no problem at all with conditioning the receipt of federal funds on just about anything; however, I believe those conditions should be made clear prior to the agreement.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@Zeratul010: People like Esquire feel that CEOs and senior execs should be compensated via government handouts like Social Security contribution caps, deluxe health care writeoffs, massively favorable tax shelters, then when they fall off this mortal coil, zero Estate Taxes.
Because they're special, not because they earned it.
Working people should shut up and pay for these lush state benefits directed at these elites.
The bank bailout not impacting this corporate gravy train (and blocking reform to prevent future occurrences) are simply more of the same, writ large.
That impulse has always been present in the United States. It's just that before, they were called Royalists & Tories. Now they're called Free Market Fundamentalists, Libertarians or Conservatives.
Have to admire the consistency, no?
@Trai_Dep:
I don't think CEOs, etc. should be highly compensated because they are special. In part, I feel they should receive the benefits of any contract they entered into with their employer. In this case, the govt. is essentially forcing those contracts to be broken. I also believe that many of these people work hard for their compensation. In some cases, that work has resulted in failure, but they still put in the effort. These execs, etc. are working people. They work more hours than most; they are on call virtually 24/7; they make big, difficult decisions. Ken Lewis deserves ZERO salary? Give me a break.
@Zeratul010: Yep - and I love how the bank spokesman is whining about it.
They should be grateful that they all still have jobs - the bank really shouldn't exist anymore.
@tailstoo: No, Bank of America was fine. It was forced to purchase the failing Merrill Lynch, that is the only reason it took public money.
@Zeratul010: BAC didn't want or need the funds, and if it had been allowed to cancel the Merrill deal, it wouldn't have needed those funds either. And if you think the system was messed up before, wait until the government takes more control. From the people who brought you the $700 hammer, Medicare, and the DMV, it's YOUR BANK!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-793795-100x100.png\")
@tankertodd:Yeh because they did so great with no help all the bad is the goverments fault before and after.
@tankertodd: If they didn't want or need the funds, why did they take them? While I am not an expert on the bailouts, I don't recall there being any time where the government said 'You MUST take this money.\"
And I have an incredibly hard time believing that the federal government could do a -worse- job, since... BoA wouldn't exist now if they had been left alone. From the people who brought you $54 million payoffs for doing nothing, capricious adjustments of credit card rates on steady paying customers, and over a billion dollars in dividend payments when posting a LOSS, it's... OUR BANK (now).
@Zeratul010:
That's not entirely true. The govt. essentially forced the banks to take the money and that phenomenon has been covered in the news.
@Esquire99: No the government forced Bank of America to purchase Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch was in such a horrible financial position that Bank of American would only take Merrill Lynch in exchange for government guarantees against the bad assets on Merrill's balance sheet.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
That is kind of disturbing...then again...most of these idiots are making about 10,000% more than they should. Million dollar performance bonuses for putting your company out of business (except for a gov. bailout saving your rear)?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326654-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-345620-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-130682-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-132529-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1226070-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-131723-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1269364-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1251980-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929857-100x100.png\")
Bleh. Ken Lewis should forfeit some of his own money. IMO, he didn't \"earn\" shit.
@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already:
[www.guardian.co.uk]
@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: Don't read the news much, do you?