var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Zclyh3
October 3, 2009 1:02 AM
Moderate | Flag for review

HE WAS FORCED TO TAKE THE MERRILL LYNCH DEAL! lol

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Willmeister
October 3, 2009 1:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zclyh3:
he was also forced to take the pension money and forced to spend it on whatever he wanted...and was pissed when he ended up with a house a new yacht and a fast sports car

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
suezahn
October 3, 2009 1:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm hating BoA more and more--and I've had my checking and savings accounts with them since the mid 90s. Any recommendations for better banks in the northern Virginia area? Or does it really not matter--are they all this...hinky?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
reservoir_dog
October 5, 2009 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: Forget the brick-and-mortars. Unnecessary. Go with Schwab. Lower company overhead means TOTALLY free checking - with interest - for you. I made the switch from a megabank over a year ago and could not be more pleased. Service is excellent, no fees, great website, what more could you want? And if you must visit someone in person, any preexisting brokerage location functions as a full-service bank.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pinkbunnyslippers
October 4, 2009 1:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: Not sure how \"northern virginia\" you are, but I've had amazing experiences with Virginia Commerce - definitely a homegrown community bank. There is also Northwest Credit Union - both are top notch in my mind.

I'd been waiting for an appropriate fire under my rear to move from BofA - this deplorable pension might be just that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 3, 2009 3:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: Yes it is starting to look like they are all this hinky. Local banks or credit unions are still a bit better to deal with since they know you can actually walk in the door and raise a stink if they really screw with you.

BTW our local bank has been in business for close to 100 years and they have started instituting alot of BOA style screw the customer policies. I pretty much just hate banks these days.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
emis
October 3, 2009 3:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: Find a credit union or a local bank that has been in business more then 50 years.

You'll be much better.

I'm consistently amazed at how many people I run into who use BoA and say \"I have no alternative\", of course you do... and as for financial leverage, as long as you have a job and money coming in and going out, banks are happy to have you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
swedub
October 3, 2009 2:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: What's sad is I tried leaving them twice, only to have them buy the banks I moved to (South Florida). I gave up running away. I currently do not have the financial leverage to find a better bank.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
fs2k2isfun
October 3, 2009 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well my Bank of America stocks have been doing very well, even had an up day today.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
fs2k2isfun
October 3, 2009 5:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein: Not so sure. The news came in yesterday morning and yesterday was a bad day for the stock. Honestly, can't say there is any correlation, but its been one of my best holdings this year.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
October 3, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What he should be sad about is the people who will have to delay their retirement because of him. Wonder what he'll be doing with all his spare time?

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
reservoir_dog
October 5, 2009 1:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: Lots of hate on this comment and no substance beyond simple anger at the $53 million amount.


Of course it isn't \"fair.\" Of course you wish you had that money because you would totally feed all the hungry people and cure typhoid. Of course he's undeserving and a horrible person who deserves to be shot and hung and tarred and feathered and made an example of for all the other money-hungry, greedy, selfish CEOs out there.


It's so much more complicated than that. And this is a pension, not a golden parachute. He didn't \"run the company into the ground.\" Were you on the board? Were you there? He also worked at BofA most of his life and probably had a lot to do with making it the company it is today.


Say what you want about how \"evil\" it is and all that, but all this talking gets nobody nowhere and changes nothing. You're not even saying anything. If you're upset with the way a company is doing business, get involved. Mouth-farting in the comments portion of a website might make you feel righteous but isn't doing a whole lot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Cynical Librarian
October 3, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: Swimming in pools filled with the tears of those whose lives he's ruined? I'm sure he can afford that.
Plus, that would mean new jobs for the unemployed!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 3, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: Hopefully hiding from all the people who were screwed over in this mess.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
October 3, 2009 4:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: I expect Lewis's spare time will be taken up going over offers to serve on the boards of other corporations. It'll take him a while to decide which 6 or 7 invitations he'll accept out of the 4 dozen or so he gets. Of course, all of those offers will be purely ceremonial in nature. He won't actually have to do anything to justify the meager $50-100k annual stipends each of those directorships will give him. His friends in corporate America wouldn't even dream of forcing him to interrupt his leisurely and cushy retirement. Each of them will be happy just to know they're helping him live his final years in unmatched luxury ... and know that, if he should end up jettisoned from whichever company he's been plundering over the last decade, the rest of his friends in corporate America will be providing him the same favor of providing a retirement villa in the Swiss Alps or the French Riviera.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
legwork
October 3, 2009 3:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: Telling stories:

With a looong face... \"Do you all remember that retired bank exec last year who returned to his office and paid every employee current and previous a million dollars?...wait for it... I DON'T!\" At which point he slaps his knee and the cronies all have another good laugh.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
emis
October 3, 2009 3:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@legwork:

The worst is that this piece of shit will probably retire off to some villa in Europe with an 85' yacht and we'll never hear about him again.

The front fucking cover of the \"Barron Funds Newsletter\" this month sent to all holders of the fund (it's in my 401k, I don't even have a choice) features Mr. Barron's smiling mug as he tells me about the g-damn African safari trip he took his two sons and their girlfriends on to celebrate his kid's graduation from Columbia w/ an MBA.

He was spouting on about some near-death accident they had and appreciating life, but all I could picture are two gelled hair frat boys double teaming two plastic chested blondes while high fiving each other in some luxury safari lodge about 10 miles from where the poor natives are starving to death....... but hey, as the conservatives say, without those tourists and the money they bring the locals wouldn't even have jobs, so they are doing them a favor... and apparently us too, maybe one of them will get eaten by a lion.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 3, 2009 1:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@emis: i doubt he'll disappear from view so easily. more likely, he'll start a consulting firm that will teach other up-&-coming banks how they too can tank american finance. or maybe he'll start a lobby firm that collects senators like baseball cards. or perhaps a venture capital group that buys up all our favorite companies & turns them into golden piles of poo.

whatever he does, it's pretty much guaranteed to be the suck.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
emis
October 3, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: What he should be sad about is the people who will have to delay their retirement because of him

Absolutely!

He should be disgusted with himself and should use his ill gotten gains nearly in their entirety to assist the poor and unfortunate, but particularly students and retired people.

I understand that he didn't necessarily PERSONALLY cause the collapse of the system, but he is one of a few who were in positions to actually DO something to keep their own companies from falling into the obvious trap, and he did not.

For him to now stand to see over $100M while people who invested in the company see their retirement and savings cut in half or worse is atrocious.

I guess maybe when you're rich you just lose sight of things and you start to feel entitled or you think that these things are \"just business\". Personally I'd be unable to enjoy life unless I felt like I was giving back to society.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
October 3, 2009 10:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@emis: Sharing, apparently, applies only to shareholders - not high and mighty CEOs.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tailstoo
October 3, 2009 1:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I find this to be a crazy amount of money to pay someone to retire, the truth is that many CEOs get the same deal.

We can't afford to keep millions of Americans employed, but many companies can somehow afford to pay their ex-executives millions per year not to work.

How exactly does that make sense?

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 3, 2009 1:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tailstoo: here's how it makes sense (& i'm not saying i agree, but i understand why executive compensation is so screwed up today):

fund managers, which are middle-rung executives, make a bonus equal to a percentage of their portfolio earnings & size. the more money you rake in for your company, the more portfolios you get (& the bigger percentage you take).

at the height of trading, some of these fund managers were raking in paychecks worth well over $100 million because they were managing funds that were worth billions of dollars.

so, it goes like this: mr. fund manager is making boatloads of cash managing a single fund. as chief executive of the bank, i not only manage him (& therefore his fund), but thousands of other managers & their portfolios. don't i deserve compensation reflecting that increased burden?

essentially, compensation to glorified day traders was out-of-whack & exec compensation packages naturally followed. if you want to fix the problem of executive compensation, you have to look at the performance bonus structure as a whole within the entire financial services industry & the change has to start with low & middle management.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 3, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: performance bonuses only work if there is someone watching to make sure they are not manipulating things just to improve their bonus.

With these financial sector things it seemed that they were manipulating. It caused bigger bonuses for a while. When the game caused the whole system to fall they still wanted bonuses on the other side.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 4, 2009 5:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: i don't think they work at all. perhaps some nominal bonus should be tied to performance, but as we've seen throughout the financial services industry, if you tie the majority of a person's earnings to performance pay, you're just asking your employees to lie, cheat, steal to win.

it's not like this is even a new thing. 'wall street' revealed the excesses of financiers to the masses 20 years ago. & what reception did it receive? instead of being shocked & outraged (like oliver stone intended), people rooted for michael douglas. they wanted to be him.

it's like bill maher says: the problem is we're all greedy fucks. we get pissed at ken lewis b/c we're jealous, not b/c we think earning this obscene amount of money at the expensive of others is wrong. until that mentality is changed, is there anything really that can be done?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
emis
October 3, 2009 3:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tailstoo: We can't afford to keep millions of Americans employed, but many companies can somehow afford to pay their ex-executives millions per year not to work.

How exactly does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense.

It's ALL BULLSHIT.

When these companies were supposedly making money hand over fist (all basically a LIE) they claimed that the CEO's were compensated MASSIVE amounts because they were \"WORTH\" it, and pointed at the balance sheets.

Well now that those balance sheets are redder then a slaughter house floor do you see CEO's taking $0 salaries? Of course not, in fact we heard MORE bullshit with AIG bonus' about how they HAVE to pay them in order to keep the TALENT.

The CEOs and executive staffs of many companies ought to be fully investigated and prosecuted both civilly and criminality where there is evidence that they acted irresponsibly--I'm not talking 20/20 hind sight like, oh you should have known this would happen, but rather where they knew that a decision was bad, like accepting no-doc liar loans, or allowing any bonuses or pay raises to executive levels when the company was losing money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pinkbunnyslippers
October 4, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@emis: Not saying it's right, but who was complaining back when these guys were getting these massive compensations when the banks were making money hand over fist? Not many...

We complain when the banks are in the sh*tter, but not many bothered to pass a care in the world about the insane compensations until things started heading south. Just some food for thought...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
morlo
October 3, 2009 2:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tailstoo: I have a hard time imagining the negotiations. Did this guy have the balls to say a $2 million/year pension wasn't enough? Or as CEO did he just get a blank check, and he was modest enough only to ask for 3.5?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
emis
October 3, 2009 3:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morlo:

Who do you think he's \"interviewing\" with? It's a board of directors... they all sit on each other's boards.

Before taking the CEO seat in 2001 I'm sure he was good buddies with just about every one of the BoA board members who decided he would be such a wonderful fit.

There probably isn't really a \"negotiation\" at all... they sit in opulence on the Nth floor of some luxury corporate building and decide just how much they can compensate him before it's picked up by some new go-getter financial journalist, or the junior analyst for another bank who happens to catch it on the 10-Q or some bullshit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 3, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@emis: How much money is sucked out of the system by this kind of corporate governance?

Companies justify charging more and more out of consumers to pay their bills and appease shareholders but look how much of it goes to paying directors. We have all seen that the \"C\" level staff and boards have done nothing to keep companies honest or profitable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
October 3, 2009 5:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@emis: Probably not. Those guys are all competing against each other. The rat race doesn't change as you get up the ladder.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
October 3, 2009 2:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tailstoo: becasue those deals were made when they needed those execs to lead their multi buillion dollar enterprises....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
suezahn
October 3, 2009 2:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Those golden parachutes are the greatest incentive to do a crappy job. The sooner they fire you, the sooner you can hit those beaches with the loot in hand. It's quite a racket. @tailstoo:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 3, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: Failure holds no risk anymore. Screw up and the government will bail you out for the losses. If you get fired you still get a big pay day.

Now combine this with the drivel the big name business schools are teaching. Maybe it is time we the consumers (or we the people) start turning our backs on big business.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 3, 2009 3:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: The new golden parachute: You will get a bonus if the stock prices has risen - five years after you've left the company. That is, if the CEO exits in 2009, the bonus comes in 2014 based on the 2014 stock price. That would create some long-term thinking.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Al Swearengen
October 3, 2009 2:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Make it so publicly listed companies can't give their executives anything if the stock price goes down below when they took over. Sure, it might result in accounting irregularities to keep the stock price up, but I'm sure it will all warm the cockles of our hearts when some uber-douche has to bend over while all his money is taken away from him. Boo hoo

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
reservoir_dog
October 5, 2009 1:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen: Why would more regulation help anything? This is an absurd suggestion.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
October 3, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen: That's hands down one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Foremost, stocks can and will drop for reasons beyond the company's control (it's a perception game, not an actual performance game). Secondly, the second a company undergoes a natural decline in stock value, every high-ranking executive would jet out of there. Nobody would even consider replacing them knowing they'd never get paid. Hello failure of hundreds upon hundreds of companies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
October 3, 2009 5:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen: Instead of \"making it so that,\" how about people just stop investing in companies that reward malfeasance? Generally, that's how the market works out. If a company rewards people who perform badly for investors, then it looses investors. With companies like Bank of America, which will eventually turn around, most of those investors stick around... for the precise reason that the occasional 'golden parachute' is offset by billions in profits spread amongst its investors. If it were any other way, there would be no investors.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 3, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MichaelBrazell: Since so many of these companies fall into the bad category and big business owns damn near everything where do we go?

Our entire mall district is run by these big corporations. The few local stores left can't fill the void right now. I would be left unable to buy clothes unless I want to buy $100 tshirts at the boutique stores downtown.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
emis
October 3, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen:

On the surface tying executive level pay to either stock or balance sheet performance may seem like a decent and well intentioned idea, but in practice it will simply hone them into better liars.

We'll probably also see lots of CEO churn where they take turns being the bad guys at each other companies... Exec A works at Ford during a banner 4 year period and makes money hand over fist... then Exec B takes over and the company proceeds to bleed like a land mine victim for 4 years ... what we won't see is how A & B, along with the other collection of the few thousand elite's will swap positions and titles cycling between being bad and good guys.

And you think the financial news networks will ever report on anything serious? Of course not... because they are OWED by these people and many of the reporters and journalists in that field are just trainees trying to build up a name so that they can end up as a consultant or lobbyist.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
frodolives35
October 3, 2009 3:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

He and his like laugh all the way to the bank everyday and will continue to do so.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ablestmage
October 3, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frodolives35: That's part of the package that comes with preferring capitalism over socialism.

However, merely receiving a large sum of money does not make one evil or bad -- what he does with that money could be an entirely different prospect. If he pumps up the economy by spending in key areas, he could favorably improve business health in much more giant ways that the average consumer.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
summeroflove
October 3, 2009 3:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

He'll be fine - he and his craaaazy eyes.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
October 3, 2009 5:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

For what it's worth, most investments are below what they were a year ago, and many -- right now -- are below what they were in pre 9/11 2001. However, if you had pulled out of BoA as an investor in, say, 2007, you'd have done very well for yourself.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
theSuperman
October 3, 2009 8:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its insane how CEOS of top companies get paid millions of dollars, get great benefits, and an excellent pension plans when a lot of their employees do not get a pension and some do not get health insurance.

Yay Capitalism!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
xthexlanternx
October 3, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theSuperman:

You can always count on Consumerist for anti-business trolling.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hypnotik_jello
October 3, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xthexlanternx: really? how is it anti-business? do you think Ken Lewis built BofA from the ground up toiling long and hard hours? Nope. So give me a break. I'm totally pro-business, but as a shareholder of BofA, we only get the shaft when millions are thrown down the toilet on buffoons like Ken Lewis.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
reservoir_dog
October 5, 2009 1:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypnotik_jello: I understand the anger that comes from someone who you see as a bad guy getting this type of money - but - it's a pension. Not a golden parachute. He *did* work at BofA for decades and was a huge part of building it into the company it became. This \"value\" the company lost may not have been there without the work he put into making it the world-class bank it is today.


Do I agree with everything they've ever done? No. Do I think it's completely \"fair\" for someone to get this type of money when their company goes south? Not necessarily. But who are we to judge? Who are you to say his pension is unjustified? Millions upon millions of shareholders - by virtue of their purchasing the stock - would disagree.


If you don't like what a non-government-run business does with their profits, don't invest. Don't do business with them. Obviously, the investment they made in Ken Lewis' PENSION was justified, since they're one of the largest banks in the world today.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
suezahn
October 3, 2009 11:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Evidently \"talent\" at the top is more important than \"talent\" in those who do the actual work.@theSuperman:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
October 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suezahn: You obviously have no idea how businesses work. A lot more goes into the strategic planning of a business (a 24/7 job) than the average tactical, 40-hour-a-week job.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
suezahn
October 5, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I worked over two years at a not-for-profit. halfway into that, we had a new CEO come on--someone with no prior history with the company. From the moment he came on, his goal was to sell it off, walk away with a golden parachute, and leave the rest of us laid off. It took two failed attempts before the third attempt worked. If by strategic planning you mean \"lining their pockets as quickly as possible and screw the rest,\" then yes, I've no doubt it's a 23/7 job. Should they continue to be rewarded for bad behavior and poor performance? No.@supercereal:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 3, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: I worked with many C-level executives and closely with c-level teams.

Your drastically giving them way too much credit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hypnotik_jello
October 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: you obviously don't know the concept of hard work and sweat and blood.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
microcars
October 3, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

perhaps they will pay for his pension with all the new \"Black Card\" members they sign up at $495 a year.

\"Made with Carbon, it is the Ultimate Buying Tool!\"

I believe I am also made \"with carbon\", does that make me an ultimate buying tool as well?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
xthexlanternx
October 3, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@microcars:

Ha, I got offered one of these this week. I won't have much use for it over the next year or else I would have gotten it. There is a 24/7 concierge as well as many other services provided free.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
microcars
October 3, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xthexlanternx: \"There is a 24/7 concierge as well as many other services provided free.\" *

* after you have paid the $495 yearly fee...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JennQPublic
October 3, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@microcars: Ken Lewis is also made with carbon, but he's just The Ultimate Tool.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thefranchise2
October 3, 2009 2:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@microcars: If you spend the $495 a year for the card, you've got the tool part down at least.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
smiling1809
October 3, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey, I'll take that much $$$ not to work for them and screw up the company. I'd be fine with a couple of million.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
October 3, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is the sort of thing that makes me wish the Communists would take over. People like this would be among the first to be lined up against the wall.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
reservoir_dog
October 5, 2009 1:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: I really just hope this is a joke. Yep, when I see the amount of an ex-CEO's pension, I really wish we had a communist government that killed these guys. Are you serious? And you have a \"star\" which means others on this website agree with your jackassery.


Comcast has a monopoly on the cable television market in many places. See how high they finish in the \"worst company in America\" contests every year? That's what a communist government would be like. Do you want EVERYTHING in your life to be like Comcast?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squishyalt
October 3, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: Why so sad?

You don't get it, do you? When he gets paid, all of you non-working, government-teat-sucking liberals get paid. Half of his income will go to the people that can't or just won't work.

If he didn't get paid all of that money it would just sit in the coffers of the company.

But, now, 50% of it can be used to pay unwed mothers to have children that they don't want and can't feed or raise properly. YEA FOR THEM!

Under your Communist system, the money would all stay in the company (read that communist government) coffers and non-working, whining liberals would be starving(and still not working and whining).

So, cheer up! His gain is your gain - unlike in a communist system where the only one that gains is the government.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MickeyMoo
October 3, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: Much as I agree with you on a visceral level when I read things like this (or Nardelli at HomeDepot and then again Chrysler/Cerebus) The sad fact is that Communism really isn't that much better - if you're at the top of the party yay! you get your Zil and your dacha, if you're on the low end - you best stuff some extra newspaper in your shoes, the potato line is extra long today and it's snowing.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
strizis
October 3, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why is anyone worried about the stockholders. Aren't they the ones that hired him, and authorized this pension. The stockholders need to take control, or sell the stock.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
reservoir_dog
October 5, 2009 1:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@strizis: Well said. Stockholders are at-will participants in the actions of a company. Shareholder rights are not what they should be, and authority is too divided in many cases to make it effective, but if someone is upset with the actions of a corporation, they can sell their stock and stop doing business with them. You hit it on the head.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dnparadice
October 4, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

hate for boa

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
endless
October 4, 2009 1:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

anyone else see a bit of David Wallace when you look at that pic?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Neurotic1
October 4, 2009 6:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

F*** BofA! Support your local banks and credit unions.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mr.Duke
October 4, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Laughing all the way out of the bank?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bishophicks
October 6, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aren't a couple of big bankers retiring by the end of the year? If I see any more go, I'm going to assume that they've spent this year inflating earnings using every accounting trick in the book and they want to get out with their bonuses and pensions before time runs out on their accounting games.

Reply
");