Breaking: Bank of America's Ken Lewis Kicked Out as Chairman

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/diary/13100/breaking-bank-of-americas-ken-lewis-kicked-out-as-chairman

BREAKING: Bank of America's Ken Lewis Kicked Out as Chairman
by: ZP Heller
Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 18:37


"Bank of America's in a spiral, this greed's going viral!" That was the chant from protesters outside Bank of America's shareholders meeting today. It was the culmination of dozens of demonstrations across the country led by Take Back the Economy and SEIU to Fire Ken Lewis, Bank of America's loathsome CEO. They delivered over 90,000 signed "taxpayer proxy cards," which called on BofA to can Lewis, commit to genuine financial reform, curb predatory lending, provide workers affordable healthcare, and stop lobbying against Employee Free Choice. And the result? Ken Lewis is out as chairman!

This is a huge win for progressives, myself included, who have been up in arms for months over BofA's decision to continue its shamelessly greedy, predatory practices after receiving tens of billions in bailout funds. This outrage spilled onto YouTube, where Brave New Films put together a video narrated by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, documenting all of the reasons why Lewis deserved to be fired. As The NY Times reported today:

That message has resonated with some big shareholders of Bank of America. Calpers, the huge California public pension fund, said Tuesday that it was voting against re-electing Mr. Lewis and the rest of the bank's board. The fund joins Calstrs, the California teachers retirement fund, and several other state and union pension funds in opposing Mr. Lewis.

Two influential investor advisory groups, the RiskMetrics Group and Glass Lewis, have also recommended voting against Mr. Lewis.

Now it seems like all of this work, all the ranting and protesting, is finally starting to pay off as we see a major black eye for Lewis and corporate America. Lewis will remain BofA's CEO, but according to the AP, angry shareholders voted to separate that job from chairman, which will go to board member Walter Massey. This may not be as exciting as if BofA had ousted Lewis altogether, but it proves we can hold these bailed banks accountable for their ruthless ways. We can make examples of their CEOs--the poster boys of greed--as we demand re-regulation and the end to an era of corporate excess.

[Mike 03]

1. Whoa. Simultaneously Big News, but hardly a surprise. Fall guy. NT

[global1]

2. So This Is How We American's Can Take Back Our Country......

become stockholders to these corporations and use one's vote as a stockholder to take control of the company. Good plan!!!!

This needs to be organized on a larger basis.

[valerief]

3. He'll be missed

like anal warts!

:rofl:

Wait!!! He's still CEO??? WTF????????????????????????

:mad:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

4. Big f'n deal

Bet he still get a huge salary anyhow.

[SeeHopeWin]

5. Stupid shareholders kept him as CEO - dumb!

[Fire1]

6. Call me when he's no longer the CEO. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

7. This Is How Economic Reform Works...

Many want the banks fully nationalized...the government should walk in, arrest and immediately hang everyone and then make jobs appear. OK...a big hyperbolic, but there were some who got into quite a lather about how nothing was being done. Sure looks like the wheels are turning and in a proper direction.

The ultimate prosecutors and judges in the economic collapse were those most affected...the stock and shareholders in companies that are now in trouble. The government's intervention should and must be short term, it's up to the stock holders to do the long time fixes...cause they have the most at stake.

[unc70]

8. Happier shareholders if Countrywide not acquired and failed, or Fed took over BofA?

While many valid criticisms of BofA (certainly in the CC area), the decline in BAC shares and others reflect short-term market manipulation as much as weakness in underlying fundamentals. Go to DeepCapture to see the damage "naked" short selling causes for everyone.

Would the people in CA and its retirement systems been better off if BofA had not acquired CountryWide? That acquisition allowed BofA to control when and how the problems with CW were dealt with. It also protected and limited the already-existing risk to BofA from its existing loans and retail banking in the West where the CountryWide impact would be the greatest. What if a different owner or the government or a backruptcy judge were managing the CW loan porfolio, and thus the value of your home and those securing loans from BofA? This scenario would have exposed BofA (without CW) to risk from forces outside its control.

What about the case if BofA had walked away from the ML acquisition? What was the real threat to Lewis and to BofA? (Resist the urge to make this personal somehow, to see this as good vs evil?i) How far were the Wall Street imsiders at the Fed and the Treasury willing to go if BofA refused the ML deal and went public? The regulators can do almost anything: change reserve requirements, apply some new "test" or "requirement" carefuly crafted for BofA to fail, require reserve requirements (for whatever reason) that severely limit bank options, fueling short selling by allowing rumors that BofA _might_ have probllms with new "stress tests" or might require larger reserves or might somethingi else.

The ultimate sanction would be for the Fed to take over, to declare insolvent, or to throw to the short-selling wolves tne BofA management, board, and shareholders. Everyone had already seen what would happen to a bank under attack. Goldman Sachs, ML, Wachovia. What more do you need to see before you wise up?

As a native Tarheel with a lot of Wall Street experience, there is one more thing. For the most part, the current BofA is rooted in NCNB and C&S. It had prospered in spite of Wall Street. Many on Wall Street would still find satisfaction by putting those Southern yokels in their place. A real bank would have its headquarters in NYC, at least somewhere with a Fed Reserve Bank.

So consider this all as a strange hostile takeover with distractions from the press, regulators, and con artists. Follow the money, from non-profit donations to insider trading. First assumption is that few are truly benevolent. Who profits? Who distracts us elsewhere? Which activists are being manipulated.

Disclaimer: I have no connection with BofA except typical checking accounts and credit cards, and have certain complaints about BofA even with these.

We have seen what happens to those outside NYc who don't know their place, who believe banks can b anywhere, even in the South. Ponder Wachovia.