If he was really in a morally high ground type of place, he would hire a few ex navy seals to protect him and sing like a bird and let his security team protect him.
And who do you think the ex Navy Seals owe allegiance to?
I am a BofA stockholder and I go through this over and over in my mind. My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. Lets really look at the options:
1) Comply with the strong-arming. 1a) BofA still has access to future funds if needed. 1b) Strong arm the fed in return for lower interest rate on TARP funds (BofA is paying 3.54% on TARP money), as well as demanding funds at low rates (because feds strong-arming put BofA at risk). 1b.1) BofA seems to have done pretty well with the funds that were lended to it under TARP.. definitely better than 3.5% return on them. 1c) A non Fed board of directors still runs BofA. I could see a fed friendly board selling BofA to Goldman on the cheap. The Goldman – Fed relationship really needs to be looked at. 1d) Let the facts leak out later. A smoking gun is more damning that a gun that might have been.
2) Not comply and sing like a bird. 2a) Fed screws over BofA if the bank needs more TARP funds, thereby screwing over stockholders. We still don’t know for certain where this whole banking/RE thing is going to end up. 2a.1) If funds are needed, existing board of BofA is ousted, and a ‘Fed approved’ board of directors is elected – doing the feds not stockholders bidding. 2b) Fed increases cost of reserve money to BofA more expensive (remember, the US Banking system is fractional reserve) 2c) Feds deny and cover-up that they ever tried to strong arm BofA. 2c.1) Lewis might be subject to the kind of strange suicide we saw under Clinton.
I do not approve of what Ken Lewis did with BofA, but I also understand the condition under which it occurred.
