Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › The plot thickens….Confirmed.. Fed Reserve Strongarmed BofA …
- This topic has 265 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
equalizer.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 30, 2009 at 10:54 PM #463319October 1, 2009 at 5:36 AM #462509
Chris Scoreboard Johnston
ParticipantLewis took the low road and the likely payoff beyond what the exit package will be,to stay quiet and leave. I would bet my life they threatened to kill him if he sang. This is a very big deal, and the truth cannot be known. We may think politics is nasty and getting more so, but there are things that go on behind the scenes that are alot worse than just congressmen pissing on each other over healthcare.
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.
It has been obvious from the beginning that this deal made no sense on any level at all and was pressured from somewhere. Other than the govt buying toilet seats for 30k jokes, no executive running any large company would overpay like this without chicanery going on. 50B for a company worth close to zero cap rate wise at the time.
It is becoming obvious that the corruption in politics is on a pretty big scale, and is not party specific.
October 1, 2009 at 5:36 AM #462702ParticipantLewis took the low road and the likely payoff beyond what the exit package will be,to stay quiet and leave. I would bet my life they threatened to kill him if he sang. This is a very big deal, and the truth cannot be known. We may think politics is nasty and getting more so, but there are things that go on behind the scenes that are alot worse than just congressmen pissing on each other over healthcare.
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.
It has been obvious from the beginning that this deal made no sense on any level at all and was pressured from somewhere. Other than the govt buying toilet seats for 30k jokes, no executive running any large company would overpay like this without chicanery going on. 50B for a company worth close to zero cap rate wise at the time.
It is becoming obvious that the corruption in politics is on a pretty big scale, and is not party specific.
October 1, 2009 at 5:36 AM #463047ParticipantLewis took the low road and the likely payoff beyond what the exit package will be,to stay quiet and leave. I would bet my life they threatened to kill him if he sang. This is a very big deal, and the truth cannot be known. We may think politics is nasty and getting more so, but there are things that go on behind the scenes that are alot worse than just congressmen pissing on each other over healthcare.
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.
It has been obvious from the beginning that this deal made no sense on any level at all and was pressured from somewhere. Other than the govt buying toilet seats for 30k jokes, no executive running any large company would overpay like this without chicanery going on. 50B for a company worth close to zero cap rate wise at the time.
It is becoming obvious that the corruption in politics is on a pretty big scale, and is not party specific.
October 1, 2009 at 5:36 AM #463119ParticipantLewis took the low road and the likely payoff beyond what the exit package will be,to stay quiet and leave. I would bet my life they threatened to kill him if he sang. This is a very big deal, and the truth cannot be known. We may think politics is nasty and getting more so, but there are things that go on behind the scenes that are alot worse than just congressmen pissing on each other over healthcare.
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.
It has been obvious from the beginning that this deal made no sense on any level at all and was pressured from somewhere. Other than the govt buying toilet seats for 30k jokes, no executive running any large company would overpay like this without chicanery going on. 50B for a company worth close to zero cap rate wise at the time.
It is becoming obvious that the corruption in politics is on a pretty big scale, and is not party specific.
October 1, 2009 at 5:36 AM #463324ParticipantLewis took the low road and the likely payoff beyond what the exit package will be,to stay quiet and leave. I would bet my life they threatened to kill him if he sang. This is a very big deal, and the truth cannot be known. We may think politics is nasty and getting more so, but there are things that go on behind the scenes that are alot worse than just congressmen pissing on each other over healthcare.
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.
It has been obvious from the beginning that this deal made no sense on any level at all and was pressured from somewhere. Other than the govt buying toilet seats for 30k jokes, no executive running any large company would overpay like this without chicanery going on. 50B for a company worth close to zero cap rate wise at the time.
It is becoming obvious that the corruption in politics is on a pretty big scale, and is not party specific.
October 1, 2009 at 7:28 AM #462519ucodegen
ParticipantIf 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.
October 1, 2009 at 7:28 AM #462712ParticipantIf 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.
October 1, 2009 at 7:28 AM #463057ParticipantIf 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.
October 1, 2009 at 7:28 AM #463129ParticipantIf 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.
October 1, 2009 at 7:28 AM #463334ParticipantIf 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.
October 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM #462539davelj
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. [/quote]
Ken Lewis CREATED HIS OWN bad situation(s). He didn’t have to even approach Merrill. Owning Merrill was completely unnecessary from a strategic standpoint. He didn’t have to buy Countrywide. Everyone on this board had an inkling that Countrywide was an abortion before Ken Lewis decided to buy it.
Ken Lewis was just totally and completely wrong about how bad things were in his own business and he tried to expand when he should have been hoarding his acorns and delevering. It’s as simple as that. They should have fired his ass a LONG time ago.
October 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM #462732Participant[quote=ucodegen]
My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. [/quote]
Ken Lewis CREATED HIS OWN bad situation(s). He didn’t have to even approach Merrill. Owning Merrill was completely unnecessary from a strategic standpoint. He didn’t have to buy Countrywide. Everyone on this board had an inkling that Countrywide was an abortion before Ken Lewis decided to buy it.
Ken Lewis was just totally and completely wrong about how bad things were in his own business and he tried to expand when he should have been hoarding his acorns and delevering. It’s as simple as that. They should have fired his ass a LONG time ago.
October 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM #463077Participant[quote=ucodegen]
My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. [/quote]
Ken Lewis CREATED HIS OWN bad situation(s). He didn’t have to even approach Merrill. Owning Merrill was completely unnecessary from a strategic standpoint. He didn’t have to buy Countrywide. Everyone on this board had an inkling that Countrywide was an abortion before Ken Lewis decided to buy it.
Ken Lewis was just totally and completely wrong about how bad things were in his own business and he tried to expand when he should have been hoarding his acorns and delevering. It’s as simple as that. They should have fired his ass a LONG time ago.
October 1, 2009 at 8:56 AM #463149Participant[quote=ucodegen]
My opinion is that Ken Lewis did the best he could with a bad situation. [/quote]
Ken Lewis CREATED HIS OWN bad situation(s). He didn’t have to even approach Merrill. Owning Merrill was completely unnecessary from a strategic standpoint. He didn’t have to buy Countrywide. Everyone on this board had an inkling that Countrywide was an abortion before Ken Lewis decided to buy it.
Ken Lewis was just totally and completely wrong about how bad things were in his own business and he tried to expand when he should have been hoarding his acorns and delevering. It’s as simple as that. They should have fired his ass a LONG time ago.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.