[equalizer]

[quote=Chris Scoreboard Johnston]Lewis 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.[/quote]
Ken was just scared, leave the poor guy alone!

Next person to get promoted/retire will be Judge Rakoff, who was vitriolic in response to SEC letting BofA walk away with tiny fine. Judge dared to question why execs at BofA should not be personally liable for defrauding BofA shareholders. The SEC, Feds, Corporate execs will NEVER let trial against BofA proceed, or we will have all parties state “I don’t recall” in court.

My previous post:
http://piggington.com/the_final_days_of_merrill_lynch_from_the_atlantic

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][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.[/quote]
All about ego for that guy who wanted to overcome perceptions of being king of the little hillbilly town by becoming king of ML and NYC. BofA had nearly 10% of bank deposits at one point, so there was no way FED could shut them out.

Finally a B-school prof tells it straight up:
“Why did Ken Lewis make the Merrill deal, and why did he so completely bungle it?

I believe there are two primary reasons. The first is all about emotions. Lewis had been the right-hand man to McColl, who really built Bank of America into the banking powerhouse it became. What could be a bigger trophy than Merrill Lynch? That’s how you can explain the single weekend of hectic due diligence, amid pressures from all sides, as the sale went through. Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? Because he was buying a dream of a company, one that had an enormous emotional attachment for him personally. McColl had never acquired Merrill. Now Ken Lewis could do it. Wow.

The second reason why Lewis bought Merrill Lynch and destroyed his own company is all about experience–the wrong experience. If you look at earlier deals Bank of America made under both McColl and Lewis, they had two primary defining attributes: The companies acquired were all in mainstream banking, and the economy was not in severe distress. This was as true for NationsBank’s acquisition of BankAmerica as it was for Bank of America’s acquisition of FleetBoston. There was an established playbook for these takeovers: Cut overhead costs, consolidate assets, build bulk to fend off competitors and create new business opportunities.

When it came to Merrill, and also to Lewis’s takeover of Countrywide Financial earlier in 2008, for that matter, that playbook no longer applied”

Sydney Finkelstein is a professor of strategy and leadership at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and the author of Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/ken-lewis-failure-leadership-governance_bofa.html

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][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.[/quote]
All about ego for that guy who wanted to overcome perceptions of being king of the little hillbilly town by becoming king of ML and NYC. BofA had nearly 10% of bank deposits at one point, so there was no way FED could shut them out.

Finally a B-school prof tells it straight up:
“Why did Ken Lewis make the Merrill deal, and why did he so completely bungle it?

I believe there are two primary reasons. The first is all about emotions. Lewis had been the right-hand man to McColl, who really built Bank of America into the banking powerhouse it became. What could be a bigger trophy than Merrill Lynch? That’s how you can explain the single weekend of hectic due diligence, amid pressures from all sides, as the sale went through. Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? Because he was buying a dream of a company, one that had an enormous emotional attachment for him personally. McColl had never acquired Merrill. Now Ken Lewis could do it. Wow.

The second reason why Lewis bought Merrill Lynch and destroyed his own company is all about experience–the wrong experience. If you look at earlier deals Bank of America made under both McColl and Lewis, they had two primary defining attributes: The companies acquired were all in mainstream banking, and the economy was not in severe distress. This was as true for NationsBank’s acquisition of BankAmerica as it was for Bank of America’s acquisition of FleetBoston. There was an established playbook for these takeovers: Cut overhead costs, consolidate assets, build bulk to fend off competitors and create new business opportunities.

When it came to Merrill, and also to Lewis’s takeover of Countrywide Financial earlier in 2008, for that matter, that playbook no longer applied”

Sydney Finkelstein is a professor of strategy and leadership at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and the author of Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/ken-lewis-failure-leadership-governance_bofa.html

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][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.[/quote]
All about ego for that guy who wanted to overcome perceptions of being king of the little hillbilly town by becoming king of ML and NYC. BofA had nearly 10% of bank deposits at one point, so there was no way FED could shut them out.

Finally a B-school prof tells it straight up:
“Why did Ken Lewis make the Merrill deal, and why did he so completely bungle it?

I believe there are two primary reasons. The first is all about emotions. Lewis had been the right-hand man to McColl, who really built Bank of America into the banking powerhouse it became. What could be a bigger trophy than Merrill Lynch? That’s how you can explain the single weekend of hectic due diligence, amid pressures from all sides, as the sale went through. Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? Because he was buying a dream of a company, one that had an enormous emotional attachment for him personally. McColl had never acquired Merrill. Now Ken Lewis could do it. Wow.

The second reason why Lewis bought Merrill Lynch and destroyed his own company is all about experience–the wrong experience. If you look at earlier deals Bank of America made under both McColl and Lewis, they had two primary defining attributes: The companies acquired were all in mainstream banking, and the economy was not in severe distress. This was as true for NationsBank’s acquisition of BankAmerica as it was for Bank of America’s acquisition of FleetBoston. There was an established playbook for these takeovers: Cut overhead costs, consolidate assets, build bulk to fend off competitors and create new business opportunities.

When it came to Merrill, and also to Lewis’s takeover of Countrywide Financial earlier in 2008, for that matter, that playbook no longer applied”

Sydney Finkelstein is a professor of strategy and leadership at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and the author of Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/ken-lewis-failure-leadership-governance_bofa.html

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][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.[/quote]
All about ego for that guy who wanted to overcome perceptions of being king of the little hillbilly town by becoming king of ML and NYC. BofA had nearly 10% of bank deposits at one point, so there was no way FED could shut them out.

Finally a B-school prof tells it straight up:
“Why did Ken Lewis make the Merrill deal, and why did he so completely bungle it?

I believe there are two primary reasons. The first is all about emotions. Lewis had been the right-hand man to McColl, who really built Bank of America into the banking powerhouse it became. What could be a bigger trophy than Merrill Lynch? That’s how you can explain the single weekend of hectic due diligence, amid pressures from all sides, as the sale went through. Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? Because he was buying a dream of a company, one that had an enormous emotional attachment for him personally. McColl had never acquired Merrill. Now Ken Lewis could do it. Wow.

The second reason why Lewis bought Merrill Lynch and destroyed his own company is all about experience–the wrong experience. If you look at earlier deals Bank of America made under both McColl and Lewis, they had two primary defining attributes: The companies acquired were all in mainstream banking, and the economy was not in severe distress. This was as true for NationsBank’s acquisition of BankAmerica as it was for Bank of America’s acquisition of FleetBoston. There was an established playbook for these takeovers: Cut overhead costs, consolidate assets, build bulk to fend off competitors and create new business opportunities.

When it came to Merrill, and also to Lewis’s takeover of Countrywide Financial earlier in 2008, for that matter, that playbook no longer applied”

Sydney Finkelstein is a professor of strategy and leadership at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and the author of Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/ken-lewis-failure-leadership-governance_bofa.html

[equalizer]

[quote=davelj][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.[/quote]
All about ego for that guy who wanted to overcome perceptions of being king of the little hillbilly town by becoming king of ML and NYC. BofA had nearly 10% of bank deposits at one point, so there was no way FED could shut them out.

Finally a B-school prof tells it straight up:
“Why did Ken Lewis make the Merrill deal, and why did he so completely bungle it?

I believe there are two primary reasons. The first is all about emotions. Lewis had been the right-hand man to McColl, who really built Bank of America into the banking powerhouse it became. What could be a bigger trophy than Merrill Lynch? That’s how you can explain the single weekend of hectic due diligence, amid pressures from all sides, as the sale went through. Why would any experienced CEO who knows how to do acquisitions agree to a deal with so little information? Because he was buying a dream of a company, one that had an enormous emotional attachment for him personally. McColl had never acquired Merrill. Now Ken Lewis could do it. Wow.

The second reason why Lewis bought Merrill Lynch and destroyed his own company is all about experience–the wrong experience. If you look at earlier deals Bank of America made under both McColl and Lewis, they had two primary defining attributes: The companies acquired were all in mainstream banking, and the economy was not in severe distress. This was as true for NationsBank’s acquisition of BankAmerica as it was for Bank of America’s acquisition of FleetBoston. There was an established playbook for these takeovers: Cut overhead costs, consolidate assets, build bulk to fend off competitors and create new business opportunities.

When it came to Merrill, and also to Lewis’s takeover of Countrywide Financial earlier in 2008, for that matter, that playbook no longer applied”

Sydney Finkelstein is a professor of strategy and leadership at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and the author of Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/03/ken-lewis-failure-leadership-governance_bofa.html

[equalizer]

“Will employers take advantage of the abundance of available labor to cut workers’ paychecks?”

Outside of sales/management jobs at auto dealers and luxury hotels, CA furloughs, where have there been cuts in pay? If the job market was so precarious why are we not hearing about salary cuts everywhere? There will likely be salary freezes, but no general wage cuts in most industries. Anyone see contrary data?

[equalizer]

“Will employers take advantage of the abundance of available labor to cut workers’ paychecks?”

Outside of sales/management jobs at auto dealers and luxury hotels, CA furloughs, where have there been cuts in pay? If the job market was so precarious why are we not hearing about salary cuts everywhere? There will likely be salary freezes, but no general wage cuts in most industries. Anyone see contrary data?

[equalizer]

“Will employers take advantage of the abundance of available labor to cut workers’ paychecks?”

Outside of sales/management jobs at auto dealers and luxury hotels, CA furloughs, where have there been cuts in pay? If the job market was so precarious why are we not hearing about salary cuts everywhere? There will likely be salary freezes, but no general wage cuts in most industries. Anyone see contrary data?

[equalizer]

“Will employers take advantage of the abundance of available labor to cut workers’ paychecks?”

Outside of sales/management jobs at auto dealers and luxury hotels, CA furloughs, where have there been cuts in pay? If the job market was so precarious why are we not hearing about salary cuts everywhere? There will likely be salary freezes, but no general wage cuts in most industries. Anyone see contrary data?

[equalizer]

“Will employers take advantage of the abundance of available labor to cut workers’ paychecks?”

Outside of sales/management jobs at auto dealers and luxury hotels, CA furloughs, where have there been cuts in pay? If the job market was so precarious why are we not hearing about salary cuts everywhere? There will likely be salary freezes, but no general wage cuts in most industries. Anyone see contrary data?

[equalizer]

[quote=waiting for bottom]Starting in 2010, everyone is basically eligible for the Roth. You have to contribute to a traditional, but can transfer to Roth at any time.[/quote]
Here’s a technical article about Roth 2010 “To Roth or Not to Roth: Analyzing the Conversion Opportunity for 2010 and Beyond”

Hit the download button on top
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476976

[equalizer]

[quote=waiting for bottom]Starting in 2010, everyone is basically eligible for the Roth. You have to contribute to a traditional, but can transfer to Roth at any time.[/quote]
Here’s a technical article about Roth 2010 “To Roth or Not to Roth: Analyzing the Conversion Opportunity for 2010 and Beyond”

Hit the download button on top
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476976

[equalizer]

[quote=waiting for bottom]Starting in 2010, everyone is basically eligible for the Roth. You have to contribute to a traditional, but can transfer to Roth at any time.[/quote]
Here’s a technical article about Roth 2010 “To Roth or Not to Roth: Analyzing the Conversion Opportunity for 2010 and Beyond”

Hit the download button on top
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476976

[equalizer]

[quote=waiting for bottom]Starting in 2010, everyone is basically eligible for the Roth. You have to contribute to a traditional, but can transfer to Roth at any time.[/quote]
Here’s a technical article about Roth 2010 “To Roth or Not to Roth: Analyzing the Conversion Opportunity for 2010 and Beyond”

Hit the download button on top
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476976

[Author]

Posts