Bank of America stealing 53 mil from us as a reward to lewis

The whole thing is hoakey. Heard some talking heads yesterday saying how Lewis acted for the Greater good and the system benefited. How Robin Hood, he screwed the shareholders to save Capitalism. And the SEC, well , "A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat"

here's the deal:

"Based on the company's most recent proxy statement, he will have $53 million in pension benefits waiting for him when he leaves.

That should give him about $3.5 million a year in pension payouts for the rest of his life -- at a time when people who bought the stock when he took the reins in 2001 are underwater on their investments.

Although the bank swore off employment contracts and eliminated golden parachutes seven years ago, Lewis can thank a pension plan that dates back decades for his rich retirement rewards.

While this plan was open, certain top executives were eligible to accrue benefits they would receive following retirement in the form of annuity payments.

Lewis was the biggest winner in these plans, but other BofA execs benefited as well. Vice Chairman James Hance, for instance, retired in 2005 with an indicated annual benefit of $2.7 million."

its based on a plan that started years ago---as i have often noted, i am neither a friend nor an apologist for these guys but....have we really come to a time in this country that we want to reach back unilaterally over any number of years to change contracts?

I for one hope not.

Columbia- When you see a crime you have to act. If you feel that taking government money, creating a loss for shareholders and allowing $10 mill in deferred comp as well as options is OK than something is wrong with your ethical values. I have not read anything from the Board stating that they morally reject this "contract". Something has gone totally off in this country.

Ken Lewis formerly was chairman of the board. I doubt the board of directors sole duty was to the share holders, who basically exercise very little power.

007 the BAC filings regarding Merrill were not models of disclosure. Judge Rakoff was right. This needs to be looked into.

can neither of you read? do you think it is right to renege on a deal made many years ago? would that be ok with you if your employer did it to you? how far back is fair game? or, are you so angry, that you figure anything goes?

"007 the BAC filings regarding Merrill were not models of disclosure. Judge Rakoff was right." And this has exactly what to do with the terms of BofA's executive pension plan?

nothing of course. but these two assholes like to rant and rave.

cc , Yes The board and CEO/Chairman scratch each other's back, and therefore it's immoral for the stock holders to reneg. The whole concept of CEO'S getting these great golden parachutes for failing none the less , is unconscionable. The system is wrought with conflict of interest. And until we can find a way to sever the board working more for the CEO than the shareholders, it will not get better.

what don't you get a sandwich board and get busy, you asshole.

And some like to rant, "asshole"

Columbia your responses suggest infantile narcissistic needs. Talk to your shrink you might end up in a hospital due to your poor reality testing and poor judgment. I promise not to give you more feedback. your "angry asshole".

thanks for the clinical read. how about you trying to do a little reading of your own. while you're at it...how about an answer to my questions: do you think it is right to renege on a deal made many years ago? would that be ok with you if your employer did it to you? how far back is fair game? or, are you so angry, that you figure anything goes?

The question is, Did the board of directors act in good faith and the best interest of shareholders in granting an exit package, and if Ken Lewis were found to have not fulfilled his duties to the shareholders or worse acted against their interests and not in good faith. In short, did he violate the business judgment rule.

you are a complete dumb fuck...they did not grant an exit package. they merely didn't renege on a previously agreed upon pension. how hard is that to understand?

do you have a pension? do you have a 401K? is it your understanding that its yours no matter what? or is it yours subject to someone else's judegment?

53 million can buy a lot of parachutes. If he just did a bad job, no big deal, if they find he broke business judgment rule, I think he should lose it. That's an obscene amount of money. I'm sure glad they didn't give him a real golden parachute.

you still dance around the real question. you are a proven liar. wish someone would take away all your money.

let's see a guy bankrupts BAC, he should get $64,000,000 in benefits.
You disagree with a post and want to see someone rob me.

how perverse.

he company's stock fetches less than half its year-ago price and remains below its level when Lewis took over in April 2001 -- even after a 563% jump off lows from this March.

But before BofA made its compensation switch, Lewis had participated for more than a decade in the supplemental pension plan -- racking up the more than $50 million supplemental plan account.

That's not all. Lewis also has $10 million in deferred compensation owed to him and another $8 million in restricted stock and stock options as of Dec. 31 that will continue to vest over coming years, according to the most recent proxy filing. BofA referred questions about Lewis' retirement plan to those filings.

Assessing a total value on Lewis' walking-away pay is an inexact science, given changes in BofA's stock price and other factors.

But Paul Hodgson, the research director at the Corporate Watchdog, an executive pay tracker, said his firm's most recent survey of retirement plans puts Lewis' take at $64 million.

maybe he'll buy 64 manhattan condos.

bullshit and more bullshit. answer the fucking question. you are a liar and full of bullshit. like to prey upon people's prejudices. you are the exact kind of person that makes it worse for everyone. what about your benefits? have you ever worked for a living or do you sit around in your robe all day? are your benefits subject to someone else's decision to grab them? fuck you.

Ken Lewis Hero of the common man? LOL

keep the bullshit running. no one said he's an exemplary citizen. my point (endlessly, you dumb fuck) is that he earned his pension over many years. no one is giving him any kind of package and the fact that you portray it as such makes you a full of shit bullshit artist.

http://agblog.blogspot.com/bill2.jpg

more bullshit, no doubt.

no ytube? you bullshit artist.

Riverside- please ignore columbia, he is not capable of writing a sentence without a curse word and it is beyond us to dignify him by participating in such a blog. I hit "ignored" him from all posts at SE as I find his language to represents the scum of the earth. let go, he does not get it. He is psychotic at present time.

cc: i agree that a contract is a contract and our capitalist system which we all benefit from is based on that fact. therefore it should be protected.

however, there might be exceptions based on misreadings of the facts of contracts. Take the Maddoff scandal. There are those that put in money in the ponzi scheme and at the last minute, pulled their money out. In their last minute enlightenment -- even if it wasn't suspicious in origin -- does not mitigate the fact that they pulled huge gains out of a market that was non existant. For that reason, the govt is right in going after clawbacks to make sure that those investors don't get back more money than they put in. Otherwise, they are reaping gains off the backs of like minded investors who didn't pull their money out at the last minute.

To give Ken Lewis generous benefit of the doubt, he can be compared to an unwitting maddoff investor. A big reason the BOA stock has suffered is because lewis supported his tanned buddy from countrywide., angillo mazillo. And even after it was clear that countrywide was essentially a giant ponzi scheme of bad mortgages, lewis bailed out countrywide and subjected his own stockholders to a major loss in value of stock prices. countrywide lawsuits will not end for years. if paulson screwed lewis over merrill, it would be fair game. countrywide was in large measure, responsible for sending the entire country into a tailspin. countrywide's rape of poor neighborhoods and the ignorance of poor citizens is not even fully realized. lewis and boa was complicit in countrywides's devastation of our economy that would make maddoff's little scandal pale in comparison.

so, despite the contracts, why shouldn't lewis be subject to the same clawbacks that the maddoff stooges are being held to. as far as i am concerned, angelo mazillo should be in jail for instituting illegal practices that promoted an infinite number of sub prime loans, knowing they were insolvent before the papers were even signed. Lewis should be accountable for enabling countrywide. Taking his pension as clawback is the very least of it. He undermined all his stockholders with extremely bad decisions and the contract should be rescinded.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/revenge_of_thain_EQ7P1NGgugK9AXuqgvKkuO

For John Thain, vindication is sweet.

Sources told The Post that the former Merrill Lynch boss spent yesterday quietly celebrating the resignation of Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis and hopes Lewis' downfall might help Thain repair his damaged reputation on Wall Street.

According to people familiar with the matter, Thain has told people close to him that he feels "vindicated" now that an embattled Lewis has thrown in the towel. The BofA CEO faces scores of investigations and white-hot investor ire over what he might have known about the billions in losses at Merrill ahead of BofA's quickie marriage to the then-struggling investment bank.

how about some facts? although we all know that riversider fall prefers youtube and bullshit.

countrywide did it incalcuable damage before being purchased by BAC. was that stupid deal in my opinion? yes. was it criminal? no way. comparing ken lewis's ongoing stupidity and hubris to bernie madoff's multi decade ponzi scheme is misleading at best and outright lying is you want to hold yourself to any reasonable standard.

riversider has a history here of taking exaggerated positions and then lying or disappearing from the topic when called out on it.

far better for riversider to continue endless discusions with him/her self.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E73RM9gS7bU

it's incredible cc--my advice is to ignore the random ingignant spewing--clearly the financial reward of lewis is disappointing, but very clear also is the contractual definition (years ago) that this happen--much more fun to be randomly outraged than to consider intelligently the dilemma

and the incessant linkage to youtubes and unread articles with random points of view is pathetic

say hi to nurse ratched!!

the real issue is that which apt23 cites: is there a way to prove behavior on the part of lewis that would invalidate the contracts? what are definitions, if any, of appropriate behavior by lewis required for enforcement of contract? we know the whole country was powerdouched by lewis mozilla wamu etc..we are indignant and disgusted..now think intelligently re potential executable legal recourse

i know of no statutes that provide recourse due to stupidity. the overall pay of these executives is part of a larger problem that includes absurd compensation levels across a wide range of activities. i often thought (in the good old days) that corporations should consider sponsorship of public schools rather than professional sports teams--the problem of course is that everyone wants to be taken to a baseball/football game; public works are far too boring.