Articles & Blogs - US Commentary

User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

With a propensity for fabricating stories which would make Pinocchio blush, Bank of America CEO, Ken Lewis was at it again today. In Bank of America's annual general meeting, Lewis unveiled at least his third version of what actually happened when he chose to buy bankrupt, fraud-factory Merrill Lynch.

In the first version of Lewis' stories, he played the role of “Seargent Schultz” in the Merrill Lynch take-over. “I know nothing...NOTHING!” Lewis proclaimed. He knew “nothing” of the huge bonuses being handed out to Merrill's executives – as soon as they got a “whiff” of the take-over and hand-out dollars heading their way. Lewis also claimed he “knew nothing” about the huge losses which Merrill was hiding on (and off) its balance sheet.

Given that Lewis had already bought Countrywide Financial, the “king” of U.S. mortgage-fraud – and Lewis was trying to hide all of their losses, himself, it seems unlikely that Lewis would have no idea that Merrill Lynch was doing exactly the same thing. Lewis' first story lacked any credibility, and he was quickly forced to abandon it.

In Lewis' second version of the Merrill take-over, Lewis played the role of victim. “They made me do it,” he whined to any media talking-head he could find. How was Lewis “forced” to buy Merrill Lynch? Perhaps “Bazooka” Paulson threatened to force Bank of America to fully and accurately report their operations to shareholders, in the fictional exercise which U.S. banksters call “quarterly reports”?

The rumor, which was never confirmed, was that Paulson had threatened to replace Lewis, and the rest of the incompetent buffoons who destroyed the company's financial health – necessitating the need for tens of billions of dollars in hand-outs.

Today, Lewis unveiled a new-and-improved version of how the take-over of Merrill Lynch occurred. In this new script, Lewis plays the role of “hero”. He was an American Patriot – who bought Merrill Lynch (regardless of the impact on his own shareholders) to help “save” the American financial system.

This new version of the story was intended to rebut that nasty rumor: that Lewis was so spineless and selfish that he caved-in to pressure to buy Merrill Lynch merely to save his own job. Again, Lewis totally lacks any credibility.

Could anyone believe that Lewis refrained from acknowledging his “heroic” actions all this time because he was too modest? “Modesty” in a U.S. banker is at least as rare as compassion from a Guantanamo Bay torturer. And what kind of “hero” initially portrays himself first as a clueless buffoon, and then as a helpless victim?

In fact, “heroism” is not an allowable motivation under U.S. corporate law. Lewis had a statutory duty to put the well-being of his shareholders above all other considerations. Given that Bank of America's stock is down by more than 75% (versus its price one year ago), if Lewis really did buy Merrill Lynch (literally) “to be a hero” then he should have already been sued by shareholders for a gross breach of his statutory duty.

Perhaps that law-suit is still to come? If so, prepare yourself for yet another version of this story from Lewis.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed