Stress tests: Sympathy for Ken Lewis

In order to even consider answering such a question, wouldn't you need to know the number and value of favors done BY Treasury for BoA?

it sounds to me like Lewis entered into a criminal conspiracy with Paulson and Bernancke to defraud BoA stockholders -- Lewis deserves no sympathy, rather he (and Paulson and Bernancke) deserve jail cells.
_
But the American taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook because Lewis failed to tell the truth to BoA stockholders about how bad the Merill deal was. The only think that taxpayers should be on the hook for is the cost of incarceration of the criminals who engaged in financial fraud worth billions of dollars...

Despite my reluctance, I once again have to give the edge to pluk. However, we know little of the facts. Was the ML decision in fact a toss-up that was pushed over the edge with a little bit of encouragement by Treasury and the Fed? Or was it a pure strong-arm? It seems that the former doesn't constitute a crime, but a business decision. The latter may violate securities regulations, but I suspect that charging Paulson/Bernancke with a felony may also be a stretch. Um, a real stretch, and even beyond exec privilege, they likely have a heck of a defense. Honestly pursuing solutions in an emergency seems difficult to second-guess, and I doubt there was the intent by government officials to personally benefit.
-
Lewis, however, probably hung himself out to dry with that admission.

Was the ML decision in fact a toss-up that was pushed over the edge with a little bit of encouragement by Treasury and the Fed? Or was it a pure strong-arm? It seems that the former doesn't constitute a crime, but a business decision. The latter may violate securities regulations, but I suspect that charging Paulson/Bernancke with a felony may also be a stretch.
_
By not disclosing to BoA stockholders the actual financial condition of ML (including losses of over 13 billion that were known but not reported to stockholders before they voted), Lewis engaged in felony fraud. Insofar as both Paulson and Bernancke encouraged Lewis to not provide the necessary disclosure (and reportedly threatened Lewis if he did disclose), they have to be considered co-conspirators, especially given that they are fully cognizant of the reporting requirements.
_
I also think that all three should be held liable under civil law -- that BoA stockholders should sue them for every penny they have (and will ever earn). Instead, Bernancke is literally using taxpayer dollars to reimburse BoA stockholders for his criminal conduct....

"How do you fairly deal with a situation like that?"
-
Answer: You don't.
-
Look, fair is a nice idea in kindergarten and all, but in the big boys financial world, its all about your fiduciary duty. Treasury has a fiduciary duty to the American taxpayer, not the banks. Lots of people get "unfairly" treated by someone persuing their fiduciary duty. This time, probably for the first time, a bank gets the shaft on that instead of giving it.
-
I'm not remotely sympathetic. Especially considering its my own personal tax money that's at stake here.

Mr. DeCoursey has probably made the most on target comment of the morning. Thank you Sean, for a dose of realism.

I can't agree with anything being argued here. I'm glad that the B of A bailed out Merrill at the behest of the govt. I'm glad that the govt did that. I wish that the B of A could have saved Lehman. At that point in time, the only modus we had for saving large failing financial concerns was to merge them with other large financial concerns at the govt's expense. The only other option was loans actually by the govt. In other words, real govt money vs possible govt money. The UK had the exact same problem.

Shareholders of the B of A and Lloyds have a right to be angry. They're being penalized for doing something beneficial for the country. The B of A might well have owed the govt something. But that argument cuts both ways.

Finally, I do agree that the taxpayer's money comes first. That means that it should only be spent wisely and efficiently. But that's up to the govt, not the B of A.

I completely understand having to shaft some people to protect the taxpayer's interest if we have to. But I don't see the point of lacking sympathy or understanding for people who get screwed in the process. I would hope that we were better than that.