• 05 Feb 2009 at 12:44 PM

Gunning For The Silver

kenlewis.jpgCountry Bank of Amerillwide (current share price having broken the $5.00 firewall on its way to $4.41) is neither a bank, American, a country, Merrill or wide. In fact, at this point, the only thing it really has going for it is the backing of Angelo “The Bronze Medal” Mozilo. Discuss.

Comments (38)

  1. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 5, 2009 at 12:46 PM

    Isn’t Moz enough? Do we really need anything else, besides SPF 36?

  2. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

    i love having my equity go to crap!

  3. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM

    BAC must merge with Gloria Gaynor to survive.

  4. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM

    Place went to shit when de Molina, Banwell and Augustine left. Or they saw it coming.

  5. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:04 PM

    Why is there a Rachel Ray Fat ad on this site?

  6. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM

    Why is CG texting me right now?

  7. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:06 PM

    no coincidence we’re using the term “Kenny Boy” again on a)nother) Confederate megalomaniacal POS
    /getLayd

  8. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:06 PM

    President Obama is not going to put up with a year of weekly scandals coming out of TARP recipients. Some of these guys are going to be shut down.

  9. Posted by Equity Private | February 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM

    “President Obama is not going to put up with a year of weekly scandals coming out of TARP recipients. Some of these guys are going to be shut down.”
    Thank god he’s here to tell us which banks should live and which should die. I was worried for a minute there.

  10. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

    It is my professional opinion that Bank of Amerillwide is suffering from El Camino syndrome.
    Half car + half truck = half ass idea.
    SPODE

  11. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM

    Moz is not Bronze, he’s Orange.

  12. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM

    too merrill didnt lynch

  13. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:17 PM

    We should take this chat to a private room.
    Mozillo Slice

  14. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    @10
    It’s called triage baby. We need it now.

  15. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    Thank god he’s here to tell us which banks should live and which should die. I was worried for a minute there.
    Are you really this stupid? I hope you never actually made any investment decisions at this so-called “private equity” company where you worked.

  16. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM

    @16 – you need your head examined for a sense of sarcasm, or else it’s back to Yahoo, baby.

  17. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 5, 2009 at 1:27 PM

    what worse, having jaime d give you $10 for your shares or having the government take your “too big to fail” bank shares away for nothing? just askin…

  18. Posted by NAS Keflavik boi | February 5, 2009 at 1:29 PM

    Love the Voltaire paraphrase, toots!

  19. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:32 PM

    @13
    That’s all you got? Pretty generic if you ask me.

  20. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:35 PM

    @21 too eat didn’t me

  21. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM

    @21 ?

  22. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM

    too bronze didn’t buy

  23. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 2:26 PM

    @17 – my point is that the federal government is now effectively a private equity company with Geithner as the CIO and Obama as the CEO, taxpayers are providing the equity, and Bernanke is providing leverage. There is nothing wrong with the CEO/CIO of a PE firm, with their responsibility to the providers of capital, having a say on how managers of the firms receiving capital from them are being paid, or whether or not a firm should continue in operation as opposed to being liquidated.

  24. Posted by Equity Private | February 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM

    “There is nothing wrong with the CEO/CIO of a PE firm, with their responsibility to the providers of capital, having a say on how managers of the firms receiving capital from them are being paid, or whether or not a firm should continue in operation as opposed to being liquidated.”
    WHEN they have the common shares to do it through the board. That’s the point. If they wanted that control they should have exercised it by opting for common shares and taking a majority or near-majority stake. Period.

  25. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM

    I don’t understand why you people are so willing to throw Bank of America under the bus. Do you not realize that if this bank (or Citi) fails, it means something to everyone – including you nim-rods? Your entire industry could become hell in a hand basket, and you people seem to seethe at the idea that BAC is falling apart. I am shocked at how unsupportive you all are, particularly those that have never worked for BAC, never been laid off, and are just looking to see someone else fail. If they fail, your family will fail. How you like them apples? And there is no reasonable way for you to argue that point.

  26. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 3:11 PM

    @26 -Unless I’m waking up from a terrible nightmare it’s painfully clear that Ken Lewis threw BAC under the bus!

  27. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 3:24 PM

    Don’t know why it hasn’t stuck, but Lynch America Countrywide should be the preferred nomenclature

  28. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 3:41 PM

    @26- Well said, Steele. See you downstairs at 4:30 for half price scotch?

  29. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 5:16 PM

    “WHEN they have the common shares to do it through the board. That’s the point. If they wanted that control they should have exercised it by opting for common shares and taking a majority or near-majority stake. Period.”
    It’s an incredibly simple concept. If you don’t like the terms, don’t take the money. If you don’t like having to accept arbitrary terms from the government, don’t run your bank so far into the ground that only the government has enough money to save you.

  30. Posted by Equity Private | February 5, 2009 at 5:27 PM

    “It’s an incredibly simple concept. If you don’t like the terms, don’t take the money.”
    None of these were terms initially. I’m not sure why that nuance is lost on you.

  31. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 5:38 PM

    @ 26 the bank is not going to fail it will just become “Bank of America”……………we are throwing Lewis under the bus……….and doing for good reasons. Don’t worry your deposits are safe!!

  32. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM

    EP @ 31 – you did catch the part about where the (weak, watered-down) exec. comp. limits only apply going forward to firms receiving fresh taxpayer capital, right? Ditto any other clauses that get attached to the TARP funds from now on. None of this is going to have retroactive effect, and the cash gifts given away by Paulson cannot be clawed back. Once you have an example of Obama attaching strings retroactively, let me know. So far, all that he has done is attach terms to new infusions.

  33. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 7:22 PM

    That greedy hick will win in the long run

  34. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 9:05 PM

    bac or citi could fail, and its NOT going to end our world, or our economy, or cause every family to suffer as some of you suggest. shareholders and bondholders can get wiped out, pension funds or other institutional investors can get wiped out, and/or the govt can print dollars, driving rates up and probably tanking the dollar at the same time. BMWs may double in price and corn may double in price, but the world wont end – people will stop buying bmws, and they’ll buy a bit less corn, but most people will survive. things can get worse, and people can live thru worse times. stop ruling out scenarios which can very well come to pass, hitch up your skirts and stop complaining.

  35. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 10:01 PM

    “None of these were terms initially. I’m not sure why that nuance is lost on you.”
    The terms aren’t retroactive, just for future bailouts. If billions of dollars in TARP money was enough to keep a bank afloat, then its employees bonuses are safe. If they want more money from the government, it’ll come with terms. If they don’t like the terms, they should raise the money somewhere else.

  36. Posted by guest | February 5, 2009 at 10:08 PM

    33 and 36 have a point there EP. I have to admit, it was lost on me too until I got past the headlines and actually read the body copy.

  37. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 12:02 AM

    @26
    Ken’s alaskan pipeline from last night awaits you. Slap Chop!

  38. Posted by guest | February 6, 2009 at 4:50 AM

    we survived through WWII…this is nothing. phuck you ken.

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.