Supposedly Paulson did the dirty work, but it was at the behest of Bernanke (this morning a government official seemingly got the Beard off on a technicality, telling Steve Liesman that the Fed chairman never *directly* told Ken Lewis to keep quiet about the Merrill losses).
Picture 1177.png


Picture 1178.png
ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO LETTER REGARDING BANK OF AMERICA – MERRILL LYNCH MERGER [Office of the Attorney General]

Comments (35)

  1. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM

    i anxiously await Bernanke and Paulson’s indictment on blackmail, fraud, theft, and treason

  2. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM

    Wow, not sure if this is worse or the Jane Harman AIPAC stuff.
    I only wish Hunter S. was around for all of this.
    -C

  3. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM

    Bernanke and Paulson’s leadership led to Lehman’s demise. BAC should have acquired LEH!

  4. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:24 PM

    I think Bess writes a lot like “Hunter S.”

  5. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:24 PM

    Ken Lewis has to go. His obligation was to his shareholders. He pursued ML (at a premium, no less). When the deal went south, he didn’t have the stones to do the right thing and stop it, or demand Treasury concessions to “make it right”. If he acquiesced to Paulson to save his own job, then tough: He should lose it now.
    I don’t fault Paulson. His obligation was to protect the financial system from collapse. He had no particular duty to BAC or MER shareholders (other than due process). If he had to wield the power of the U.S. Government, then so be it.

  6. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:26 PM

    Wait, you mean we’re not allowed to do that sort of thing?

  7. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:26 PM

    Coumo will go after Paulson not lewis.
    Why?
    In NY, taking out a former Bush official, Republican and former Goldman type will sweep him to a Spitzerlike Governorship with ease.

  8. Posted by Meatbone9 | April 23, 2009 at 12:26 PM

    I am speechless. I am without speech.

  9. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM

    So, when it came down to doing the right thing by their shareholders or keeping their jobs, the board of BAC chose their jobs, using the rationalization of “board getting replaced = systemic risk.”
    Nice job Ken. Really, let me shake your hand.

  10. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM

    I blame society.
    Let’s go do some crimes.
    Yeah let’s go get some sushi and not pay…

  11. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM

    I agree with 6.

  12. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM

    Paulson was silly to put his market-salvaging operation on the shoulders of the town drunk.

  13. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM

    Save the ammo. Lewis doesn’t end up looking good on this one. He had to take the position of what was right for the shareholders, call the bully’s bluff, and should have let Paulson try to fire him and the board.

  14. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM

    Wait, did he confirm Michael Lewis’ small peen?

  15. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM

    @ 9 – Nice Benes reference
    @ 6 – the Secy of Treasury’s job is not to prevent market collapse.
    Hank took care of an old buddy (Thain) and gave him the ability to walk away while he let former foes collapse. (Fuld, Bear)
    Paulson needs to be hung by his balls in the Halls of Congress

  16. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM

    @ 14 agreed
    however…very bad things have happened to men to dared to go against the Fed (see Kennedy, John F) EO 11110
    http://www.earthnews.net/articles/thefederalreserve.htm

  17. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM

    I’m still confused. Why is Cuomo investigating this? Doesn’t he have mobsters to pursue, or terrorist cabals to disrupt?
    Other than seeing his name in the papers, I mean.

  18. Posted by Anal_yst | April 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM

    Uh, if BAC called BS on ML, judging from the fallout from smaller LEH, just think of how (much more) sh!t woulda hit the fan…

  19. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:42 PM

    both should go

  20. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:46 PM

    Beard will be gone.
    Say hello to Chairman Summers.
    We are so fucked!!

  21. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:49 PM

    No offense intended but since we are a fairly unpc crowd here, how about this succint headline:
    “Yokel duped by Jew in business deal”

  22. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 12:49 PM

    Beard will be gone.
    Say hello to Chairman Summers.
    We are so fucked!!

  23. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

    that works pretty well 23

  24. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

    K to the L should have taken a page from Nixon and taped all the conversations. That would be an interesting listen, of course that would require balls

  25. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

    #14 I disagree. Not going to flame you, but I disagree. Paulson was going around claiming the US would go out of business and be replaced by rubbish heaps with tribal huts on them if everybody, including Lewis, didn’t do everything he and Bernanke said and the moment they said it.
    Lewis didn’t say that. He told Paulson that Merrill was all f-d up and a bad buy. Paulson told him in essence yes it is but you’re buying it anyway. Because if you don’t, I will fire you and your whole board to keep the US from going out of business and being replaced by rubbish heaps etc.
    I know this site has made lots of fun of Lewis, but looks like the buck stops with Paulson after all.

  26. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:08 PM

    How would Paulson remove the board? The US Government only owned preferred shares back in December.

  27. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM

    @6 that’s not exactly how I remember it. Didn’t BAC get extra bailout money when the MER losses were announced? That could be construed as a concession…

  28. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM

    Paulson isn’t jewish you butthead

  29. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:18 PM

    Paulson isn’t jewish you butthead

  30. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    Yeah @ comment #23 should be:
    “Yokel was duped by Christian Scientist in business deal”.
    KL really does look even more foolish.
    -C

  31. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM

    @33 where in my statement did I call Paulson a jew? I was talking to 23 about his statment. Asshole mouth.
    -32

  32. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:24 PM

    #18 he does have mobsters to pursue. He is pursuing them. That is what this thread is about.

  33. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

    @36 – Asshole mouth, almost spit Coke on my keyboard

  34. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

    butthead@32, I was referring to what butthead@23 had written… you too poor to pay attention homey?

  35. Posted by guest | April 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM

    @1. Also extortion.

Leave a comment

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