Oh really? Wasn't it Uncle Hank who twisted Ken Lewis' arm when the latter wanted to back out of the deal after learning about Merrill's huge losses? I have no exposure in BAC stocks nor have any interest in the outcome, but I find it utterly disingenuous that the government would bite the hand that it forcibly used to feed itself.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
SEC expands charges against BofA
- Thread starter saliva
- Start date
Oh really? Wasn't it Uncle Hank who twisted Ken Lewis' arm when the latter wanted to back out of the deal after learning about Merrill's huge losses? I have no exposure in BAC stocks nor have any interest in the outcome, but I find it utterly disingenuous that the government would bite the hand that it forcibly used to feed itself.
Yea, the SEC wants to squeeze a little more out of the shareholders to pay for the mistakes of executives and board members who will not be held accountable.
Imagine, bringing civil charges against a company for failing to disclose material events and yet apparently it is nobody's fault those events were not disclosed. Events that were a high topic of discussion both internally and with federal authorities.
Imagine, bringing civil charges against a company for failing to disclose material events and yet apparently it is nobody's fault those events were not disclosed. Events that were a high topic of discussion both internally and with federal authorities.
Of course, no malfeasance should go unpunished. If the executives and the board members messed up, their heads should rightfully be axed.Quote from patchie:
Yea, the SEC wants to squeeze a little more out of the shareholders to pay for the mistakes of executives and board members who will not be held accountable.
But let's get the facts straight. The headline reads "SEC expands charges against Bank of America, saying it failed to disclose losses at Merrill." If I'm not mistaken, it was Bernanke and Paulson who shoved Merrill down BofA's throat. Moreover, they both told Ken Lewis to shut up about any potential problems at Merrill that could either jeopardize the deal or disrupt the financial market. So who are the real culprits?
Do I sense a crassy double-standard here? If the SEC should punish BofA, it should at least go after Bernanke and Paulson (as well as Geithner, who played a pivotal role as the head of the New York Fed).
Quote from saliva:
Do I sense a crassy double-standard here? If the SEC should punish BofA, it should at least go after Bernanke and Paulson (as well as Geithner, who played a pivotal role as the head of the New York Fed).
The question is, what legal right does the SEC have to go after Paulson. Ken Lewis and the others took into consideration ALL factors including we hope the legal responsibilities as corporate officers and then chose a path. If that path is wrong, they chose it and should be punished. Now, if they think that their illegal act and the fines lobbied against them was because somebody else coerced them, they can file a personal injury civil suit against those individuals. If they think what Paulson did was criminal, file a criminal complaint.
The SEC must work within their boundaries and BofA Executives and Board Members are within those boundaries. Double Standard or not.