TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

On Merrill Bonuses B of A's Statements Don't Match Reality

As New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation continues, it's becoming increasingly clear that Bank of America, and its CEO Ken Lewis, haven't been straight on the subject of what they knew about those outlandish Merrill bonuses.

ABC News yesterday revealed details of the agreement signed by the two banks back in September, when they agreed that B of A would take over Merrill starting January 1. According to it sources, the agreement says that bonuses "shall be determined by the company (Merrill) in consultation with the parent (Bank of America)."

The network added that the two firms at first agreed that Merrill could hand out up to $5.8 billion. That figure was then added to "under $4 billion" after a conversation between Merrill CEO John Thain and a top B of A exec Steele Alphin, who's a close Lewis confidant.

In other words, Bank of America had a clear role in working with Merrill to determine the amount of the bonuses awarded.

But that's not at all how B of A has represented things.

When the Financial Times first broke (sub. req.) the bonus story last month, B of A told the paper:

Merrill Lynch was an independent company until January 1 2009. John Thain (Merrill's chief executive) decided to pay year-end incentives in December as opposed to their normal date in January. B of A was informed of his decision.

And in his testimony before Congress earlier this month, Lewis said:

They were a public company until the first of the year, they had a separate board, separate compensation committee and we had no authority to tell them what to do, just urged them what to do.

It's not clear whether that that outright contradicts the language of the agreement, as ABC has reported it. But whether or not the agreement gave B of A formal "authority" to set Merrill's bonus levels, it certainly gave them an explicit role in the process (assuming ABC's sources are rendering the wording of the agreement accurately). Which is a lot more than B of A's few carefully crafted public statements on the subject have implied.

Thain, Lewis, and Alphin have all been subpoenaed by Cuomo (Thain has now "told all, says ABC), so you've got to think we'll be getting to the bottom of this soon. And it doesn't seem like it'll look good for the increasingly embattled Lewis when we do.



4 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Charge them both under RICO. Then charge all the recipients as co-conspirators. The resulting testimony will reveal the truth. Oh, bail? I don't think so.

user-pic

I'm as hostile to these banks as the next guy, but this is pretty ho-hum. The acquisition agreement said that bonuses would be "determined by [Merrill]" in "consultation" with BoA. BoA didn't have any power to dictate Merrill's bonuses other than to, as Lewis said, "urge them what do do" -- i.e., to consult. But Merrill had the sole authority to "determine" the bonuses. The BoA statements are certainly cautious and lawyerly, but they strike me as broadly accurate, particularly given that BoA was basically forced into the merger by the government and had little leverage..

user-pic

Shank of America needs a decent whipping for being so UnAmerican to a large vast group of consumers.

user-pic

More and more, I'm wondering why any bank or other organization receiving TARP funds isn't required to remove top management within a set period of time and replace it with outsiders. These people have destroyed the world's financial system, and the government is now trusting them to rebuild it. This makes absolutely no sense

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address