Ben Bernanke

Congress To Bernanke: Hand Over Docs On BofA-Merrill Deal

Zachary Roth | June 9, 2009, 6:16PM

Congress has subpoenaed the Federal Reserve, to force it to hand over documents about its role in Bank of America's takeover of Merrill Lynch during the financial crisis last fall, reports Reuters.

Staffers for the House Oversight committee, chaired by Rep. Ed Towns of New York, had been allowed to view the documents at the Fed. But Towns has now concluded that the committee needs to have the documents in its possession. The Fed has said it will comply with the subpoena.

Read more »

Bank of America

Cuomo: Paulson Kept SEC Out Of The Loop On B Of A

Zachary Roth | April 23, 2009, 12:19PM

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has just released documents from his investigation into Bank of America, its receipt of government money, and those billions in bonuses that went to Merrill Lynch executives.

Here's one quick nugget we found: It looks like then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson didn't keep the SEC -- whose role, of course, is to protect investors -- informed on the government's intense December 2008 discussions with B of A about Merrill's losses, and possible government assistance for B of A.

Read more »

Bailout

SEC Reviewing Whether B of A Broke Law On Merrill Bonuses

Zachary Roth | April 14, 2009, 11:37AM

Ever since AIG's bonus shenanigans exploded onto the national scene last month, Merrill Lynch's own outrageous payouts have kind of gotten short shrift. We've felt this was unfair to the Thundering Herd, since at an around $3.6 billion, its bonuses dwarfed those of AIG. Granted, its role in bringing down the financial system may not have been quite as central as that of AIG's financial products unit, but it's not like Merrill, which needed rescuing last fall by Bank of America, was squeaky clean. Where's the respect?

But luckily, the Merrill bonuses are back. The SEC is looking at whether Bank of America broke the law by not disclosing, in filings last year, the fact that it was planning to pay those bonuses, reports the Washington Post.

Read more »

Barack Obama

What Obama Can Learn From JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon

Moe Tkacik | March 27, 2009, 2:17PM

Whatever the 25 bank CEOs descending upon the White House this morning told the president and his economic team, we hope JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon repeated one line from the speech he gave at the Chamber of Commerce earlier this month. (It's about 11:30 in.)

One of the main root causes [of the crisis], and this has been going on for a long time, was the huge trade and global financing imbalances which fueled very low rates and excess consumption, and over a long period of time I do not believe you can run those kind of trade deficits...

Dimon was getting at one of the root structural causes of the current crisis -- America takes, the world (China especially) makes, an unsustainable situation sustained above all by an increasingly usurous financial services industry. As the CEO of PNC Financial Services just pointed out, banking is the biggest sector of the American economy -- and it's been to the detriment of everything else.

And while that might seem obvious, intuitive even, Dimon's speech came just three days after Larry Summers told the Financial Times that the global trade imbalance wasn't the problem anymore, that it had been eclipsed by more pressing emergencies, etc. etc.

Naturally Dimon went on to condemn the demonization of Wall Street and corporate America.

Read more »

Bailout

Lawsuits: Lewis, B of A, Misled Shareholders On Merrill Deal

Zachary Roth | March 25, 2009, 5:26PM

This is just the headache that beleaguered Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis needs...

It looks like B of A is facing legal woes as a result of its hastily arranged deal to buy Merrill Lynch last fall, and its subsequent statements about Merrill's finances.

The Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.):

Five public pension funds are seeking lead status in a class-action suit against Bank of America Corp., alleging that the nation's largest bank by assets made "untrue statements" in the run-up to its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. and did not disclose material information to shareholders.

The funds claim to have lost $274 million on their Bank of America investments between July 21, 2008 and Jan. 20, 2009.

Read more »

AIG

Cuomo Has Names Of AIG And Merrill Bonus Recipients

Zachary Roth | March 20, 2009, 4:13PM

It looks like Andrew Cuomo holds all the cards. He now has in hand the names of the recipients of both of the corporate payouts that have provoked all that populist rage lately.

A judge earlier this week ruled that Bank of America had to turn over the list of names of the 200 highest-paid Merrill Lynch bonus recipients, that the New York Attorney General has been seeking. According to reports, B of A, which now owns Merrill, did so yesterday.

Read more »

AIG

Cuomo: I'll Release Names Of AIG Bonus Recipients

Zachary Roth | March 19, 2009, 10:23AM

It hasn't gotten much attention, but New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said yesterday that he'd publicly release the names of the AIG bonus recipients, reports the New York Times.

Cuomo is investigating the payouts, as well as those made by Merrill Lynch and several other Wall Street firms. He issued a subpoena for the AIG names earlier this week.

His declaration followed the news that a court has ruled that Bank of America, which owns Merrill, must give him the names of the Merrill recipients. That ruling suggests that Cuomo will likely also get the AIG names. AIG lawyers had referred frequently to the Merrill case this week, and had delayed giving Cuomo the names pending the outcome of that case.

Yesterday, AIG CEO Edward Liddy declined to assure Congress he would cooperate fully with Cuomo's probe, citing concern for the physical safety of employees who received bonuses, were their names to be made public.

Bank of America

Court: B of A Must Reveal Names Of Merrill Bonus Recipients

Zachary Roth | March 19, 2009, 9:52AM

While we've all been focused on those AIG bonuses, there's been a major development in the Wall street bonus saga that seemed, a week ago, like the ultimate in outrageous corporate behavior.

A court ruled yesterday that Bank of America will have to turn over to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo the names of the Merrill Lynch employees who received a total of $3-4 billion in bonuses. Bank of America, which since the start of the year has owned Merrill, had been resisting giving Cuomo the information.

Cuomo said he could release the names as soon as today.

Merrill approved the bonuses last December under then-CEO John Thain, on an accelerated schedule, apparently to ensure they went into effect before the firm came under the control of B of A.

Bank of America

B of A: We Care About Privacy (When It Comes To Bonuses, That Is)

Zachary Roth | March 13, 2009, 11:47AM

The judge who will decide whether information about those Merrill Lynch bonuses should be made public has said he'll make a decision within the week, Bloomberg reports.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating the bonus awards, which reportedly total $3-4 billion. Bank of America, which now owns Merrill Lynch, has refused to disclose to Cuomo which Merrill employees received the awards, and how much each got.

But we particularly liked this argument from B of A's lawyer, Evan Davis, made to Judge Bernard Fried:

Americans care about their privacy. That matters to us because if we don't try to protect it and succeed in protecting it we'll lose them to foreign banks.

Aah yes, Bank of America: famed protector of privacy. When the subject is executive bonuses, that may be true. When its customers' personal information, maybe not so much.

Bailout

Congress Probing Merrill For Obstructing Bonus Investigation

Zachary Roth | March 12, 2009, 1:44PM

The House Oversight Committee has launched an investigation into whether Merrill Lynch misled it when the firm told the committee, in a letter sent last November, that no decisions had been made on bonuses.

As we noted earlier today, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is probing the bonuses, included the letter, dated November 24, in court filings made yesterday. Cuomo also included testimony from a Merrill director, saying that the firm decided November 11th to award bonuses that December. Cuomo, who is trying to persuade a judge to compel Bank of America to disclose information on the bonuses, suggested that the testimony implies Merrill's letter was designed to mislead the committee, which was conducting its own invesitgation of the bonuses, and was chaired at the time by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Congress rarely takes kindly to being misled, and this appears to be no exception. The committee's current chair, Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY), today issued a statement asserting that the Cuomo filings "raise the disturbing possibility that Merrill Lynch executives may have obstructed this Committee's investigation," and adding that Towns had directed committee lawyers to begin a "detailed investigation of this allegation."

Lying to a Congressional investigation, even in a letter, could potentially lead to perjury charges. There's an important difference between misleading and lying, however, and neither Cuomo nor Towns have accused Merrill of the latter.

Still, things are getting interesting...

The full statement from Towns follows after the jump ...

Read more »

Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo: Merrill Misled Congress On Bonuses

Zachary Roth | March 12, 2009, 11:18AM

It looks like Andrew Cuomo has escalated things in the Merrill Lynch bonus probe.

Cuomo is now accusing the firm of misleading Congress on the matter. In a court filing made yesterday, according to the Wall Street Journal, Cuomo included a November 24th letter, sent by Merrill to a House oversight committee, assuring lawmakers that no decisions on yearly bonuses had yet been made. Cuomo also filed testimony from a Merrill director, saying that on November 11th, the firm's compensation committee had decided that Merrill would pay bonuses in December, rather than January, when bonuses were usually paid (and when the firm would be under the control of Bank of America.)

Cuomo is trying to convince a judge to force Bank of America to disclose information about who got the bonuses -- which the company has so far been refusing to do.

The House Oversight committee, chaired at the time by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), had asked Merrill for information on the bonuses, as part of an effort to ensure that the firm wasn't using bailout money for compensation.

There's another interesting nugget in the Journal's report:

Mr. Cuomo also disclosed that John Thain, Merrill's chairman and chief executive, was told that he would lose any chance of succeeding Kenneth Lewis as CEO of Bank of America if Mr. Thain kept pressing Merrill directors last fall for a 2008 bonus of as much as $40 million.

"He was told very strongly that you should not do that; that you would damage yourself with the Bank of America board if you do that, and if you ever wanted a chance to be in the running for my job, then that would eliminate it," Mr. Lewis said in his testimony last month, according to the filing.

Thain soon lost his chance to succeed Lewis anyway, as he was ousted in mid January amid anger over the bonuses and Merrill's massive fourth quarter losses.

Bank of America

Schumer Wants Probe Of Theresa Hatt Phenomenon

Zachary Roth | March 11, 2009, 11:38AM

From TPMmuckraker to the U.S. Senate. Kind of.

Remember our story from last month about how a Bank of America estates rep tried to guilt-trip the son of a deceased card-holder into paying his mother's credit-card balance, though he was under no obligation to do so?

Well, as we noted last week, the New York Times seemed to like it -- following up with their own report on debt collecting firms that contract with the credit card companies to go after the relatives of deceased card-holders, many of whom don't understand that they're usually not obligated to pay the debt.

And now, according to a press release, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the "deceitful practice that preys on relatives who have no legal obligation to pay their deceased loved ones' bills."

The release says Schumer's call "came on the heels of a high-profile published report last week exposing this practice," -- a reference to the Times story, which appeared to be triggered, in turn, by our own story.

According to Schumer, the practice may already be illegal under existing law, since the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act "prevents the collection companies from contacting anyone other than the debtor about outstanding bills".

He suggests that, at the least, debt collectors should be required to tell the relatives that they aren't legally obligated to pay the debt at issue.

That seems like the least that could be done.

Schumer's full letter to the FTC follows after the jump ...

Read more »

Bank of America

B of A: Revealing Merrill Bonus Info Would Cause "Irreparable Harm"

Zachary Roth | March 6, 2009, 11:07AM

We didn't get to this yesterday afternoon... but it looks like Bank of America is going to the mat to avoid telling Andrew Cuomo's investigation who got those controversial Merill Lynch bonuses.

B of A, reports Bloomberg, filed court documents yesterday claiming that revealing the identities of the lucky bonus recipients would cause "grave and irreparable harm" to the firm, because it would let competitors know which areas of B of A's business the company considers most valuable, and would therefore make it easier to steal B of A's top talent. It would also create "internal dissension and consternation," and could even create security risks for those named.

In other words, if it became known who we gave huge bonuses to in a year when Merrill collapsed, people would be so mad they'd physically attack them.

Does any of this even pass the laugh test?

Former Merrill CEO John Thain has already talked to Cuomo's team about the bonuses, after a judge ordered him to do. But its not clear what he said. B of A CEO Ken Lewis refused last week to turn over a list of who got the bonuses.

Merrill gave out the awards on an accelerated schedule last December, just weeks before the failed firm came under the control of B of A. Thain has since been fired.

Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo Subpoenas More Of Merrill's Top Earners

Zachary Roth | March 5, 2009, 1:45PM

Yesterday, we noted a report in the Wall Street Journal that Merrill Lynch's top ten execs were each paid more than $10 million last year. The ten made slightly more than the top ten earners for 2007, despite the company's collapse last year.

Now, the Journal follows up by reporting that several of those execs have been subpoenaed in New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation into Merrill's awarding of billions in bonuses.

Among the group are Andrea Orcel, who was Merrill's top investment banker, Thomas Montag, who led global sales and trading, and Peter Kraus, who ran strategy. They all now work at Bank of America, which took over Merrill after its collapse.

Another of the top ten, former Merrill CEO John Thain, has already spoken to Cuomo's investigators.

Bank of America, whose role in the bonus fiasco is also being scrutinized by Cuomo, filed a court petition yesterday to try to keep the pay information secret. B of A CEO Ken Lewis reportedly refused to answer investigators' questions on the subject when he met with them last week.

Bank of America

Merrill's Top Ten Earners Made More Last Year Than In 07

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 1:23PM

"While Merrill staggered, 11 top executives were paid more than $10 million in cash and stock last year, say people familiar with the situation," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Amazingly, the top ten earners at the company in 2008, according to the paper, made slightly more than the top ten in 2007: $209 million, up from $201 million.

Remember, as you think about that, what happened to Merrill last year. It collapsed -- so wrecked by its investment in toxic mortgage assets that it had to be taken over by Bank of America. Then, even after that deal had been announced, it absorbed such massive fourth quarter losses that B of A needed $20 billion from the Treasury to digest Merrill.

None of that, of course, stopped Merrill, under then-CEO John Thain, from dishing out billions in bonuses late last year -- a decision currently being probed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

On that front, the WSJ reports that B of A plans to file a court motion today to try to keep the compensation data from becoming public. But Cuomo will counter with his own motion arguing it should be released.

The paper also has some good thumbnails of these high-rollers:

Thomas Montag: Started as head of global sales and trading at Merrill in August and now heads global markets at Bank of America. He was handed a $39.4 million pay package and Merrill stock awards valued at approximately $50 million. The stock awards were issued to replace stock he held in Goldman Sachs Group Inc., his previous employer.

Andrea Orcel: A top Merrill banker who now heads international corporate and investment banking for Bank of America. He got $33.8 million in 2008, down from approximately $36 million in 2007. His 2007 package included a special $12 million bonus for advising Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and other acquirers of ABN Amro Holdings NV, a now-troubled deal.

Peter Kraus: Hired as head of strategy at Merrill in September and was given a $29.4 million contract and Merrill stock to replace his holdings in Goldman, where he used to work. He is now the chief executive officer of investment management firm AllianceBernstein. (Ed note: We wrote about Kraus's $37 million Park Avenue apartment here.)

David Gu: Head of rates at Merrill; now heads global rates and currencies at Bank of America. He made $18.7 million in 2008, down from $19.8 million in 2007.

David Goodman: Co-head of global commodities at Merrill and Bank of America. Got a two-year employment guarantee from Merrill in 2007, paying him $16.5 million in 2007 and another $16.5 million in 2008.

Bank of America

NYT On The Theresa Hatt Phenomenon

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 11:37AM

It looks like the New York Times liked our Theresa Hatt story.

That was the one about how a Bank of America estates rep tried to guilt-trip the son of a deceased card-holder into paying his mother's credit-card balance, though he was under no obligation to do so. We also spoke to a former B of A collections rep, who told us such techniques were encouraged.

And today the Times reports on a debt-collection firm that contracts with credit-card companies to go after the relatives of people who died with outstanding debts.

The paper makes clear that in most cases -- like the one we highlighted -- the relatives have no legal obligation to pay up. Not that that's made clear, of course:

Scott Weltman of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, a Cleveland law firm that performs deceased collections, says that if family members ask, "we definitely tell them" they have no legal obligation to pay. "But is it disclosed upfront -- 'Mr. Smith, you definitely don't owe the money'? It's not that blunt."

Collection agents at the firm, DCM, use some sophisticated techniques.

New hires at DCM train for three weeks in what the company calls "empathic active listening," which mixes the comforting air of a funeral director with the nonjudgmental tones of a friend. The new employees learn to use such anger-deflecting phrases as "If I hear you correctly, you'd like..."

"You get to be the person who cares," the training manager, Autumn Boomgaarden, told a class of four new hires.

Often, they succeed:

Brenda Edwards, one of DCM's top collectors, spoke with a woman in New Jersey about her mother's $544.96 credit card bill.

"She had no will, no finances, nothing," the daughter said. "Nothing went to probate." The $200 in the checking account was used for funeral expenses. But the woman also said the family "filed a form with the county," indicating that perhaps there was a legal estate after all.

"Is anyone in the family in a position to pay this?" Ms. Edwards asked, adding: "I'm not telling you it needs to be paid at all."

The woman reached a decision. "I will talk to my brothers and sisters and we will pay this," she said.

DCM's chief executive makes clear that right now, collecting even on small debts is crucial for credit card behemoths. "The financial services industry is under a tremendous amount of pressure, and every dollar we collect improves their profitability," he tells the Times.

But given the parlous state of the industry, those collectors had better be working overtime.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Bank of America, Financial Crisis, Wall Street

Bank of America

B of A's Lewis: Actually, Taking Public Money Was A Mistake

Zachary Roth | March 2, 2009, 4:34PM

Ken Lewis, the embattled Bank of America CEO, has told the Financial Times that taking $20 billion of government money to help it digest Merrill Lynch's losses was a "tactical mistake."

Lewis told the paper that the move made B of A appear as weak as Citigroup.

He also said that he intended to stay on atop B of A until the firm had paid the government back the $45 billion in total it has received from taxpayers, saying that could happen in 2-3 years.

Lewis has seen calls for his resignation over the mishandled Merrill merger. Merrill's massive losses in the fourth quarter of 2008 forced B of A to go to the federal government for help. Merrill's billion-dollar bonus awards, which are currently being probed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, have not helped the situation. Lewis recently stayed mum when questioned by Cuomo's investigators about what he knew about the bonuses.

Bank of America

Lewis Staying Mum on Merrill Bonuses

Zachary Roth | February 27, 2009, 3:49PM

Looks like Ken Lewis isn't so eager to reveal what he knows about those controversial Merrill bonuses.

ABC News reports that that the Bank of America CEO -- subpoenaed recently by investigators for New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo -- refused to provide the AG's office with a list of which company execs got bonuses, and how much they were worth. (For good measure, ABC adds that Lewis traveled to New York for his testimony in a $50 million corporate jet. You can see video of Lewis' arrival here.)

In response, Cuomo's office issued a subpoena to B of A to turn over that information.

The session with Lewis was "ugly and combative," in ABC's paraphrase of New York officials.

Merrill CEO John Thain earlier refused to divulge similar details about the bonuses during his own sitdown with Cuomo's investigators -- claiming B of A had told him not to. But after the AG's office obtained a court order, he was more forthcoming.

We'll see whether the same thing happens with B of A. But for now, it looks like the Bush White House's approach to subpoenas -- that they're optional -- is becoming more widespread.

Bank of America

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

Zachary Roth | February 26, 2009, 6:29PM

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.

John Thain

Thain Must Dish On Bonuses, Rules Court

Zachary Roth | February 23, 2009, 6:34PM

That was quick!

John Thain has been ordered by a New York court to testify about those controversial Merrill Lynch bonuses, reports CNBC.

Earlier today, it was reported that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is investigating the bonuses, filed a motion to compel Thain to testify, after the disgraced former Merrill CEO refused to answer questions about the issue, claiming that Bank of America had ordered him to stay mum.

Cuomo had subpoenaed Thain for testimony. He has also subpoenaed B of A CEO Ken Lewis, and another B of A exec, but does not appear to have taken their testimony yet.

Cuomo's probe is seeking to determine what Bank of America knew, and when, about Merrill's decision to award the bonuses, and about the massive losses that Merrill absorbed in the fourth quarter of last year, before it was formally taken over by B of A, but after the takeover had been announced.

Bank of America

Cuomo: B of A "Obstructing And Interfering" With Merrill Bonus Probe; Thain Staying Mum

Zachary Roth | February 23, 2009, 12:59PM

John Thain is staying mum about the billion-dollar bonuses he approved just weeks before Merrill Lynch came under the control of Bank of America.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is investigating the controversial Merrill bonuses, has filed a motion in court, seeking to compel Thain to talk about the subject, reports Reuters. Cuomo's office says that during his sit-down with investigators last week, Thain refused to do so, claiming that Bank of America has told him to keep quiet.

Cuomo's office is alleging that B of A is "obstructing and interfering" with his investigation.

That probe is seeking to determine what Bank of America knew, and when, about Merrill's decision to award the bonuses, and about the massive losses that Merrill absorbed in the fourth quarter of last year, before it was formally taken over by B of A, but after the takeover had been announced.

B of A CEO Ken Lewis was subpoenaed last week, and another company exec was subpoenaed, along with Thain, before that.

Late Update: A spokesman for Thain told the Associated Press that Thain "would answer questions about individual bonuses if compelled by the court order."

Bank of America

B of A's Lewis Subpoenaed In Merrill Bonus Probe

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 1:24PM

Ken Lewis, Bank of America's embattled CEO, was subpoenaed last week in New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation into the billion dollar bonuses awarded late last year by Merrill Lynch, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The paper adds that former Merrill CEO John Thain, who had previously been subpoenaed, talked to Cuomo's team "all day" Thursday.

Bank of America announced in September that it would acquire Merrill. In December, according to reports, Thain and the Merrill board approved billions in bonuses on an expedited schedule before the firm came under the control of B of A January 1, and despite massive fourth quarter losses.

Accounts of when Lewis and B of A learned of the bonus awards, and of the losses, have been conflicting.

Thain was ousted by Lewis last month as a senior B of A exec.

The Journal adds some more detail on what Cuomo's investigators are after:

In particular, they wanted to know why the September merger agreement contained a nonpublic attachment that outlined the maximum Merrill could pay. A Thain spokesman declined to comment.

The person close to the matter said regulators are turning their attention to Mr. Lewis and are looking at his testimony to Congress earlier this month when he said he had "no authority" over bonuses given they were detailed in the merger agreement and part of the bonuses were paid in Bank of America stock.

Mr. Cuomo's investigators are exploring how Merrill could have set and then informed employees about the bonuses before the quarter closed, according to a person familiar with the matter. They are probing whether trading losses were adequately disclosed to shareholders and boards of each company and what the top executives approving the bonuses knew about the losses.

Bailout

Lewis: Yes We Raised Interest Rate On Credit Cards -- After Taking Bailout Money

Zachary Roth | February 11, 2009, 2:12PM

Here's another good exchange, this one between Rep. Maxine Waters and
Bank of America's Ken Lewis .

In one moment, Waters -- a longtime foe of rapacious lending practices, asks the CEOs whether, after receiving taxpayer money, they increased the interest rate on the credit card holders.

Lewis admits his firm did....

Bailout

Frank Stumps CEO: What's The Point Of Bonuses?

Zachary Roth | February 11, 2009, 11:33AM

A nice moment from the hearings...

Barney Frank declares, re: bonuses:

This notion that you need some special incentive to do the right thing troubles me.

Then he asks: What is it you'd do differently if you didn't get a bonus?

It's a question Frank had been previewing all week. He throws it open to any of the CEOs.

Morgan Stanley's John Mack is the only one brave enough to hazard an answer. But all he brief historical digression about how the bonus system became established at investment banks.

But Mack acknowledges:

Without question, given the risks we take today, and the size of our bonuses ... all that has to be looked at again.

Frank's conclusion:

So if there were no bonuses, we'd still get our money's worth.

Sounds about right.

Bank of America

Your Help Needed!

Zachary Roth | February 11, 2009, 10:16AM

As we said, Barney Frank's committee has posted the CEOs' prepared statements on its website.

We're watching the hearings, which just began, but feel free to look through what the prepared remarks and send us anything good...

Bank of America

B of A's Lewis Defends Compensation

Zachary Roth | February 11, 2009, 10:00AM

The CEOs of the eight banks that received the most bailout money are about to testify before the House Financial Services committee, starting any minute. But the committee has already posted the CEOs' prepared statements on its website.

Here are some highlights:

Bank of America's Ken Lewis will say that executive pay and bonuses are intended "to grow our business, enhance profitability and generate returns for investors." That includes "the investors that are the focus of this hearing: U.S. taxpayers."

Citigroup's Vikram Pandit will say that he "removed the people responsible for Citi's financial distress."

JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon will advocate a new bank regulatory system, which would include a "systemic risk regulator."

On compensation, Dimon will say:

Our employees worked harder than ever and performed admirably for the company and for clients under enormously challenging conditions in 2008. I believe the compensation we paid them was appropriate.

We'll be blogging the hearings as they happen, so stay tuned...

Bailout

Thain: "I Don't Know How These People Can Run This Company Without Me"

Zachary Roth | February 9, 2009, 11:33AM

We're getting way past flogging a dead horse territory here, but yesterday, in a rich and lengthy rundown on the troubled Merrill-Bank of America marriage, the New York Times had some great new details about John Thain's narcissism and self-delusion (a subject close to our hearts). Still, as entertaining as those are, this is definitely a story in which no one comes out looking good.

As for Thain, the former Merrill CEO, we learn that he believed he was entitled to that $40 million bonus he initially requested, on account of his "deal-making heroics", in the Times' words, in putting together the agreement with B of A.

His actual record, of course, was less heroic. The Times reports that Thain put a lot of effort into self-promotion, bringing in Margaret Tutwiler, with whom he had worked at the New York Stock Exchange, to run communications for the firm. Tutwiler -- a veteran of Republican Washington, who was George H. W. Bush's press secretary and in 2003 ran the State Department's unsuccessful effort to boost America's image abroad -- "largely spent her time cultivating Mr. Thain's image." (Thain, of course, was a major John McCain backer, who was mentioned as a possible Treasury Secretary in a McCain administration.)

For instance:

Ms. Tutwiler quickly scheduled a series of interviews for Mr. Thain from Merrill's trading floor. As the cameras flashed, he shook hands with the troops. When the cameras left, so did Mr. Thain.

But in terms of substance, the Times makes clear there were numerous missteps. Before the B of A takeover, Thain might have made moves to mitigate the damage done to Merrill by the toxic assets on its books, but didn't.

First:

For months, there were inquiries from hedge funds and other buyers about a range of mortgage assets and securities, but Merrill's mortgage desk was blocked from distributing price lists because Merrill's management refused to agree on market estimates, according to Merrill insiders.

And:

Despite the fact that Mr. Thain inherited these assets, Merrill insiders say they could have been hedged -- moves well within Mr. Thain's purview as head of risk management at the firm. Yet he never did so, according to three people who worked closely with him. An individual familiar with Mr. Thain's thinking said that Mr. Thain didn't believe hedges would have been effective.

Losses in those so-called legacy assets would reach $10 billion in the quarter.

Unsurprisingly, Thain wasn't too popular with B of A rank and file. When news broke of his firing last month, reports the paper, "[s]pontaneous applause broke out across the trading floor and bets were placed on which one of Mr. Thain's highly paid lieutenants would be next."

But at least he kept believing in himself. After his ouster, the Times reports, Mr. Thain paced the halls of Merrill, venting his frustration to at least two people. "I don't know how these people can run this company without me," he told them.

Not that Bank of America and its CEO, Ken Lewis, come out looking much better. Since last month, Merrill and B of A have been squabbling over what the latter firm knew, and when, about Merrill's massive fourth-quarter losses, and its decision to award bonuses -- subjects being probed by the New York and North Carolina attorneys general (B of A has provided "reams of documents" to the NY investigators, says the Times). And the evidence is mounting that Bank of America knew, or should have known, just about everything.

The Times reports:

Although Mr. Lewis contends that he was surprised by the magnitude of Merrill's losses, his financial team on the ground in New York had daily access to Merrill's trading books, which would have allowed them to detect the mounting exposures.

To be specific:

A Bank of America executive was sent to New York from Charlotte to act as an interim chief financial officer and had daily access to Merrill's profit-and-loss statements.

Likewise, Bank of America was well aware of the $3.2 billion in bonuses that Merrill paid to its rank and file in late December. The two companies had agreed in September that Merrill might pay up to $5.8 billion, according to a private agreement reviewed by The New York Times.

That "Bank of America executive," by the way, appears to be J. Steele Alphin, B of A's chief administrative officer and a close confidant of Lewis, who Thain has claimed knew about the bonuses, and who has been subpoenaed by the New York investigators.

And according to one Times source, at a December 9 B of A board meeting, Lewis did not question Thain about Merrill's losses, even though 60 percent of those losses were already visible. Nor did Lewis tell his shareholders, who two days earlier had voted to approve the merger, about the Merrill losses.

Indeed, Lewis may have been kept as much important information from Thain as vice versa. We knew that, after seeing the losses, Lewis had gone to the government during the last two weeks of December, requesting bailout money to help digest Merrill. What we didn't know is that, according to one source, Lewis didn't tell Thain about his talks with the Feds till January 5.

Like we said, there aren't many heroes here.

Bank of America

How Theresa Hatt Caused The Financial Crisis

Zachary Roth | February 6, 2009, 11:23AM

Last month, Theresa Hatt died at 52, after a brief struggle with cancer.

Hatt, who lived in Portland, Maine, and worked for the city of Scarborough, had had several credit cards in her name. So, shortly after her death, Hatt's son, Paul Kelleher, began the sad task of calling his mother's creditors, to inform them of her passing.

The calls were uneventful, if depressing, until Kelleher got to Bank of America. Here is how he says his conversation with a representative of the company's estates unit went:

Paul Kelleher: Yes, I'm calling to inform you that my mom died on the 24th of January.

Bank of America Estates representative: I'm sorry. Oh, it looks like she never even missed a payment. That's too bad. Well, how are you planning to take care of her balance?

PK: I'm not going to. She has no estate to speak of, but you should feel free to just go through the standard probate procedure. I'm certainly not legally obligated to pay for her.

BOA: You mean you're not going to help her out?

PK: I wouldn't be helping her out -- she's dead. I'd be helping you out.

BOA: Oh, that's really not the way to look at it. I know that if it were my mother, I'd pay it. That's why we're in the banking crisis we're in: banks having to write off defaulted loans.

"I lost it there," Kelleher, a mild-mannered 30-year-old who lives in Brookline, Mass., where he works remotely for a Washington DC-based non-profit, told TPMMuckraker. When pressed, he said, the estates rep backed off that last claim, but only a little, continuing to suggest that cases like his mothers had played a role in the financial crisis.

The rep's apparent intention, as Kelleher described it, was to mislead him into believing that he was obligated -- at first legally, then, failing that, morally -- to cover his mother's debt (which, in any case, was not large: she had had a $1000 limit on her card). Of course, Kelleher was sophisticated enough to know that's not true. But how many other less savvy callers in similar situations, he wondered, might respond to the rep's breezy "how are you planning to take care of her balance?," with a confused "I guess I'll mail in a check"?

And what bothered Kelleher as much as the estate rep's insensitivity, not to mention her apparent effort to deceive, was the impression he got that she wasn't winging it.

"It seemed rote," Kelleher said. "It was too naturally delivered to have been a misstatement."

That impression was strengthened when Kelleher eventually spoke with the rep's supervisor, Eric Davis. Kelleher said that when he recounted his conversation with the rep, Davis apologized -- for what, exactly, it was unclear -- but told him: "That's not how she meant it."

From his conversation with Davis, said Kelleher, "it sounded like [the rep's approach] was encouraged."

How strongly encouraged, we wondered? And how common was this particular rep's approach? So we tracked down a former rep for Bank of America's collections unit. And according to the former rep, Kelleher's interlocutor was doing just what she was told .

The former rep, who worked until quite recently at B of A's Belfast, Maine-based collections unit, described for TPMmuckraker a system in which staffers responsible for making collections were routinely encouraged to mislead customers or those calling on their behalf, and were financially incentivized to do all they could to get payments.

Kelleher's reported conversation, the former rep said, "sounds like how I would have attempted to collect" in such a situation. "I would have asked: 'How do you plan on paying for this?'"

The rep said that employees were encouraged to walk right up to the line of actively deceiving a caller about the consequences of non-payment. "As long as you don't get caught [lying]," the former rep added, "there's no really no punishment." The former rep did not work in the estates unit, but confirmed, based on direct knowledge of B of A's practices, that it operates similarly to the former rep's own unit.

The former rep said that employees responsible for collections receive "feedback" about their phone performance from managers who monitor the calls. (When you hear "this call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes", the "quality assurance" oftentimes isn't quality of service from the customer's perspective -- it's quality of performance from the rep, who's being trained to be as effective as possible at extracting money from callers.)

The former rep added that if a manager had listened to the performance of Kelleher's rep, he would likely tell her: "Good job!" By contrast, if he had heard the rep failing to make any serious effort to convince Kelleher to pay his mother's debt, he would have told her "that was not a good 'listening score,'" -- the term gets at the precision with which a rep's phone performance is monitored -- and would have encouraged her to take a tougher approach.

There are also more direct ways to ensure that collections agents play hardball.
"We were obligated to collect 45 percent of the debt that rolled in to us," said the former rep, adding that that figure fluctuated. Employees who consistently failed to meet that baseline might be fired. "People lost their jobs all the time for non-performance."

And there were bonuses of us as much as $5000 a month for reps who successfully brought in a certain percentage of "collectible money", said the former rep, using the industry's cold-blooded jargon.

What's the larger point here? Well, here's one: When the automakers were asking Washington for a bailout recently, there was a lot of talk about insisting on conditions -- like requiring that they build more fuel-efficient cars -- that would be in the national interest. Bank of America and its competitors have already taken billions in taxpayer dollars. So it seems logical to insist on a similar set of public interest conditions -- and the industry's range of deceptive and rapacious lending practices would be a natural place to start.

Neither Eric Davis, the B of A supervisor, nor B of A's public relations office immediately responded to a request for comment.

Late Update: A Bank of America spokeswoman declined to comment on "allegations by former associates."