I don't get it - Alot of implications but no direct accusations...

Why is that?

/ Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

CrispFlows: I don't get it - Alot of implications but no direct accusations...

Why is that?

/ Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

CHARLOTTE (September 15, 2008) -- Bank of America Corporation today announced it has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a $50 billion all-stock transaction that creates a company unrivalled in its breadth of financial services and global reach. (new window)

CrispFlows

Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

It was, in fact, before the November election. You can look it up.

Or click here (new window)

shanrick: doesn't approve

Wow, he looks like Ron Paul.

brukmann: shanrick: doesn't approve

Wow, he looks like Ron Paul RON PAUL.

FTFY

/RON PAUL!

A money market account that earns 0.01%...?

bighasbeen: CrispFlows: I don't get it - Alot of implications but no direct accusations...

Why is that?

/ Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

CHARLOTTE (September 15, 2008) -- Bank of America Corporation today announced it has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a $50 billion all-stock transaction that creates a company unrivalled in its breadth of financial services and global reach. (new window)

Well, the alleged threats weren't from this point. They were from late December, when they realized Merrill was going to tank and they had made a bad decision. Here's another bit on it Link (new window).

Hey, if you're facing billion dollar lawsuits and possible jailtime, you're going to paint yourself as the victim as much as you can. All you need is some well bribed politicians to help out in order to create some more deniability.

SuperCatBarf: Keep in mind some banks didn't need/want TARP funds.

of course they didnt, cause that would mean they would get caught farking ppl... they would ratjher go bankrupt then go to club fed

Indis: bighasbeen: CrispFlows: I don't get it - Alot of implications but no direct accusations...

Why is that?

/ Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

CHARLOTTE (September 15, 2008) -- Bank of America Corporation today announced it has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a $50 billion all-stock transaction that creates a company unrivalled in its breadth of financial services and global reach. (new window)

Well, the alleged threats weren't from this point. They were from late December, when they realized Merrill was going to tank and they had made a bad decision. Here's another bit on it Link (new window).

Hey, if you're facing billion dollar lawsuits and possible jailtime, you're going to paint yourself as the victim as much as you can. All you need is some well bribed politicians to help out in order to create some more deniability.

God I love a good clusterfark. And,

RON PAUL!!!

CrispFlows: Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

Yes, it was.

Oh, and just so everybody knows, we did it wrong. TARP should have never happened. Well, not the exact way we did it. What we should have done was give the FDIC the ability to take these bankrupt institutions into receivership, wiping the shareholders and bondholders. Forcefully restructure the banks to a known to be solvent position (including seizing of assets and obligations and doing capital infusions) and held a new IPO. That's what you do to insolvent banks.

If it turns out to be true that BoA was forced to buy insolvent banks, then Bernake and Geither both need to immediate resign and replaced with people from the IMF.

Renowned transvestite sexologist

Bernake and Geither both need to immediate resign and replaced with people from the IMF.

I KNEW the Impossible Missions Force was involved in this!

/Sorry, couldn't resist.

fark Bank of America. They have an insane computer system that nobody seems to be able to override. Here's an example of the conversations I've had with them:

"Hi, I have credit available and tried to overdraft my checking account, like I've done over a hundred times before. It always just moves 100 dollars from my credit card to my bank account, so I don't get any fees. Why can't I do that now?"

"The computer system shows that you don't have any credit available"

"I know, for the 100th time, the computer system is wrong."

Then I wait for them to talk to the credit people, and figure out that it's like I said, and then they don't fix it. I spent 3 hours on the phone, getting hung up on, talking to supervisors, people acting like I'm retarded. I finally called their CEO's office and got someone to try to help, but they couldn't even do it.

No one has control over Bank of America's computer system. Nobody. Nobody can press any buttons to fix problems that human beings know are there. I'm pretty sure their computer system is sentient, but it's farking retarded so I'm not scared.

Epiphany: Bank of America

Oh, I forgot to add that I went into a local branch here and got the same shiat. "The computer shows that it isn't like that." Then they call the credit company after talking to me like I'm a farking idiot, learn that I'm not, yet still can't help me.fark BOA

Epiphany: No one has control over Bank of America's computer system. Nobody. Nobody can press any buttons to fix problems that human beings know are there. I'm pretty sure their computer system is sentient, but it's farking retarded so I'm not scared.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

The people on the phone... don't. give. a. fark. about. you.

Whoever you're talking to either makes 7 shiny shells an hour or has their metrics improved by dismissing your complaint outright.

vgss: Epiphany: No one has control over Bank of America's computer system. Nobody. Nobody can press any buttons to fix problems that human beings know are there. I'm pretty sure their computer system is sentient, but it's farking retarded so I'm not scared.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

The people on the phone... don't. give. a. fark. about. you.

Whoever you're talking to either makes 7 shiny shells an hour or has their metrics improved by dismissing your complaint outright.

Sure, the normal people that answer the calls don't, but when I get to the supervisors, and the people at my local branch, and the CEO's office, I'd say that it's a computer problem and not a people problem. Well, a people's lack of control over anything that the computer can do.

I remember how that BoA-ML merger was supposed to halt the rising panic among the financial players, as if Ken Lewis' trouser package could somehow make Merrill's toxic, unpayable debt magically go away.

It's probably not much of a stretch to wonder if Ben and Henry feared a complete panic similar to the one that led to the creation of the TARP were BoA to back out of the buyout. It would have been the Lehman Bros. mess all over again.

RTS is correct - if the investment banks were insolvent and needed federal help, they should have been treated like the dying S&Ls were back in the Bush I era. TARP was a desperate attempt to stave off panic without actually requiring top management to take responsibility for the mess they created. It was the kind of plan only an executive who wanted to let the party continue (or a CEO president who ran multiple companies into the ground) could love, and while it temporarily seems to have forestalled a complete breakfown in the credit economy, it fixed nothing.

When the inside story of the past decade comes out - and, eventually, much of it will - a fair question will be why it was allowed to happen at all.

Epiphany: vgss: Epiphany: No one has control over Bank of America's computer system. Nobody. Nobody can press any buttons to fix problems that human beings know are there. I'm pretty sure their computer system is sentient, but it's farking retarded so I'm not scared.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

The people on the phone... don't. give. a. fark. about. you.

Whoever you're talking to either makes 7 shiny shells an hour or has their metrics improved by dismissing your complaint outright.

Sure, the normal people that answer the calls don't, but when I get to the supervisors, and the people at my local branch, and the CEO's office, I'd say that it's a computer problem and not a people problem. Well, a people's lack of control over anything that the computer can do.

Glad to hear theyre still getting your business.

To followup my previous comment, i just went and checked the date of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy... September 15, 2008, the day BoA announced the Merrill purchase. I knew that deal was intended to stop a panic, but I forgot the sequence of events surrounding it.

hmm...an aggressive socialist action by the Bush Administration? Never...well, maybe.

However, the direction of the TARP changed right after the start.
It was initally supposed to be used for just buying up bad assets.
However, most economists believed that a influx of money (with no strings) invested into companies would allow them the liquidity and stability to allow them to survive and then do business as ususal.

Two problems...the banks didn't do what everyone thought they would do.
First, they held on to the money...or at least they didn't loan it out.
Second, they actually used it to buy other weaker firms.

So basically, the bank leaders said Fark you,
we're saving our ass, not yours...and btw we'll get a new car too.

TARP failed because economists thought only about money dynamics
and the government followed their advice,
forgetting about how greedy asshats act in the real world.

For all the "science" behind the market,
the players are still all selfish princes and wanna-be kings.

/its all about "I've got mine"

PlatinumDragon: a fair question will be why it was allowed to happen at all.

This was our leader:



But change came in January, so things are fine now. Bernanke is approved by Obama so we don't need to investigate him any further. It's Paulson that's a concern.

Investigators say Fed threatened bank CEO
Congressional investigators say documents prove the Fed threatened to oust bank CEO

* Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer
* On Wednesday June 10, 2009, 7:35 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve threatened to force the ouster of Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis if he didn't follow through with plans to buy Merrill Lynch & Co., Republicans said Wednesday after reviewing internal documents.

Republicans also said there was evidence that the government tried to restrict information related to the merger from being publicly released.

However, none of the documents showed that the government explicitly instructed Bank of America to hide Merrill Lynch's losses from shareholders, they said.

===============

Federal Reserve It is not federal, and it does not have any reserves.
http://www.apfn.org/apfN/reserve2.htm (pops)

Plain and simple, the Federal Reserve is not part of the Federal Government. It is a privately held corporation owned by stockholders. That is why the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (and all the others) is listed in the Dun and Bradstreet Reference Book of American Business (Northeast, Region 1, Manhattan/Bronx). According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the right to issue money and regulate its value, so it is illegal for private interests to do so. Yet, it happened, and because of a provision in the Act, the 'Class A' stockholders were to be kept a secret and not to be revealed. R. F. McMaster, who published a newsletter called The Reaper, through his Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts, was able to find out which banks held a controlling interest in the Reserve.

These interests control the Federal Reserve through about 300 stockholders:

* Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
* Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
* Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
* Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
* Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
* Kuhn, Loeb and Co. of New York
* Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
* Goldman, Sachs of New York
Because of the way the Reserve was organized, whoever controls the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controls the system, About 90 of the 100 largest banks are in this district.
Of the reportedly 203,053 shares of the New York bank:

* Rockefeller's National City Bank had 30,000 shares
* Morgan's First National Bank had 15,000 shares
* Chase National Bank had 6,000 shares
* National Bank of Commerce (Morgan Guaranty Trust) had 21,000 shares.
A June 15, 1978 Senate Report called "Interlocking Directorates Among the Major U.S. Corporations" revealed that five New York banks had 470 interlocking directorates with 130 major U.S. corporations:

* Citicorp (97)
* J.P. Morgan Co. (99)
* Chase Manhattan (89)
* Manufacturers Hanover (89)
* Chemical Bank (96)

According to Eustace Mullins, these banks are major stock holders in the Fed. In his book World Order, he said that these five banks are "controlled from London". Mullins said:
"Besides its controlling interest in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Rothschilds had developed important financial interests in other parts of the United States ... The entire Rockefeller empire was financed by the Rothschilds."

A May, 1976 report of the House Banking and Currency Committee indicated: "The Rothschild banks are affiliated with Manufacturers Hanover of London in which they hold 20 percent ... and Manufacturers Hanover Trust of New York". The Report also revealed that Rothschild Intercontinental Bank, Ltd., which consisted of Rothschild banks in London, France, Belgium, New York, and Amsterdam, had three American subsidiaries: National City Bank of Cleveland, First City National Bank of Houston, and Seattle First National Bank. It is believed that the Rothschilds hold 53% of the stock of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Each year, billions of dollars are "earned" by Class A stockholders from U.S. tax dollars which go to the Fed to pay interest on bank loans.

SuperCatBarf: J13P is stupid, Epiphany is a liar.

What exactly did I lie about jerkoff? No one at BoA has control over their computer systems. No one. No one can change any error if the computer says something different than what is actually true.

CrispFlows: Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans

I was wondering this too. Why would the Republicans push on this? As others in the thread have pointed out, it happened on their boy's watch.

Indis: CHARLOTTE (September 15, 2008) -- Bank of America Corporation today announced it has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a $50 billion all-stock transaction that creates a company unrivalled in its breadth of financial services and global reach. (new window)

Well, the alleged threats weren't from this point. They were from late December, when they realized Merrill was going to tank and they had made a bad decision. Here's another bit on it Link (new window).

Hey, if you're facing billion dollar lawsuits and possible jailtime, you're going to paint yourself as the victim as much as you can. All you need is some well bribed politicians to help out in order to create some more deniability.


It was no secret that Ken Lewis desperately wanted to get into the wealth management / high-end brokerage business. BoA was having limited success breaking in on there own and there had been rumors that they were looking to acquire an existing firm. ML was just the thing Ken had been pining for.

Then his deals went south and BoA shareholders turned murderous. So now he's playing the victim card in order to maintain his position in the firm. He didn't overextend the firm through reckless acquisitions, he was forced to make that purchase by the Feds, or so he'd have you believe.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: If it turns out to be true that BoA was forced to buy insolvent banks, then Bernake and Geither both need to immediate resign and replaced with people from the IMF.

There's a lot more to this story than we know right now. Most of what's been alleged about this relies on the word of Ken Lewis, which along with $2 will get you a cup of coffee. Just as likely as the scenario that has been alleged by Lewis is that he was trying to extort Paulson to drop the hammer on ML the same way Paulson did on Bear Stearns, so Lewis could cover his own ass for horrendously overpaying for Merrill, which was done without pressure from anybody as far as I have seen.

I blame Obama. Or Bush. Maybe Paulson. Bernanke was probably a little at fault. Oh, let's not forget that Harvard weasel John Thain, who basically cockblocked Lehman by offering to sell Merrill while attending a meeting under the auspices of working to save Lehman.

And for my final assessment of blame, I accuse Alan Greenspan for replacing the tech bubble with a far more caustic credit bubble that extended itself not only to housing but the balance sheets of every major corporation in the world.

CrispFlows: I don't get it - Alot of implications but no direct accusations...

Why is that?

/ Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

Doesn't matter. I'm glad somebody is asking questions that could reveal the truth of this matter. If Ken Lewis and BofA shareholders got hung out by his balls by the Fed and Treasury, it deserves to be known.

The merger process began under the Bush admin. They discovered problems in the DD process and wanted to back out. As is my understanding, the threats occured under the Obama admin. That said, I think this is more of the Fed over-reaching, and not some presidential decree.

This is the fourth party to come forward w/ allegations of the govt threatening them to take a deal that was not in their best interests.

BTW, the story above is according to Ken Lewis. You can see how he could just be trying to cover his own backside.

SuperCatBarf: Keep in mind some banks didn't need/want TARP funds.

BAC was not one of them.

SuperCatBarf: J13P is stupid, Epiphany is a liar.

i cried all night cause someone named supercatbarf called me stupid.

wee beastie: As is my understanding, the threats occured under the Obama admin.

You understand incorrectly sir. Henry Paulson was (allegedly) involved, and he was the treasury secretary under shrub. Geithner is Obama's man.

J13P: SuperCatBarf: J13P is stupid, Epiphany is a liar.

i cried all night cause someone named supercatbarf called me stupid.

I lied all night because someone named supercatbarf called me a liar.

SlothB77: Chicago politics.

Hope and Change.

And according to the messiah: "You ain't seen nothing yet!"


The BoA deal had nothing to do with Obama. He was kept appraised of the makings, but the deal was closed before the end of 2008 with the helpings of Bush, Paulson, Bernake & Co.

Devin172: Indis: CHARLOTTE (September 15, 2008) -- Bank of America Corporation today announced it has agreed to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a $50 billion all-stock transaction that creates a company unrivalled in its breadth of financial services and global reach. (new window)

Well, the alleged threats weren't from this point. They were from late December, when they realized Merrill was going to tank and they had made a bad decision. Here's another bit on it Link (new window).

Hey, if you're facing billion dollar lawsuits and possible jailtime, you're going to paint yourself as the victim as much as you can. All you need is some well bribed politicians to help out in order to create some more deniability.


It was no secret that Ken Lewis desperately wanted to get into the wealth management / high-end brokerage business. BoA was having limited success breaking in on there own and there had been rumors that they were looking to acquire an existing firm. ML was just the thing Ken had been pining for.

Then his deals went south and BoA shareholders turned murderous. So now he's playing the victim card in order to maintain his position in the firm. He didn't overextend the firm through reckless acquisitions, he was forced to make that purchase by the Feds, or so he'd have you believe.

The Fleet and Lasalle mergers were considered tremendously successful allowing BofA to expand it's market share by leaps and bounds and compete in the home markets of Citibank and Chase not to mention the highly lucrative New York, New England, and Chicago markets. The MBNA merger made it the largest credit card issuer in the country prior to the Chase/Wamu merger.

Countrywide is less defensible but he got it on the cheap, comparatively. Yes, Lewis wanted to get into wealth management, but he's not so suicidal as to forge ahead with a merger that would destroy his own company in the process. He attempted to back out of the Merrill merger through a Material Adverse Change clause when he discovered the scope of the losses. Bernanke and Paulson placed pressure on him to force him to accept the deal in exchange for government guarantees against future losses and an additional TARP disbursement. BofA got scorched by the deal but is well positioned for long term success and Lewis did lose his chairmanship over the stockholder backlash. Considering that the stock went from $50 to $3.50 in the space of a year I would say that the stockholder governance system worked.

Fuggin Bizzy: wee beastie: As is my understanding, the threats occured under the Obama admin.

You understand incorrectly sir. Henry Paulson was (allegedly) involved, and he was the treasury secretary under shrub. Geithner is Obama's man.

fair enough. As I said tho, I think it was more an over-reaching Fed, not an action of the president.

CrispFlows: I don't get it - Alot of implications but no direct accusations...

Why is that?

/ Additionally, Why the constant mention of republicans and no direct date of the deals? Was it before the presidential change?

The reason is because if he really didn't want to do it he could have called a couple of reporters up and had the people "forcing" it embarrassed nationally (if not prosecuted)

CrispFlows: I don't get it - Alot of implications but no direct accusations...

Why is that?

Republicans attempting to salvage political leverage from the worst financial disaster in nearly a century.

very scary stuff... i really hope this isnt true.

inglixthemad: The reason is because if he really didn't want to do it he could have called a couple of reporters up and had the people "forcing" it embarrassed nationally (if not prosecuted)

thats actually exactly what ken lewis did. He told a bunch of reporters he didn't like the deal and that he was forced. i think i saw it on wsj and cnbc. the commentary from reporters was basically along the lines of "but this is just lewis' word, self serving and not under oath". eventually the congress actually took it under advisement. was his testimony under oath? i'd like to hear bernanke's rebuttal. i think it was more of bernanke strong arming this deal than anyone, maybe paulson too, idk.

thuhfreak: inglixthemad: The reason is because if he really didn't want to do it he could have called a couple of reporters up and had the people "forcing" it embarrassed nationally (if not prosecuted)

thats actually exactly what ken lewis did. He told a bunch of reporters he didn't like the deal and that he was forced. i think i saw it on wsj and cnbc. the commentary from reporters was basically along the lines of "but this is just lewis' word, self serving and not under oath". eventually the congress actually took it under advisement. was his testimony under oath? i'd like to hear bernanke's rebuttal. i think it was more of bernanke strong arming this deal than anyone, maybe paulson too, idk.

Then he's a complete and utter moron. How hard would it have been to had that recorded, even in a second session. I tell you mate, this whole thing stinks, and yes I'm talking about his accusation. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature can acquire some pretty damning evidence in short order, if that evidence exists, when you are one of the parties involved. Might not be admissible in court, but it can exonerate you in public.

Long story short, I think he's just trying to deflect blame so he's not reviled.

Epiphany: J13P: SuperCatBarf: J13P is stupid, Epiphany is a liar.

i cried all night cause someone named supercatbarf called me stupid.

I lied all night because someone named supercatbarf called me a liar.

I masturbated all night because someone named supercatbarf called me...What do you mean he didn't say that? Now I just feel stupid. And chafed!