Bleh. Ken Lewis should forfeit some of his own money. IMO, he didn't "earn" shit.

I think it's pretty disturbing that Obama's new pay czar forced Lewis to take NO salary this year, because his retirement package was "enough."

I didn't hate them until this morning when I logged into my credit card account, only to get a message saying my card had been closed. Apparently there was a data breach and this cryptivc message about no account on file was my notification. I am assured the card will still work until I activate the new card coming my way, but this makes no sense to me. I have no visibility or access to my account. Grrr.

We'll see if I get declined when I go to buy gas today. Also I was told if I return a purchase made with the old card the retailer may decline the return, so they gave me a special number to call while I am at the check-out in case this happens so they can put the return on the new card.

Of course, I only found all this out by calling and going through three levels of people.

So yes, BofA, who until yesterday I had no problem with, is on my naughty list. And not naughty in a good way.

@Esquire99: Good thing we can vote that czar out in the next election year! Wait...what? Oh...

Still, every time I think of BoA, I think of this sketch:

@Esquire99:

That is kind of disturbing...then again...most of these idiots are making about 10,000% more than they should. Million dollar performance bonuses for putting your company out of business (except for a gov. bailout saving your rear)?

I'm in the wrong business. If I lost a billion dollars, I would get fired without any retirement package.

@Esquire99: You know, I keep seeing this kind of comment more and more with stories related to the banks, where there's all this outrage about how DARE the government step in and interfere with private business. So let me just say this:

THEY TOOK FEDERAL FUNDS.

They took -twenty billion-, in fact. As far as I'm concerned, they are no longer private businesses. They stopped being that when THEY relied on taxpayers bailing them out from their OWN bad decisions. They have placed themselves in their own mess. And yet still, somehow, their CEO is walking away with a $53 million pension, still pays their executive board obscene amounts, and still managed to pay $1.24 billion in dividend payments to 'preferred shareholders'.

Not only do they have no right to complain about not getting a salary, but they should be thanking their lucky stars that the government hasn't taken MORE control. I think that as long as BoA hasn't paid back the federal bailout, there are wonderful public policy arguments to be made for eliminating pensions of executives, eliminating dividend payouts, and taking greater control over the bank in general.

@Esquire99: Imagine if a private company had invested a billion dollars into BofA. Would they let BofA do whatever they wanted? Hell no, that's irresponsible, they'd demand the bank make changes do that there investment doesn't go down the toilet.

Shouldn't the gov't do the same that a private investor would? Nothing disturbing about that, just business 101.

Of course, if BofA didn't want the gov't control, they didn't have to take the money.

@Esquire99: Agreed. Disturbing. It would have been much better to take back the outlandish retirement package and leave his salary alone.

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: Don't read the news much, do you?

@vladthepaler:

"Always bet on black"

-Wesley Snipes, Passenger 57.

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already:
[www.guardian.co.uk]

No I don't hate Bank of America because THEY'VE NEVER WRONGED ME but thanks for asking. Though it's tough luck when in 2006 you earn $21 billion and three years later you hit a rough patch but that's Earl, brother.

I ran the Bank of America Chicago Marathon last weekend. I heard people asking that since BoA accepted bailout cash, could we rename the run the TARP Marathon or Taxpayer Run? Funny, it still cost $125 to enter and there's probably a lesson and more humor in here somewhere.

@Stephmo: Oh that photo on that article is WIN!

@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already:

It would only be better if he was crying tiny, tiny tears...

@Japheaux: ...forced to accept the TARP money, which is a loan, and not allowed to pay it back yet. BAC doesn't need that money, but the gov wanted to make sure they had the reserves in case more financial institutions started caving.

All I have to say is YAY, KARMA! Sure you guys don't want to reconsider those OD fees now?

The manager really should have given him a refund.

@Zeratul010: BAC didn't want or need the funds, and if it had been allowed to cancel the Merrill deal, it wouldn't have needed those funds either. And if you think the system was messed up before, wait until the government takes more control. From the people who brought you the $700 hammer, Medicare, and the DMV, it's YOUR BANK!

@Zeratul010: Yep - and I love how the bank spokesman is whining about it.

They should be grateful that they all still have jobs - the bank really shouldn't exist anymore.

@Zeratul010: People like Esquire feel that CEOs and senior execs should be compensated via government handouts like Social Security contribution caps, deluxe health care writeoffs, massively favorable tax shelters, then when they fall off this mortal coil, zero Estate Taxes.
Because they're special, not because they earned it.
Working people should shut up and pay for these lush state benefits directed at these elites.

The bank bailout not impacting this corporate gravy train (and blocking reform to prevent future occurrences) are simply more of the same, writ large.

That impulse has always been present in the United States. It's just that before, they were called Royalists & Tories. Now they're called Free Market Fundamentalists, Libertarians or Conservatives.

Have to admire the consistency, no?

Wow, I don't think I've seen the anti-capitalism on this site get this bad before.

You're now rooting for the failure of an American institution that employs over 150,000 workers. Ignoring the force that the government used against BoA to put them in this situation, you only want to celebrate the fact that they lost billions of dollars because of it.

This is about as good taste as the people that celebrated when Chicago didn't get the Olympics bid because Obama supported it.

Stay classy, Consumerist.

@TheFlamingoKing: They don't seem to be cheering this. The post seems pretty matter of fact.

@tankertodd: If they didn't want or need the funds, why did they take them? While I am not an expert on the bailouts, I don't recall there being any time where the government said 'You MUST take this money."

And I have an incredibly hard time believing that the federal government could do a -worse- job, since... BoA wouldn't exist now if they had been left alone. From the people who brought you $54 million payoffs for doing nothing, capricious adjustments of credit card rates on steady paying customers, and over a billion dollars in dividend payments when posting a LOSS, it's... OUR BANK (now).

@Zeratul010:
Shouldn't those conditions have been attached PRIOR to the govt. giving them the money, rather than after?

I have no problem at all with conditioning the receipt of federal funds on just about anything; however, I believe those conditions should be made clear prior to the agreement.

@Dondegroovily:
A private investor doesn't get that kind of control. A private investor simply gets the rights of a shareholder, which is not much more than the right to vote for the Board and to vote on extraordinary transactions.

@Zeratul010:
That's not entirely true. The govt. essentially forced the banks to take the money and that phenomenon has been covered in the news.

@Trai_Dep:
I don't think CEOs, etc. should be highly compensated because they are special. In part, I feel they should receive the benefits of any contract they entered into with their employer. In this case, the govt. is essentially forcing those contracts to be broken. I also believe that many of these people work hard for their compensation. In some cases, that work has resulted in failure, but they still put in the effort. These execs, etc. are working people. They work more hours than most; they are on call virtually 24/7; they make big, difficult decisions. Ken Lewis deserves ZERO salary? Give me a break.

Eat no fat, and eat no lean, each Rex Bean is fit for a queen!

@TheFlamingoKing: BofA is a terrible bank for most customers. Being big with a lot of employees is no excuse

ROFL. I love it when some a-holes like BofA gets caught under the bus!

Ooh, I love it when the beans squish between my toes!

If they took my money (taxpayer) to survive, I should certainly have a voice in their pay, policies and decisions.

The World bank does this with countries they lend money to. You want money? You will cut your spending, raise interest rates, check your inflation, reduce your deficit etc.

Nobody cares about billions anymore. They throw those $$$ around like dimes in Washington DC. Printing billions of dollars out of thin air. In the end, it will all end very badly.

Didn't the last "real czar" get killed Russian communist style: with a bullet to the back of the head?

F*** BofA.

@Esquire99: No the government forced Bank of America to purchase Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch was in such a horrible financial position that Bank of American would only take Merrill Lynch in exchange for government guarantees against the bad assets on Merrill's balance sheet.

@Techguy1138: FTA: "take today's earnings report and wallow around in it like Ann-Margret in beans"

Yeah, that totally has no bias in it at all. Totally. Obviously, there's just no way this article could have been written by simply saying "The bank has posted a loss..."

@morlo: Then why don't the customers, um, leave the bank for another bank? No one is forcing them to use BoA.

A bank being big, or making profit, or having customers feel it's a bad bank, is not a sufficient condition to wish those workers were out of a job, especially in the current situation.

Why do you guys assume people are just powerless to get screwed by corporations they chose to do business with in the first place?

@Dondegroovily: BofA was forced to "purchase" Merrill Lynch by the government. Bank of American can only support of Merrill's debt because public funds were used to purchase bad assets off Merrill's balance sheet, and public funds purchased preferred shares from Bank of America.

So, actually BofA is being forced to take public money.

@tailstoo: No, Bank of America was fine. It was forced to purchase the failing Merrill Lynch, that is the only reason it took public money.

@morlo: How is it terrible? BofA is the biggest consumer depositor in the United States. They offer unprecedented levels of service. They were the only bank in a good enough financial position to purchase Merrill when it was going under.

@tankertodd:Yeh because they did so great with no help all the bad is the goverments fault before and after.

@TheFlamingoKing: I guess your right. I didn't understand the reference at all. It was to stupid to register

Honestly the banks loosing this much money gives them MORE leverage to try and squeeze consumers and escape regulation.