|
|||||||
TOP STORIESHidden Meanings in BofA Departures?Jun 11 2009By Dona DeZube RELATED LINKSIs Bank of America's turnover of top talent a reflection of its chief executive's leadership skill, or simply par for a course that's included two major acquisitions during a financial crisis? The Charlotte Observer notes BofA has lost 52 of its top 100 execs since 2005, the most recent being Chief Risk Officer Amy Brinkley. That's a turnover rate of about 13 percent a year. "The level of leadership turnover we've experienced is consistent with the history of the organization and a consolidating industry," Bank of America spokesman Scott Silvestri told the paper. However, the Observer found former employees ready to blame CEO Ken Lewis for low morale and turnover that includes three CFOs and three treasurers in the past four years. BofA has lost CFO Al de Molina (now CEO at GMAC) who took eight employees with him; General Counsel Tim Mayopoulos (now at Fannie Mae) and James Jackson and Lynn Pike (to Capital One Financial Corp). Messages posted by readers in response to the story certainly give weight to the idea Lewis may be the reason for the turnover. Said one reader: (BofA) is 10 times less diverse than it was 3 years ago. now its a homogeneous place with homogeneous thinking. this is a very dangerous situation and is behind all the recent scandals in the past decade. masters of the universe, yes men, ethnic buddies, and cultural similarities leading to flawed crowd thinking and greed. all this is lewis' fault and will get worse. Predicts another: Lewis will be gone by the end of the year unless the 2nd and 3rd quarter earnings are astoundingly good, and if they are astoundingly good the internal and external auditors should take a very close look to ensure they are real. Predict Al de Molina to return. Chief Execs who can not tolerate contrary views will surround themselves with "yes" people who will tell them only what they want to hear. A leader values the input of contrary views. Still another reader suggests new limitations on pay at institutions taking TARP money are the real reason employees have left BofA: Now that there is a 'Pay Czar' ( a pay czar?!? ) that will control compensation levels, anyone with (BofA) that can go, is going. But the pithiest response came from the reader who said the departing execs were "like rats abandoning a sinking ship... In golden lifeboats."
COMMENTSGCEldridge, Tue Oct 13 2009Changeover at BofA was to be expected. If not leaving by himself, Lewis would have been gone anyway. With the merger of BofA & Merrill Lynch, someone had to go. You can't combine such entities & not have someone leave. Also, adding another bank, due to missing Wachovia and making BofA bigger, in financial terms (or banking) was a loss of money that BofA could not justify. Merging with Wachovia was want they needed to offset some of the bad loans they picked up during other mergers. Having to keep the bad home loans that fell out of their Morgtage Backed Loans, MBS, has slowed BofA from having any real growth during 2009. The same has hit the other banks that bought MBS's and had them fall apart. Federal Gov't was to buy the "toxic loans", but has not as of yet. Banks may have to continue to carry them, and maintain larger reserve for loan losses, as well. This will their bottom line for several more quarters more. Add your comment » |
|||||||



