The title of a recently released ABC News article is "Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis to Retire (?) by Year End". The question is: is he "retiring" or was he fired/FORCED OUT? The latter possibility is far more likely.

The first sentence sets the tone: "Bank of America CEO and president Ken Lewis, whose (very) controversial takeover of Merrill Lynch last year MADE HIM A FLASHPOINT OF SHAREHOLDER SCORN and marred decades of successful leadership, plans to retire at year's end". The "shareholder scorn" MOST LIKELY drove Ken Lewis out. His "decades of successful leadership" (including being named "Banker of the Year" in 2001 and subsequently in 2007 and early 2008, before this financial crisis) have all been for naught because of his GREED over the last year (i.e. late 2008 until now).

As for Lewis himself, he released the following statement about his decision to retire: "Bank of America is well positioned to meet the continuing challenges of the economy and markets. I am particularly heartened by the results that are emerging FROM THE DECISIONS AND INITIATIVES OF THE DIFFICULT PAST YEAR-AND-A-HALF". Why did we need these "decisions and initiatives" in the first place? Because Lewis, along with the executives of Lehman, GM, Chrysler and many other Wall Street companies were greedy, putting their own selfish interests above and beyond the needs of everybody else.

In fact, "In April, shareholders angry at his decision to acquire the faltering Merrill Lynch and Countrywide last year - and then to give multi-million dollar bonuses to Merrill executives, VOTED TO STRIP HIM OF HIS CHAIRMANSHIP, though he remained in charge of the company as CEO". OK, this statement gets the ball rolling with "angry". Why were people "angry" at Lewis? Well, he acquired Merrill Lynch, which was enough of a disaster by itself and then Countrywide Financial, WHICH WAS EVEN MORE OF A DISASTER. Both of these firms were described as "faltering", so by acquring "faltering" firms, Lewis gave us the impression that he had some kind of game plan to turn them around. Well, HE DIDN'T. On top of this, if companies were "failing", where did all those executive bonuses come from? THIS MEANS THAT KEN LEWIS, ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS, WERE LYING ABOUT BEING CASH-STRAPPED.

Lewis goes on to say that: "The Merrill Lynch and Countrywide integrations are on track and returning value already". Are they? "Our board of directors and our senior management include more talent and more diversity of talent than at any time in this company's history. We are in a position TO BEGIN TO repay the government's TARP investment". This statement is even more debatable/questionable. "For this reason, I decided (that) now is the best time to transition to the next generation of leadership at Bank of America". Of course, Lewis himself will never say that he is essentially being FORCED to leave.

However, "Lewis and the bank remain under investigation by the SEC and several states' attorney generals, including Andrew Cuomo of New York". This means that Lewis is joining the likes of disgraced ex-Hong Kong government officials Antony Leung, Leong Chi-Hung, Ko Wing-man and Margaret Chan and of course, Rod Blagojevich, who resigned either in the wake of scandals or, in the case of Margaret Chan, resigning to avoid being implicated/blamed for a scandal. Lewis definitely resigned under pressure (i.e. a lot of people didn't like him).

Andrew Cuomo, speaking after learning of Lewis' resignation announcement, said: "Ken Lewis' resignation WILL HAVE NO IMPACT on our investigation". So, Lewis, you're not out of the woods yet.

However, Dick Bove, a banking analyst with Rochedale Securities, argues that Lewis' departure is "bad for the bank". Here's his reasoning/logic: "Ken Lewis was a phenomenally good CEO". We beg to differ, Mr. Bove. "HE'S MADE A SERIES OF VERY STRONG, POSITIVE DECISONS INVOLVING MERRILL AND COUNTRYWIDE (what?) and therefore, I think there is a definite loss for Bank of America". This guy must be drunk or on drugs. Merrill Lynch was classified as "faltering" and Countrywide was in even worse financial shape. Therefore, the decision to buy up those 2 organizations certainly was NOT "strong" and "positive".