Bank of America's shareholders voted yesterday to remove Ken Lewis as chairman of the bank's board. According to reports, Lewis spent much of the four-hour meeting fighting to convince shareholders he is still capable of leading the bank and arguing that acquiring Merrill Lynch was the right thing to do. Lewis remains CEO for now, but many analysts say it's only a matter of time. Here is the take from John Gapper over at the Financial Times:

The omens are not propitious. When Michael Eisner gave up the chairmanship of Walt Disney in 2004 following a 43 per cent vote by shareholders against his re-election to the company board, he insisted he would stay on as chief executive until 2006. In fact, he left the company in 2005.
Ken Thompson of Wachovia did not last that long after the board gave the chairmanship of the bank to Lanty Smith a year ago. As John Carney notes, he departed as chief executive a month later.
Mr Lewis has already floated the idea of stepping down from his post after BofA has repaid the government's capital, invested through the Troubled Assets Relief Programme. But that day seems some way off, given the outcome of the stress test on BofA.
I think that a split between the roles of chairman and chief executive - on the UK model - is a good move, all else being equal. But many US chairmen and chief executives fight it tooth and nail.
That has the ironic result of giving shareholders a clear focal point when they want to deliver a rebuke to a chairman and chief executive - and thus allowing the incumbent's authority to be undermined.
That is the position in which Mr Lewis now finds himself.

categories: Players

12:34 - April 30, 2009

What is this?

Share