How should the stunning news from Bank of America's shareholder meeting be interpreted? Ken Lewis was stripped of his chairman title, though he remains CEO and president. There are two ways to look at it: The obvious interpretation is that he was dealt a stinging rebuke for his mismanagement of the bank through the credit crunch, culminating with the Merrill Lynch deal.

To be frank, he's had a tough time putting together a decent storyline: He wanted the deal, then he wanted to back out but was forced to stay in by regulators only to tout the benefits of the deal at the meeting. In this view, Lewis perhaps ought to step down; he can't run the bank when shareholders have such little confidence. The other interpretation: This was something of a technical corporate governance move, fitting a trend in which more boards split the CEO and chairman jobs. In this view, the vote wasn't necessarily a complete vote of no confidence and thus he might be able to survive and manage. What do you think? Should he resign? 

For more:
- here's some background from the New York Times

Related Articles:
Can anti-Ken Lewis forces win?
Ken Lewis's surprise supporter
Will shareholders boot Ken Lewis?
The beginning of the end for Ken Lewis