Isn't that special?

(The title must be heard in the famous tones of Lily Tomlin...)

According to an editorial in The New York Times, the CEO of Merrill Lynch, John Thain, has 'requested not to receive a bonus at all'. Seems he was 'due' between $5 million and $10 million, but faced with some serious criticism, he's going to decline it.
Rico says damn, that's nice of him...

Merrill has reported almost $12 billion in losses this year. The bank tapped the Federal Reserve for money, took advantage of government debt guarantees to survive, and avoided disaster only by selling itself to Bank of America, which got $25 billion from taxpayers. Up to a fifth of Merrill’s employees could soon lose their jobs. It would take an odd notion of performance to justify a performance bonus in such circumstances.
For a chief executive to seek a bonus after leading his bank to the taxpayer trough is not just unseemly. Performance-related pay was at the core of the meltdown. Top bankers were paid enormous sums for strategies that paid handsomely in the short term but saddled the institutions with piles of incomprehensible securities of dubious value. When the bets went bad, taxpayers had to pick up the tab.
The strategy that brought Merrill down was the work of Mr. Thain’s predecessor, E. Stanley O’Neal, who was forced to resign in October of 2007. Mr. Thain worked to unload toxic assets and raise capital. His sale of Merrill to Bank of America potentially saved it from going down the drain. And he has been handsomely rewarded. He got a $15 million cash bonus when he was hired, and stock and options worth several million more. When Bank of America completes its acquisition of Merrill, he will run most of what used to be Merrill’s businesses.

Rico says this alternative would have been better, but he guesses we'll have to settle for Thain not getting his money...