Yes and No. Yes, BAC needs a board that looks out for the interest of stockholders, not the interests of management and/or cronies. No, BAC has a succession plan. Every company has one. If the successor is to come from the company itself - fine, then name(s) of candidates are surely pencilled in - at least in the minds of board members and management. If, however, candidates from outside the company are to be considered, then the plan would say "search" - but without names of candidates. That is because the best candidates would be foolish to signal interest in the job - lest it weaken their position where they are now. Further, a search committee's job is near impossible if they must waffle ("well, we may or we may not..."). Top candidates would brush them off immediately. So, a sensible board would have a well defined search process ready to implement - complete with name of chair and specs for most members, and complete with a detailed and well thought out list of attributes that candidates should have, a vision statement by the board, etc. None of this, of course, would be public - it's among the most sensitive business-confidential information a company can have. Therefore, to the outside, such a well prepared company may well appear "unprepared" and its board is "incompetent" - not because that is so, but because it cannot possibly be transparent in this matter. My point is that no self-respecting company would let out enough data for a reporter to conclude whether or not it is well prepared with a succession plan. Anyone who, as this writer did, alleges that BAC specifically is unprepared is, at best, fishing for information. At worst, that reporter fails to understand how corporate boards must, of necessity, operate in confidential matters.