Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
So me and the financial press are using the phrase that China is or may be having a "Lehman moment", but the collective intellect of the fine folks here (the same folks here that believe that the Cts will bring them wealth beyond their imagination) say that we are wrong to use that term. Why does that not surprise me?? lol!
>>Like I said, the magnitude and scale do not compare with the two. <<
I would agree. But we are talking about the term that has become popular known as a "Lehman moment" That term has little to do with being the SAME magnitude and scale as the actual Lehman event. Obviously the term is used outside of a magnitude and scale of Lehman as my links show.
This is very similar to the "Jersey moment". That moment when someone buys shares in a company where it is well known that they are worthless. That person doesn't have to buy 30,000 shares of CTs to have a 'Jersey moment". Only making a stupid worthless trade where all will be lost qualifies.
Over the years I have said that Lehman no longer owned the Lehman name/trademark. And that Barclays now owns. Several here disagreed. Well, Barclays does own it.
https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/ip-lehman-brothers-is-gone-but-not-abandoned.html
>>Treasury yields lower as worries of potential ‘Lehman moment’ for China fuels debt buying <<
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/treasury-yields-lower-as-worries-of-potential-lehman-brothers-moment-for-china-fuels-debt-buying-11632136507
>>‘China’s Lehman Brothers moment’: Evergrande crisis rattles economy<<
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/17/chinas-lehman-brothers-moment-evergrande-crisis-rattles-economy
"I look at the magnitude and scale of what is a Lehman Moment. "
A magnitude of Lehman itself does not define. Scale is relative.
"I look at the magnitude and scale of what is a Lehman Moment. "
A magnitude of Lehman itself does not define. Scale is relative.
Thank you for your definition of a "Lehman moment". You dwell on the post event of bk and the effects. I see a Lehman moment as a canary in the coal mine when it appears that a failure of a large financial may be disruptive to the financial markets. I see a Lehman moment as something that may happen to create a Lehman type event. You apparently see it as moment that has already happened and ignore the canary. In investing you always want to be looking for signs of a trends proactively, than responding to events that already happened.
I saw this news last week and decided to lighten up from lessons learned from Lehman. That moment when Lehman looked like it would fail and prepared. China financials are down 9% in the last 5 days. Citigroup is down 4%. Something to keep an eye on.
The "Lehman moment" does not need to be as bad for the RE company being seen as the canary in the coal mine and causing the markets to roll thinking more MAY happen.
Read up on 'Long Term Capital Management'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
It doesn't take much. Of course your definition of a Lehman moment may be different than mine and if you don't think it is that is fine. I assume you know another RE company in China yesterday fell 87%.
Because China has their own Lehman moment going on right now. And near 13 year Lehman's BK anniversary of September 12, 2008.
>>Are covenants important in the corporate world? Yes
See Neuberger Berman's and LBHI's covenant in item (C) below: <<
So why not post the CTs covenant that control than the unaffiliated Neuberger Berman's?
That document is dated February 2010. Over 11 years ago, and two years prior to Lehman exiting BK. Much has changed since then. Back then there was some speculation that Lehman could pay their debts and have something left over. We all know that is not the case.
>>YES AND DONT BE TOO STUBBORN TO IGNORE THE EXEMPTION TO COD INCOME
<<
Here again you do not understand the law. There is a difference between exemptions and exclusions. You read one line and avoid the rest because it does not suit your narrative. Here is what the IRS says about both;
>>NO ONE exactly knows how this biggest BK ever in the history of mankind will end. <<
Thanks for the reply. That is not correct. The liquidation plan is very clear. A complete liquidation. If you had a business that went bankrupt and was ordered my the court to liquidate, that is exactly what would happen. Does not depend how big the company is. What is in question is if those assets that are being liquidated are enough to pay back your creditors. In Lehman's case they do not have enough assets. That is so obvious. You can try to read things in to the Lehman situation like the NOLs will be fully utilized and say that because the said "expected to be" does not mean they will. If you understand the process and can read a balance sheet you know they will all be used.
And why is my opinion so unreasonable? Looking at the share price the market agrees with me. And with all the time that has gone by certainly if there was a chance for recovery it would have been discovered by financial minds bigger than ours...well maybe not mine.
>>LAST DISTRIBUTION IS ON THE SEVENTH OF OCTOBER.. <<
It is not the last distribution. It is only for those creditors estimated to receive future Distributions totaling less than or equal to $25,000 on account of the aggregate of all of their Claims.
And it is voluntary if they want to participate. The estate is simply trying to reduce the number of small creditors to make the estate less expensive to operate. This also allows those creditors to take their loss and deduct from their taxes. This will generate cancellation of debt income to the estate.
The voluntary final distribution is explained here;
https://dm.epiq11.com/case/lbh/info
>>In the event that all Allowed Claims in LBHI Classes 1 through 11 have been satisfied in full in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code and the Plan<<
That is an event the is obviously has no chance of taking place.
godfather, Use your brain. If the Lehman shares were to see a recovery the shares would have been cheap for the last 10 years! Plenty of time for me to buy if I wanted to buy shares.
Believe it if you want and continue to be a fool that you think my motive is to buy more shares. If think you have superior knowledge that the market has not discovered in the value of the CTs you are in denial.
Sell to Jersey, today!
Good point, GTGP. A seller needs a buyer. If everything I say falls on deaf ears and Jersey and others want to continue to buy, so be it. The recommendation is to find the bigger fool and sell to them.
To your argument my only alternative would be to remain quiet if I don't want my sell recommendation to create a off-setting bagholder. I am not going to remain quiet. The CTs will see no recovery. Sell.
BTW, you argument could play out in reverse for someone that is recommending a buy.
I know probably some of you are selling your shares to Jersey. And, having some anxiety selling for the fear of missing out. I can assure you are taking the correct action in selling. And you really need to while the shares still trade. At the end of this month they go dark. Shares will no longer trade. Then the liquidation will linger for probably a couple more years until every thing of value is gone and the real last distribution is made. Then Jersey, 2good, cotton will be posting that the resurrection of Lehman will happen at anytime, only to see silence. There in NO pathway for the CTs shares to ever see any value. And the lawsuit idea is a joke. Liquidation means exactly that. All will be gone.
At the end of this month my participation will be done. I have tried for years to stop everyone from buying these shares, and if you do own, sell. Hopefully I have saved some some money. Since the CTs will no longer trade further communication on my part is pointless.
Don't be a bagholder. Sell while you can.
The LBHI final distribution and closure you are looking for may not happen for several years. Here is what the trustee said in regards to the 'Voluntary Final Distribution'.
>> LBHI to emerge <<
LBHI has already emerged from bankruptcy. Here again you do not understand the process. LBHI emerged with basically a court order to sell everything and go out of business. That is very clear.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-emerges-to-disappoint-disappear-2012-03-06
'Lehman ‘emerges’ to disappoint, disappear'
"The ‘emerged’ Lehman is nothing but liquidation "
Schwab says they are only accepting closing transactions only.
>>The CTs will still trade but, good luck finding a broker that is willing to trade them.<<
It is not the call of the brokers after I think 9/28. Some brokers are allowing trades now on the OTC market, but after end of September the SEC says they can no longer trade on the OTC or any other retail market. That is why the brokers will not allow trading, and most are limited to just sells now. .
There s talk of a "expert market"
Well, that's $80 lost!
TEll you what. You give me $80.00 and if the CTs see any recovery from the estate or the lawsuit I will give you 10x that back.
>>I will definitely sell if the Fantastic 4 lose all the lawsuits because without the lawsuits, the CTs will get discharged.<<
You haven't been paying attention. After the end of the month you will not be able to BUY or SELL. There will be no market to do so.
>>I suggest you realize no made you Captain Save an Investor.<<
I know. I am a self appointed Save an Investor Captain. Just think of all the money I have saved people! Probably thousands!
And it is now a fact that the Cts will see a zero recovery. There is not much left to be distributed. All the other cases other than LBHI are now closed and no more. Look how much is still owed to senior debt. It is no longer opinion. It is fact.
Hopefully I have saved many from investing in this worthless paper. Obviously you neither needed or took my advice. That is fine. I don't post for the regulars here that would rather attack than debate and discuss, but for those that may be checking in to research buying.
I would suggest you put me on ignore.
It is very clear in the prospectus that you have ownership in a trust. In the prospectus it also states clearly that if trust is not paid interest on the debenture that the trust will not have funds to pay a dividend.
You may say "well what about the guarantee?" The limitations to the guarantee are also well stated. Lehman filling bankruptcy stayed all demands for payment, guaranteed or not. BNYM was stayed from demanding payment. Their only recourse was to file a claim against the estate. That claim would have included the stated subordinate guarantee. BNYM followed the process by law. Keep in kind there are many more debtholders in class 10b other than the CTs. No one has raised an objection because there are no grounds to do so. The prospectus lays out very clearly where the CTs stand as to ranking in a bankruptcy. The creditor's put the CTs in to class 10b. If there was an objection it was suppose to be made by the bar date.
This has been discussed in court with Wu's case.
Gus fortunately soldout at 29 and 30 cents as I recall.
Wise move on his part.
This lawsuit. You do know that any shares bought after August 31st, 2011 would be ineligible if there was any chance of there being a classaction suit. One can not claim damages for shares bought after because it was public knowledge that the CTs would be in class 10b.
And then there is the statute of limitations thing. You only have a limited time to sue after the plaintiff did his wrong doing. Again, the clock would start ticking on 8/31/2011, and the damages would have had to been incurred then or before.
This lawsuit will go nowhere. Ask Rex about that statute of limitations. Ask him about the bar date. Ask him if shares bought in the last 8 years can be part of a classaction suit due to damages claimed before.
Newflow, I think it shameful that something like this is posted with no research that if it is correct, and you should know that it is not. People claim that I post misinformation, but everything I post is is supported by sources, or solid research. You posted an incomplete, undated, unsigned document to indicate this unit (LAMCO) is operational. You have been around long enough, and with plenty of discussion about Lamco you should know better.
The responsible thing to do is ask IHUB to remove.
And you know better. You tried to pull this shenanigan back in 2016.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127021544
'Exclusive: Lehman shelves asset management plan'
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc will not turn its asset management unit into a long-term business after creditors of the bankrupt investment bank objected.
LAMCO, or the Legacy Asset Management Co, instead will continue on its path to liquidate Lehman assets over the next few years to pay back creditors, and no longer will look for a partner to manage the business, Chief Executive Bryan Marsal said.
"Under the current governance, as long as it is in bankruptcy, a LAMCO partnership will not be pursued," said Marsal, who is overseeing the world's biggest bankruptcy.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/exclusive-lehman-shelves-asset-management-plan
>>WITH NEW 30 BILLION PLUS CAPITAL,
50 BILLION EQUITY HOLDERS NOL,
PLUS NOL FROM CREDITORS LOSSES OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED BILLION<<
1. This nonsense is why it is pointless to respond to you.
Why would the creditors that are still owed $130 billion allow LBHI to walk away with such in the first place.
2. If this was true don't you think the CT shares would be selling for more than a nickle.
3. There are no financials supporting such.
I talked myself out of buying more shares in 2011. And sold what I had. It was obvious then that they CTs would see zero recovery. Just had to be able to read a balance sheet.
No brokerage will be selling CTs shares. The ruling comes from the SEC. No brokerage is exempt.
>>The Trust is apparently still active as the CT's exist; in which case I would think that the debentures are still considered to have value. <<
The Trust is not any different than any other bondholder. The bond itself that the CT did hold no longer exists. It has been replaced by a claim against the estate. That is why there are no LBHI bonds trading on the bond market. The claims are transferred instead like you see posted on the dockets. Buy trading CTs you are trading equity in a trust that owns a claim number. Soon they will not trade at all. If there is no ability to trade them on a public market they would be essentially worthless as the price per share would indicate now.
>> or distribute those debentures<<
Do you know what a debenture is? They did not issue "debentures" to the trust. They issue a debenture (singular), or what would be known as a unsecured bond. That bond is in default and now a class 10b claim. How do you distribute that?
The CTs themselves are no longer. The shares you own represent a class 10b claim.
One of the reasons why this bogus lawsuit is stupid. The fate of the Cts has already been adjudicated. BNYM only fiduciary duty was to get a CTs an approved claim against the estate. They did that a decade ago.
LBHI is not trying to purchase debt. They are trying to settle debt to be cancelled.
The CTs are not LBHI equity.
Dammit! Would you guys quit making stuff up!
LBHI is no longer a going concern. The judge even said that in response to Wu. They are a liquidation trust with a trustee responsibility to liquidate all assets.
"Subject to compromise"
For those that don't know, what that means it is all debt on the books that are subject to not being paid in full if there are not enough assets to pay in full from the liquidation of assets.
As of last Quarterly report the liabilities subject to compromise is $130.4 bil. That will roughly be the amount of cancellation of debt.
>>CTs should be paid FV+Dividends due,before former equity receives a penny.<<
Yup, that is how it works. And the LBHI senior unsubordinated debt holders should receive their principle and back interest before the CTs junior subordinated debtholders receives a penny.
Everyone here does not understand that. Even to go as far as wanting to file a bogus lawsuit.
>>TWISTING THE FACTs <<
Give me an example where I twisted the facts.
You posted an excerpt that reports a motion to protect and secure the NOLs. It is obvious that the NOLs have value to the estate to maximize recovery for the creditors. Once the creditors are paid in full, equity may use them. That was written in 2010, before all was known about the potential total value of the assets and the recovery estimated for the creditor which was disclosed in the disclosure statement filed August 31, 2011 (10 years ago tomorrow!) Looking at the most latest balance sheet we can see there will be shortfall of recovery by about $130 bil as I recall.
Did I twist the facts of any of that?
I also posted excepts from the disclosure statement addressing cancellation of debt income. And that it is noted that NOLs will be used to offset that income.
Did I twist anything there?
The last balance sheet as many before state that it is expected that all NOLs will be fully utilized...
Twisting again? Lehman's words not mine. Someone early had an issue with the word "expected" being used instead "will be". Really? Am I twisting by suggesting that all the NOLs will be utilized because Lehman themselves said they expected to do so?
>>POR WAS WRITTEN AND MODIFIED PRIOR TO THAT DATE.. WHATS YOUR PROBLEM?????<<
The disclosure statement was issued on August 31st, 2011. The disclosure statement comes out before the POR.