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.
Ok...let start the discussion.
the Balance Sheet looks better than I expected (not an accountant). Check my numbers...
Assets..........................................295,975
Mark ups and adjustments per the notes...........8B
(Real Estate 6B and Prin Invest. mark UPS 2B)
Total Adjusted Assets..........................303,975
Liabilities....................................324,969
Deficit before Pref and common..................21B
(Approximate)
It would seem Bonds, Trusts even Preferreds would like this "scrubbed down" balance sheet more. Definately not .18 on the dollar.
I know it is a rough example. Again, the numbers were better than I was expecting.
Thoughts???
Coach T
12/31/08 BALANCE SHEET IS OUT...
Just like Mr. Marsal said it has been "scrubbed down".
Have not gotten to read the notes yet...
Keep the Faith.
Coach T
http://xml.10kwizard.com/filing_raw.php?repo=tenk&ipage=6482296
12/31/08 BALANCE SHEET IS OUT...
Just like Mr. Marsal said it has been "scrubbed down".
Have not gotten to read the notes yet...
Keep the Faith.
Coach T
http://xml.10kwizard.com/filing_raw.php?repo=tenk&ipage=6482296
I agree ZXC. However, if you were on the sell side of the same transaction...you would not get filled at .$23 you would get paid at $.23 less the spread.
Right?
Coach T
Great research on shorting, naked shorting, GS and LEH.
Here is a theory that might explain what was going on.
An examination of the volume of both naked and legitimate shorting of Goldman Sachs in September of 2008 reveals something very interesting: while there was an enormous amount of short selling taking place, there was essentially no naked shorting of Goldman shares. Indeed, short selling accounted for a third of total volume on September 15 and 16, while failed trades accounted for less than 0.07%, suggesting shortable Goldman shares were in abundant supply.
This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the stock loan rebate rate that prevailed for Goldman shares during the period in question: a very reliable indicator of the scarcity of shares available for short sellers to borrow, where a lower rebate rate indicates a more limited supply.
In the case of Goldman, from May through August 29 of 2008, the rebate rate averaged 1.80%. And, between September 1st and the September 19th short selling ban, Goldman’s average rebate rate remained exactly the same: 1.80%.
By way of comparison, the average rebate rates for Lehman Brothers shares over the same periods were 1.18% and 0.16% (bottoming out at -0.25% during Lehman’s last week), respectively.
By contrast, Goldman shares appear to have been easy to borrow right up to and in the midst of its stock price free-fall.
This scenario is consistent with the levels of naked short selling of Lehman and Goldman during the same period: extremely high in the case of Lehman, and almost non-existent in the case of Goldman; furthermore, this suggests that, given abusive naked shorting does not tend to occur until after short sellers have exhausted the supply of borrowable shares, it was legitimate shorting that pushed Goldman’s share price over the edge.
http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/91135/goldman-pillages-goldman-steals-goldman-sachs
New perspective on September of 2008.
Enjoy,
Coach T
Great research on shorting, naked shorting, GS and LEH.
Here is a theory that might explain what was going on.
An examination of the volume of both naked and legitimate shorting of Goldman Sachs in September of 2008 reveals something very interesting: while there was an enormous amount of short selling taking place, there was essentially no naked shorting of Goldman shares. Indeed, short selling accounted for a third of total volume on September 15 and 16, while failed trades accounted for less than 0.07%, suggesting shortable Goldman shares were in abundant supply.
This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the stock loan rebate rate that prevailed for Goldman shares during the period in question: a very reliable indicator of the scarcity of shares available for short sellers to borrow, where a lower rebate rate indicates a more limited supply.
In the case of Goldman, from May through August 29 of 2008, the rebate rate averaged 1.80%. And, between September 1st and the September 19th short selling ban, Goldman’s average rebate rate remained exactly the same: 1.80%.
By way of comparison, the average rebate rates for Lehman Brothers shares over the same periods were 1.18% and 0.16% (bottoming out at -0.25% during Lehman’s last week), respectively.
By contrast, Goldman shares appear to have been easy to borrow right up to and in the midst of its stock price free-fall.
This scenario is consistent with the levels of naked short selling of Lehman and Goldman during the same period: extremely high in the case of Lehman, and almost non-existent in the case of Goldman; furthermore, this suggests that, given abusive naked shorting does not tend to occur until after short sellers have exhausted the supply of borrowable shares, it was legitimate shorting that pushed Goldman’s share price over the edge.
http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/91135/goldman-pillages-goldman-steals-goldman-sachs
New perspective on September of 2008.
Enjoy,
Coach T
Great research on shorting, naked shorting, GS and LEH.
Here is a theory that might explain what was going on.
An examination of the volume of both naked and legitimate shorting of Goldman Sachs in September of 2008 reveals something very interesting: while there was an enormous amount of short selling taking place, there was essentially no naked shorting of Goldman shares. Indeed, short selling accounted for a third of total volume on September 15 and 16, while failed trades accounted for less than 0.07%, suggesting shortable Goldman shares were in abundant supply.
This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the stock loan rebate rate that prevailed for Goldman shares during the period in question: a very reliable indicator of the scarcity of shares available for short sellers to borrow, where a lower rebate rate indicates a more limited supply.
In the case of Goldman, from May through August 29 of 2008, the rebate rate averaged 1.80%. And, between September 1st and the September 19th short selling ban, Goldman’s average rebate rate remained exactly the same: 1.80%.
By way of comparison, the average rebate rates for Lehman Brothers shares over the same periods were 1.18% and 0.16% (bottoming out at -0.25% during Lehman’s last week), respectively.
By contrast, Goldman shares appear to have been easy to borrow right up to and in the midst of its stock price free-fall.
This scenario is consistent with the levels of naked short selling of Lehman and Goldman during the same period: extremely high in the case of Lehman, and almost non-existent in the case of Goldman; furthermore, this suggests that, given abusive naked shorting does not tend to occur until after short sellers have exhausted the supply of borrowable shares, it was legitimate shorting that pushed Goldman’s share price over the edge.
http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/91135/goldman-pillages-goldman-steals-goldman-sachs
New perspective on September of 2008.
Enjoy,
Coach T
ZXC...
Did you ever see the bid go to $.24??
Until it does the MM does not have to "take down" your shares.
Remember, the MM gets paid on the spread for making the market in the stock. The less shares that trade the wider the spread needed in order to have a MM take risk in the stock.
Coach T
It is dated May 2008. It is old news.
Our time is coming though...
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
Here is a little news release from "across the pond". It is from the LBIE administrators and why they have to keep a hush on the amount of information that can be disclosed on Assets/Liabilities and who owes what to whom.
Chicken or the egg??? Somebody, someday is going to have to show some the playing cards. I am interested as to the thoughts of others regarding this. Here is the link from the PWC website from today...
http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/issues/lehmans_statement_of_affairs_170809.html
Coach T
Here is a little news release from "across the pond". It is from the LBIE administrators and why they have to keep a hush on the amount of information that can be disclosed on Assets/Liabilities and who owes what to whom.
Chicken or the egg??? Somebody, someday is going to have to show some the playing cards. I am interested as to the thoughts of others regarding this. Here is the link from the PWC website from today...
http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/issues/lehmans_statement_of_affairs_170809.html
Coach T
Here is a little news release from "across the pond". It is from the LBIE administrators and why they have to keep a hush on the amount of information that can be disclosed on Assets/Liabilities and who owes what to whom.
Chicken or the egg??? Somebody, someday is going to have to show some the playing cards. I am interested as to the thoughts of others regarding this. Here is the link from the PWC website from today...
http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/issues/lehmans_statement_of_affairs_170809.html
Coach T
LEHMAN setting another precedent.
Coach T
Before the common gets paid trust and preferreds should get paid first and more.
That is the current paradox...how can the common be trading higher than the preferreds? I think it is a liquidity factor. The common trades far more actively.
But that is how they moved earlier in the year. Common first then preferreds caught up. If you can move UP the food chain risk lessens...however, leverage is reduced.
My take is that Preferred holders are in it until there is enough information to make a decision on A/L, so they don't care about selling. That is why you see the preferreds move up on heavy volume on the ask side and then the bid gets whacked with 500-1000 shares to hide the accumulation.
Coach T
The Common Stock is trading really well here. Nice consolidation after the recent move up. Tried to give up ground today the way it has in the past but keeps getting bid back up. We will see how the day closes.
If we get thru the May/June highs of $.08 on some volume we could complete one hec of a longer term pattern.
With Paulson taking a stake in the Financials, credit market fundamentals stabilized or now with a wind at our back...feels like the mid-$.20's to upper $.30's is move if breakout comes.
Trust and Preferreds???
Keep the Faith! News Coming mid August! Good or Bad?
Coach T
I just spoke with Holly Dice of A&M about the 12/31/09 Balance Sheet and "Illiquid Assets" valuation update via email.
I asked her if it was still on target for mid August...she said it was. They were working on it now.
Oh Yeah...Keep the Faith!
Coach T
I just spoke with Holly Dice of A&M about the 12/31/09 Balance Sheet and "Illiquid Assets" valuation update via email.
I asked her if it was still on target for mid August...she said it was. They were working on it now.
Oh Yeah...Keep the Faith!
Coach T
I just spoke with Holly Dice of A&M about the 12/31/09 Balance Sheet and "Illiquid Assets" valuation update via email.
I asked her if it was still on target for mid August...she said it was. They were working on it now.
Oh Yeah...Keep the Faith!
Coach T
JUST WAIT UNTIL IT GETS OUT THAT AIG OWES LEHMAN $$$$
https://www.fis.dowjones.com/WebBlogs.aspx?aid=DJFDBR0020090811e58b000dx&ProductIDFromApplication=&r=wsjblog&s=djfdbr
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is asking a bankruptcy judge to force American International Group Inc. to pay it millions of dollars under credit-default swaps it sold to the investment bank, in a dispute that pits two of the firms at the heart of the financial meltdown against each other.
Lehman says AIG is trying to "exploit" the investment bank's bankruptcy case by refusing to pay out, in a bid to delay payments until the market turns around in the insurer's favor. In effect, Lehman says, AIG intends to "enjoy the benefits of the swap agreement, but avoid having to 'pay to play.'"
AIG could have terminated the swaps when Lehman filed for Chapter 11 last September, but hasn't done so because it would be on the hook for $50 million, the investment bank says in a bankruptcy court filing.
At issue is a series of trades between the two firms involving credit-default swaps, which act like insurance on a company's debt. The derivatives contracts were at the center of AIG's near failure last year, just days after Lehman Brothers collapsed into bankruptcy.
Lehman bought credit protection from AIG on debt issued by General Motors Corp., Washington Mutual Inc., the predecessor of the company now known as AbitibiBowater Inc. and Station Casinos Inc., all of which later filed for bankruptcy protection. Lehman also sold credit protection to AIG on the debts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and WaMu.
Firms buy credit-default swaps to hedge against the risk of defaults or downgrades on corporate debt. When a credit event occurs - for example, a default or bankruptcy filing - the protection seller must pay the buyer the face amount of the outstanding debt. In return, the buyer is required to hand over the company's bonds to the protection seller.
However, in the unregulated market for credit-default swaps, the buyer of credit protection doesn't have to actually own the bonds, thereby allowing firms to speculate on the health of companies.
Some U.S. lawmakers, along with the Obama administration, have pledged to impose tougher regulations on so-called naked credit-default swaps, which aren't used to hedge credit risk but are used to bet on the fortunes of companies. Many experts blame the swaps for helping to spread the financial panic in September of last year as AIG tottered and Lehman collapsed.
Indeed, Lehman itself purchased the bonds it was required to deliver to AIG to settle the trades this summer. It says it paid $5 million to buy the bonds to settle the contracts.
But Lehman also says AIG now owes it $9.1 million under the four deals where it bought credit protection from the insurer. The bank has moved to settle eight trades - half as the credit-protection buyer and half as the seller - with AIG, but Lehman says the insurer has refused to make any payments or accept delivery of bonds.
The failed investment bank is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James Peck to compel AIG to pay out the cash it owes under the swaps, to accept delivery of the bonds and to pay it default interest. The bank says that if AIG doesn't pay out, it may sell the bonds on the open market and seek "money damages from AIG in respect to any losses and expenses" as a result of the sale.
A hearing on the dispute is scheduled for Oct. 14 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.
AIG also hasn't respond to Lehman's notice that credit events took place where it bought protection. AIG's decision to "do nothing," Lehman says, means it loses the protection it bought.
AIG spokesperson Lauren Day declined to comment on the dispute.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the U.S. Treasury Department have pumped billions into AIG since its near failure in the days following Lehman's Sept. 15, 2008, bankruptcy filing. The U.S. government, which owns nearly 80% of AIG in the form of preferred shares as a result of the bailout, has committed in total some $170 billion to keep the company running over the past 11 months.
Lehman was the nation's fourth-largest investment bank prior to its bankruptcy filing, which ranks as the largest ever. The investment bank, which had a portfolio of about 900,000 derivative contracts before the filing, is in the process of selling its remaining assets and winding down its business.
REMEMBER...KEEP THE FAITH!
Coach T
JUST WAIT UNTIL IT GETS OUT THAT AIG OWES LEHMAN $$$$
https://www.fis.dowjones.com/WebBlogs.aspx?aid=DJFDBR0020090811e58b000dx&ProductIDFromApplication=&r=wsjblog&s=djfdbr
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is asking a bankruptcy judge to force American International Group Inc. to pay it millions of dollars under credit-default swaps it sold to the investment bank, in a dispute that pits two of the firms at the heart of the financial meltdown against each other.
Lehman says AIG is trying to "exploit" the investment bank's bankruptcy case by refusing to pay out, in a bid to delay payments until the market turns around in the insurer's favor. In effect, Lehman says, AIG intends to "enjoy the benefits of the swap agreement, but avoid having to 'pay to play.'"
AIG could have terminated the swaps when Lehman filed for Chapter 11 last September, but hasn't done so because it would be on the hook for $50 million, the investment bank says in a bankruptcy court filing.
At issue is a series of trades between the two firms involving credit-default swaps, which act like insurance on a company's debt. The derivatives contracts were at the center of AIG's near failure last year, just days after Lehman Brothers collapsed into bankruptcy.
Lehman bought credit protection from AIG on debt issued by General Motors Corp., Washington Mutual Inc., the predecessor of the company now known as AbitibiBowater Inc. and Station Casinos Inc., all of which later filed for bankruptcy protection. Lehman also sold credit protection to AIG on the debts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and WaMu.
Firms buy credit-default swaps to hedge against the risk of defaults or downgrades on corporate debt. When a credit event occurs - for example, a default or bankruptcy filing - the protection seller must pay the buyer the face amount of the outstanding debt. In return, the buyer is required to hand over the company's bonds to the protection seller.
However, in the unregulated market for credit-default swaps, the buyer of credit protection doesn't have to actually own the bonds, thereby allowing firms to speculate on the health of companies.
Some U.S. lawmakers, along with the Obama administration, have pledged to impose tougher regulations on so-called naked credit-default swaps, which aren't used to hedge credit risk but are used to bet on the fortunes of companies. Many experts blame the swaps for helping to spread the financial panic in September of last year as AIG tottered and Lehman collapsed.
Indeed, Lehman itself purchased the bonds it was required to deliver to AIG to settle the trades this summer. It says it paid $5 million to buy the bonds to settle the contracts.
But Lehman also says AIG now owes it $9.1 million under the four deals where it bought credit protection from the insurer. The bank has moved to settle eight trades - half as the credit-protection buyer and half as the seller - with AIG, but Lehman says the insurer has refused to make any payments or accept delivery of bonds.
The failed investment bank is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James Peck to compel AIG to pay out the cash it owes under the swaps, to accept delivery of the bonds and to pay it default interest. The bank says that if AIG doesn't pay out, it may sell the bonds on the open market and seek "money damages from AIG in respect to any losses and expenses" as a result of the sale.
A hearing on the dispute is scheduled for Oct. 14 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.
AIG also hasn't respond to Lehman's notice that credit events took place where it bought protection. AIG's decision to "do nothing," Lehman says, means it loses the protection it bought.
AIG spokesperson Lauren Day declined to comment on the dispute.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the U.S. Treasury Department have pumped billions into AIG since its near failure in the days following Lehman's Sept. 15, 2008, bankruptcy filing. The U.S. government, which owns nearly 80% of AIG in the form of preferred shares as a result of the bailout, has committed in total some $170 billion to keep the company running over the past 11 months.
Lehman was the nation's fourth-largest investment bank prior to its bankruptcy filing, which ranks as the largest ever. The investment bank, which had a portfolio of about 900,000 derivative contracts before the filing, is in the process of selling its remaining assets and winding down its business.
REMEMBER...KEEP THE FAITH!
Coach T
JUST WAIT UNTIL IT GETS OUT THAT AIG OWES LEHMAN $$$$
https://www.fis.dowjones.com/WebBlogs.aspx?aid=DJFDBR0020090811e58b000dx&ProductIDFromApplication=&r=wsjblog&s=djfdbr
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is asking a bankruptcy judge to force American International Group Inc. to pay it millions of dollars under credit-default swaps it sold to the investment bank, in a dispute that pits two of the firms at the heart of the financial meltdown against each other.
Lehman says AIG is trying to "exploit" the investment bank's bankruptcy case by refusing to pay out, in a bid to delay payments until the market turns around in the insurer's favor. In effect, Lehman says, AIG intends to "enjoy the benefits of the swap agreement, but avoid having to 'pay to play.'"
AIG could have terminated the swaps when Lehman filed for Chapter 11 last September, but hasn't done so because it would be on the hook for $50 million, the investment bank says in a bankruptcy court filing.
At issue is a series of trades between the two firms involving credit-default swaps, which act like insurance on a company's debt. The derivatives contracts were at the center of AIG's near failure last year, just days after Lehman Brothers collapsed into bankruptcy.
Lehman bought credit protection from AIG on debt issued by General Motors Corp., Washington Mutual Inc., the predecessor of the company now known as AbitibiBowater Inc. and Station Casinos Inc., all of which later filed for bankruptcy protection. Lehman also sold credit protection to AIG on the debts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and WaMu.
Firms buy credit-default swaps to hedge against the risk of defaults or downgrades on corporate debt. When a credit event occurs - for example, a default or bankruptcy filing - the protection seller must pay the buyer the face amount of the outstanding debt. In return, the buyer is required to hand over the company's bonds to the protection seller.
However, in the unregulated market for credit-default swaps, the buyer of credit protection doesn't have to actually own the bonds, thereby allowing firms to speculate on the health of companies.
Some U.S. lawmakers, along with the Obama administration, have pledged to impose tougher regulations on so-called naked credit-default swaps, which aren't used to hedge credit risk but are used to bet on the fortunes of companies. Many experts blame the swaps for helping to spread the financial panic in September of last year as AIG tottered and Lehman collapsed.
Indeed, Lehman itself purchased the bonds it was required to deliver to AIG to settle the trades this summer. It says it paid $5 million to buy the bonds to settle the contracts.
But Lehman also says AIG now owes it $9.1 million under the four deals where it bought credit protection from the insurer. The bank has moved to settle eight trades - half as the credit-protection buyer and half as the seller - with AIG, but Lehman says the insurer has refused to make any payments or accept delivery of bonds.
The failed investment bank is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James Peck to compel AIG to pay out the cash it owes under the swaps, to accept delivery of the bonds and to pay it default interest. The bank says that if AIG doesn't pay out, it may sell the bonds on the open market and seek "money damages from AIG in respect to any losses and expenses" as a result of the sale.
A hearing on the dispute is scheduled for Oct. 14 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.
AIG also hasn't respond to Lehman's notice that credit events took place where it bought protection. AIG's decision to "do nothing," Lehman says, means it loses the protection it bought.
AIG spokesperson Lauren Day declined to comment on the dispute.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the U.S. Treasury Department have pumped billions into AIG since its near failure in the days following Lehman's Sept. 15, 2008, bankruptcy filing. The U.S. government, which owns nearly 80% of AIG in the form of preferred shares as a result of the bailout, has committed in total some $170 billion to keep the company running over the past 11 months.
Lehman was the nation's fourth-largest investment bank prior to its bankruptcy filing, which ranks as the largest ever. The investment bank, which had a portfolio of about 900,000 derivative contracts before the filing, is in the process of selling its remaining assets and winding down its business.
REMEMBER...KEEP THE FAITH!
Coach T
FYI..total number of claims has risen to 53,807 from 52,620 on 07/29/08.
Of the 1,200 or increase 1,000 approximately are 100K or below.
FYI
Coach T
FYI..total number of claims has risen to 53,807 from 52,620 on 07/29/08.
Of the 1,200 or increase 1,000 approximately are 100K or below.
FYI
Coach T
FYI..total number of claims has risen to 53,807 from 52,620 on 07/29/08.
Of the 1,200 or increase 1,000 approximately are 100K or below.
FYI
Coach T
Even the best of traders cannot profit with a spread as wide as the MM has to keep the D's. Even with the stock going up today if you sold you would get the bid.
Hold the course...the wind is at our backs for the first time in 24 months.
Good news comes out everyday...just the reverse of 2008 when each news story took shares down.
Keep the Faith,
Coach T
www.finra.org
Click on "Investor"
Click on "Bonds"
Click on "Advaanced Bond Search"
Click on "Corporate"
Issuer Name "Lehman"...Page down to "Activity" you will see box titled "traded within last number of days" enter 1.
Higher priced ones $.18-$.20 are Sr. Unsecured.
Lower priced ones are Jr. Subordinated at around $.11-$.125
Enjoy,
Coach T
Holders of the Traditional $50 Preferreds are not IMO trading them. So you can see movement like today due to lack of volume. With only 4M shares outstanding very rarely will you see more than 100K shares trade.
It is not about the price for these $50 shares...it is holding the position. There is not enough liquidity for trading. I am holding my 220K until the end FYI!
Coach T
On the J's...above the previous high of the BK like $.90 on 5M Plus shares. On the Common, above $.40 with 20M shares or more...That would certainly make a nice island bottom.
Make your own decisions...But...Keep the Faith!
Coach T
I saw the first print of $.20 on the bonds today. The market now seems to be .18-.20.
Juniors are trading now between .11-.12 for many of them.
Not huge moves but nice to see the bullish move up in pricing on no news.
Coach T
It would be nice to see a big gap opening one daysoon to the upside...one that could never get filled...to match the one the day BK was filed on monster volume. That would help the right side of the chart look considerably different!
Much like the FRE gap today. Makes today's gap on FRE look like a huge island bottom on the weekly charts.
Coach T
That is one of the big questions, along with how much will LBHI be able to collect from the net receivables from subsidiaries and monies lent to the subsidiaries.
The derivatives are a problem. It would be nice to see more information on settlements and unwindings. I think the next six months will give a much better read on them.
Has anyone seen any court transcripts since before July 15, 2009?
Coach T
I know LEH is in BK...but compare a weekly chart of LEHMQ to the weekly chart of FRE, they are almost identical.
Good luck to all.
No one knows what is around the corner for LEH. However, no one really thinks there is anything left. That leaves room for some upside suprise.
My belief is that they no longer had access to short term commercial paper to fund there liquidity needs and no rescue was coming becuase of the tremandous derviative risk. No one knows to this day what the D risk is. How could anyone have made a decision last Sept. 14, 2008.
Coach T
FRE reproted a PROFIT!!! Up over a dollar in Friday's after hours trading...doesn't need more money from the Gov.
The Pattern is clear...the Perfect Storm is reversing and coming our way!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/citigroup-and-aig-may-remain-busy-in-late-trade-2009-08-07?dist=news
Good Luck
Coach T
FRE reproted a PROFIT!!! Up over a dollar in Friday's after hours trading...doesn't need more money from the Gov.
The Pattern is clear...the Perfect Storm is reversing and coming our way!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/citigroup-and-aig-may-remain-busy-in-late-trade-2009-08-07?dist=news
Good Luck
Coach T
FRE reproted a PROFIT!!! Up over a dollar in Friday's after hours trading...doesn't need more money from the Gov.
The Pattern is clear...the Perfect Storm is reversing and coming our way!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/citigroup-and-aig-may-remain-busy-in-late-trade-2009-08-07?dist=news
Good Luck
Coach T
Joe:
I just do news searches on different subjects that relate to LEH, watch the bonds, trading on Common and Preferreds. The best place to get a feel for what is happening is to make yourself a cocktail and read the court dockets at the LBHI website and also the LBI/SIPA website.
I am in the money business and spent my early career in the investment business. So I can tell by activity that things are getting better.
I think this board has a more sophisticated investor than the Yahoo board. Maybe because I-Hub is just harder to find?
I think there is value in many parts of LEH than people give credit. When we look back, IMO we will be glad the government stayed out of the ownership side.
Bonds are responding well this week. Prices are at the highest since Chapter 11 filings.
Good Luck
Coach T
Hi Joe:
I just responded to you on the Yahoo board.
Great Post!
Coach T
We will look back and say that this day was the last flush to get frustrated weak hands out of the stock. After today the 2M shares that stopped out this morning will be chasing the market to try and get their position back.
You won't be able to buy stock in the size that we could today until you take the price back to .06-.07. However, now we know things in the mortgage market and high yield overall are fundamentally getting better.
MarkUPS are close. Anything above .80-.85 will allow funds posted in the last six months to be released. Talk about liquidity being released into the market.
Keep the Faith.
Coach T
Appears the Lehman Affiliates just completed an August meetingd meeting to continue the international cooperation to enhance estate value and reduce litigation expenses.
Per the Lehman Brothers Hong Kong website...http://www.kpmg.com.cn/en/about/KPMG_news/Lehman_updates/Updates_20090804.html?TopMenuOn=4&LeftMenuOn=5&NoChinese=1
There was also discussion about extending the Bar Date. Maybe some of the J holders did not want to wait anymore and sold positions.
Can't believe anyone would sell now prior to seeing the new balance sheet and illiquid asset numbers due mid August!
Enjoy,
Coach T
Appears the Lehman Affiliates just completed an August meetingd meeting to continue the international cooperation to enhance estate value and reduce litigation expenses.
Per the Lehman Brothers Hong Kong website...http://www.kpmg.com.cn/en/about/KPMG_news/Lehman_updates/Updates_20090804.html?TopMenuOn=4&LeftMenuOn=5&NoChinese=1
There was also discussion about extending the Bar Date. Maybe some of the J holders did not want to wait anymore and sold positions.
Can't believe anyone would sell now prior to seeing the new balance sheet and illiquid asset numbers due mid August!
Enjoy,
Coach T