Individual Investor
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.
Jersey,
I hope the posts are good, but won't be making another shart video post anytime soon.
Thank you very much!
mojo
Oh, bummer!
If you have skin in the game and you're not a 20-something pulling your schwanz at a JPM Transfer desk, try your broker?
mojo
joisie?
Why go looking for a mail delivery from the DTC 30 days before a call date that can be notified and paid within a week?
duhno?
mojo
Good...It is consistant with what they have told me.
Whether or not Scottrade can confirm other market information or data isn't necessarily a problem.
When I have buying power in my account, I can do something.
If I don't have buying power, Scottrade won't benefit from increases in deposits from stocks I could have bought.
So, I think Scottrade would like to get good information to their account holders as soon as possible.
Thanks j dub!
mojo
I hope it works out for you cyb.
Your very own "How to handle a Shart" video.
Link:
Really?
With 470K shares, did you just soil yourself?
Did you "shart"?
How does Fidelity sell shares that are in an escrow?
When the preferreds & common went to escrow, they became untradeable.
jw,
did you ask them why Bloomberg was reporting call dates in their data aggregate that Scottrade didn't show?
did they mention anything regarding the uplisting?
mojo
#17 Most Active Board Today:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/most_read.aspx
Most all the discount brokers are the same.
But, how does a market data aggregator like Bloomberg get the Call Date info but nobody else has it confirmed?
FINRA told me Bloomberg is reporting it, but they (FINRA) haven't been given the announcement.
Thanks stockbum9 & GLTU & Ur's.
If cumulative divideneds are paid, are they paid on the call date of the Face Value?
Or would the divideneds be paid later or earlier?
I posted the call dates from Quantum earlier; they are from the prospetus and only state the issues were callable not called.
It sounds like the mid-September dates are actual call dates and not callable dates or a date after which the securities can be called any time after.
VivaLasVegas,
Before you went slippin', you was sippin'!
Then you went mental! Hah!
As for WAMU, I think there is a strategy that could culminate in the consolidation of many troubled financial institutions and asset recovery.
Linda posts on whether LAMCO is real or active and people have responded.
My point has been there hasn't been notices posted by the Estate that highlight post-BK plans.
So, for people to speculate on this message board or demand answers about LAMCO that haven't been released publicly but use the questions to discourage others or instigate bearish sentiment in the stock, isn't reputable or good business.
I'm hoping Lehman will publish articles soon about their post-BK plans.
One question I would have about WAMU is that the business platform may not be anything that would be valuable to any other part of Lehman's portfolio in Capital markets & real estate.
Have a great afternoon!
mojo
Thank you, ro ro!
I get it now!
I posted the following to cotton:
"What I am certain of, is the CT's are all callable at any time, starting with the K's in 3/15/2008, the L's in 10/31/2008, N's in 1/18/2010 and the HHM's in 4/22/2009 according to Quantum."
It makes sense to me that etrade would state a security is callable as of the date of purchase.
It is interesting about the 9/15/2013 date but inconclusive.
Supposedly we could find out more by 8/15/2013 this week.
mojo
cotton,
Where is it posted there is a call for 9/15/2013?
Thanks.
mojo
Argus,
I think what is most interesting about the regulation (or lack of regulation) is how it could potentially change opionions in the Courts.
Further, I think the asset based is proved to be enviable and one that can highly appreciate in a better market where credit is available.
Thank you.
mojo
cotton,
Do you know where the other call dates are coming from?
For example, is it posted somewhere that 9/15/2013 is a call date for the K's?
Thanks.
mojo
Interesting thread, cotton.
I've read the thread through a number of times.
What I am certain of, is the CT's are all callable at any time, starting with the K's in 3/15/2008, the L's in 10/31/2008, N's in 1/18/2010 and the HHM's in 4/22/2009 according to Quantum.
Whether the administration of calling these shares requires a 30-day notice and whether they can only be called on the coupon distribution day is more research to me.
Where is everyone getting the other call dates?
mojo
Cramer discusses the link between the cancellation in the Uptick Rule during the Bush Administration and naked short selling that decimated companies like Lehman.
Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100765803
A major reason is, Cramer states, that competitors and short sellers can put together huge cases of propaganda to take down companies.
In addition to Einhorn at Greenlight Capital, Dimon at JPM was non-stop with his requests that Fuld at Lehman provide more collateral.
Better total volume - 112,952.
Exactly!
They should pay out the divvies in the order of coupon pay dates.
It looks more like the buyers at $.60 to $.70+ in 2010 now may be adding or selling positions if they haven't sold already.
I'm still hoping for the best.
I didn't buy these 4 years ago with the hope to sell them at $.75!
mik goober:
"...my arrogance"?
Have I been saying the BK was to end within 2 years like Marsal?
Was I demanding collateral for a JPM lending facility then backing out?
Was I getting free money from the tax payers?
Did I lie to FED authorities about absconding deposits from both WAMU and BCS?
No to all of these.
I have been a shareholder and businessman hoping for the best and willing to critique posters making questionable, if not wholly innaccurate, claims.
mojo
mik lachevsky goober -
A post-BK Lehman Legacy Company was the basis for a Chp 11 filing in the first place!
I don't think you, Linda and a number of debtors are accurately portraying or representing what I'm discussing.
Posting to you is like herding cats!
Your interests may be different even if you own some creditor instruments.
My point is you respond tactictly, pursuing tangents of different magnitudes, rather than keeping the best Lehman elements together for the best brand and business position going forward.
In fact, by your postings, it seems you want a liquidation where the Debtors can take all their claims or, worse, take all the marbles and run, as though you Debtors just filled your pockets and had no responsibility in underwriting the Debt & Liabilities Lehman creditors were agreeing to pay you from the beginning.
I disagree that any one Debtor is in the position to do that with Lehman.
mojo
mik lachevsky:
"...so where do you read "most recovery"?"
The schedule of claims provided by the Estate and signed off by the Court plans for the repayment of claims from 9% to 100%.
Many of the claims paid are assumed to go towards principle for settlement.
However, many articles have been written that state claims are to be re-paid in full.
As an individual investor without inside information, I'm not able to say or accurately estimate how much of the remaining debt should be re-structured for CTs to be re-affirmed and re-instated or for a port-BK Lehman entity to emerge.
With my background in M&A and Finance, I can only hypothesize as to what the Estate, Managers and Courts are trying to do with the Claims Subject to Compromise which is $314B+ as of this posting.
Good luck.
What Linda?
LAMCO was a description by Marsal of a post-BK Lehman legacy.
Most likely, the Creditors Committee voted it down because of the compensation to the Creditors but remain focused on paying off the POR.
The CTs may have nothing to do with LAMCO or a post-BK Lehman legacy if it emerges. And, the CTs may have nothing to do with the trust debentures originally securing the CTs.
You are a debtor. I would think you would want to know how you can generate the most recovery and contracts going forward with your claims in Lehman.
You do understand Lehman has filed BK for protection from Debtors like you and your Company?
I would think that you would want to secure the best for your claims with the best Creditors that have remained with Lehman that can keep together the best assets and best business and secure further debtor agreements going forward.
Good luck.
Here, again, is another misunderstanding and misleading post by Linda.
The Lehman US Broker-Dealer was in Chp 7 Liquidation.
The rest of LBHI went into Chp 11 with an instruction for LAMCO re-org.
Why do you state inaccurate and false conclusions?
Your reciting prospectus, DS & POR legalese as written for the debtors.
I look at the CTs as a CREDITOR with the CTs as EQUITY as jwnoble goober has just affirmed.
Debtors, like you, are welcome to post on the Board and misunderstand dealmaking.
But, debtors aren't always owners and advocate as debtors.
If you have a debtor position, fine. So, state.
But, many debtors shouldn't be creditors. Period.
da 1 Linda goober:
"The CTS are worthless alone and their value is each of its corresponding SUB NOTE held in the BNY Mellon Trust."
Really?
You sound like you and your Department are the debtors once again.
And, you don't think like a creditor or owner.
mojo
I thought denial was the river in Egypt not beer...
That is correct, jw goober.
And, because they are callable, does not mean they will be called at that date.
mojo goober
hesthegoober!
Great post!
mojosteen
Ol' cover your butt goober,
Nice bot...BEEP BEEP!!!
LOL!
mojo
Lehman Bros - Cap. Trust VI
16th Most Read Board Today
Link: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/most_read.aspx
da 1 Linda goober,
Legalese is manufactured on this BK in record amounts.
Posting and re-posting copies of Court documents without context doesn't answer questions nor necessarily make deals.
For example, the subordinated debentures may not even be related to the CTs anymore if the CTs were Liability assumed by another Party after the 20 quarter deferral period but remained in the 10-B classification per the Debtors until NOL credits were gleaned.
Consequently, executory agreements and inter-party memos often provide for the true intent of the Estate Administrators intending to do the best for the Estate.
I posted to review topics that you seem to be unfamiliar with because of your point of view.
We all need to sell securities for whatever reasons and some who sell would always like to buy back at a lower price. And, that is not always easy to do.
Good luck to you.
mojo goober
rlinterests goober,
I enjoy this Board and feel it is important to stay polite.
Thank you for your interest.
mojo goober
With $314B+ in Claims Subject to Compromise there is a tremendous amount of claims that can be re-structured.
The focus of the Debtors in the process should be, "How can we recover more money and most of our claims over the long term and what agreements will secure more business with the best currency going forward?"
I believe the Debtors should look to doing the best they can with the best Creditors that remain with Lehman in a growing business plan and better economy worldwide.
I've stated this on the Board but will again for you, who I've never noticed before, rlinterests goober.
mojo goober
Some on the Board have suggested there could be upwards of $10B+ of CMBs that are off-balance sheet.
This means they are still under management but as "synthetics" are not typically listed as assets on the balance sheet but income on the income statement.
Lehman is a high quality IB and I wouldn't underestimate the accounting measures they would take to protect themseves from the Debtors.
If the Creditors and Creditor Committee were assumed to be against the POR by the Court, does it matter what objection is included in 32 pages for the Judge to note?