Linda is biotch...! LOLz JayKay
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.
You said: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78296264
Wow, jshuy posts information that supports my assertion that sub bonds are debt and not part of the 1 share equity which proves you wrong.
Yet you still do not want to admit you are wrong.
Then you post the same information jshusy posted that shows you are wrong and you still don't acknowlege you were incorrect in your assertions.
Do you even read it? The post says that you have been incorrect the whole time.
Full credit to jshuy.
Imo
It is "ok" to admit you were wrong about sub debts being equity. No one will hold it against you. Everyone makes mistakes. After all, we are all human and not infallible.
That is how we learn, from our mistakes...
imo
I thought u were known for typing in all CAPS. eom
Finally, someone who has an understanding of the concept. Imo/eom
4cents: There is no evidence that sub debt is part of the 1 share in trust. Absolutely none. It is for equity.
It even states in the Plan that only equity is in the 1 share, and I believe, it specifically states which issues as well in that 1 share.
Remember, people only want to hear good things about their investments.
One day, they will be objective or the 3 years will end and we will find out the out come.
When you see someone only trying to see the only things about their investment and disregard the bad things, then you know they have too much invested and lost all rationality.
imo
Thanks for being objective and noticing the difference. imo/eom
This has no bearing within the context of bankruptcy, only outside. CT are considered debt as evidenced in the POR. CT only filed a Creditor claim. Nothing to do with equity in the holding company.
We all have our opinions just like you have yours.
imo
the ownership in lehman is the same because there is a no change of ownership in effect. You can't take advantage re-allocation from lower creditors to higher creditor or tax attributes until you are done liquidating.
In other BKs, provided there is a viable business, a new entity emerges with new shares trading owned by debt holder, old equity or a combination thereof. These holders can see the new securities in their stock accounts. They can buy more, sell or trade on the pink/otcbb/NYSE/NAsdaq, etc. These new holders are also getting interst/dividends, etc. depending on what security type they have.
Lehman:
In Lehman, same holders, same entity, same debt, same everything = liquidation. The holders see the same security with the same "Q" at the end of their security trading in the greys (or their shares are lock up). Lehman = no divies, no interst payments, just recovery payments.
There is a big difference here.
imo
Have you noticed that all the other BKs, there was a reorganized entity that emerged from BK?
Lehman is the same entity with the same debt. What does that tell you?
Liquidation labeled as re-organization.
imo
here is where we have different interpretations again:
Once it is BK, then it will always be in bk (until discharged/liquidated), as far as Lehman goes.
imo
I see where you are getting at:
You: CT is hybrid of equity and debt. (In Bk and outside of Bk)
Me: Considered Debt. (BK only)
I agree that CT is hybrid equity/debt in its structure (OUTSIDE of BK).
Here is where we disagree:
On this board, it should only be in the context of bk, as nothing outside of BK should apply.
In bk, CT are considered debt, not equity.
In bk, when people refer to change in ownership re: 5%, they refer to holding company, not CT.
CT is a claimant in BK. There is never any mention of equity. CT filed as a creditor = debt, not equity.
If CT was considered equity, it would have filed another type of claim, other than debt, which they didn't.
As for LD, Lehman telling him CT are hybrid, I do not doubt that, however, you have to remember, when a person asks someone a question, the other person will just answer it. Each person does not know what context the other person is asking the question as to how it relates to them in their mind.
If LD posed the question to the Lehman girl as it relates to bk, if she was authorized to (and if she was from the legal dept), she would have told it him that hybrid factor has no consequence in bk.
By LD just asking if Cts are hybrids, then you get a straight answer.
In my mind, everything I speak about is in the context of BK, because that is the only thing that applies since that is where, in this case, Lehman is.
Can't type anymore, I have to get back to work.
imo
I said:
... because when someone refers to equity and change of ownership of (approx) 5% rule, they refer to equity in the holding company, NOT CTs., hence the lock up of equity in the holding company in to 1 share.
Lock up = no change in ownership.
CTs has nothing to do with that 1 share because they are considered debt, not equity.
If CTs were considered equity, then they would have been locked up to.
imo
Holy... did you see all that was dumped? (However, someone did buy..., but...)
Also interesting to note, the amount of MMs in this now. Never noticed it before... also... the volume... so far 1.5 million, a lot more than usual.
imo
Massive dilution: This sucker is going to tank tomorrow. imo/eom
Not linked to any Cts. eom
Slim to none. imo/eom
The fact of the matter is that Susman and crew was "Outwited, outplayed, outlasted" by team Rosen. (survivor's motto)
Rosen was playing in home field while Susman was in unfamiliar territory.
Susman = GM mechanic trying to work on a Mercedes Benz.
I wouldn't want a GM mechanic to touch my car.
Just like you wouldn't go to a dentist for stock advice.
imo
I can't get into further than that. eom
I was, however, I was "asked" not to post. Notice that they disappeared? (There was a reason why they left). Can't get into further than that. eom
Ya, I know, Fremont. eom
The only thing i can tell you is:
1. if you understand the way that it is structured, then you know they are debt.
2. if you have been in any other bankruptcy, then you know it is debt.
I do not know what else to tell you.
I like to play BKs and playing BKs will gain you experience.
It just depends on who you believe and if you can be OBJECTIVE.
As for enterpise, he states "no chance" (as confimed by your fellow poster: Guster) for Lehman other than filing a claim for D&O insurance/settlement. (Not saying that filing a claim will even get you anything, just that it is a better chance.)
imo
...because they are NOT hybrid equity/debt (change of ownership does NOT apply)... and
EQUITY: you NEED NO OWNERSHIP change of EQUITY for 3 years to retain tax attributes. Hence you have Lehman lock up equity for 3 years. Coincidence? Nope, there is a reason. It is on the POR.
CT/Subordaintes: you NEED CT/Subs because it give seniors MORE money if they keep CT/Subs alive until there is NO MORE DISTRIBUTABLE assets/cash. WITHOUT CT/Subs, the seniors do NOT get an extra payment.
Once all of Lehman is liquidated, CT/Subs has served its purpose i.e. REALLOCATION of lower creditor distribution to HIGHER creditors, then senior claim DEFICIENCIES are Discharged as well as anyone lower in the food chain.
Lehman's POR is setup that way for a reason, i.e. Seniors HAVE to be paid In FULL before a junior creditor gets a trickle.
People as posting what in the POR but mis-interpreting it.
Ask
imo
I will give you a hint:
CT/Subordinates are only needed for the enforcement of the reallocation clause to senior creditors.
Re: NOLs, you do not need CT/subordinates to retain NOLs/carry forwards/tax attributes. WHY? because there is a clause where there CAN BE A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP and STILL RETAIN NOL/Tax attributes after 3 years.
Wonder why Lehman asked for 3 year for equity to be tied up as 1 share in a trust? Because after 3 years, every thing from seniors deficiency on down is discharged and they can still retain tax attributes.
Good luck.
imo
guster: FYI, enterprise and I are in agreement on Lehman. Good luck. imo/eom
I have subordinate bonds and everyone knows I could not get out of them, however, they are considered "free bonds" as what you do with shares (trade for free shares).
That being said, I cannot sell my bonds because they are in escrow.
Even though I profited, my mistake was not taking all my profits off the table when I had the chance.
The only thing I am waiting for is the results of my claim on collecting on the D&O insurance (and other pending settlement) for the bonds I hold. 2 others on this board are in the same boat as I am.
BTW: I am not interested in any CT shares.
imo
Knock down debt/liabilities to something manageable and issue new stock. People buy that new stock because it is not burdened with debt/liabilities pre-BK, however, post-BK, there is huge potential for growth/appreciation.
imo
Wayne, now your talkin'... It is not what "we" want to see happen, it is what makes business financial sense.
One has to ask one's self, how can a higher tier creditor get 18 cents on the dollar and forgo possible additional recovery to a lower tier creditor, or gasp, and equity shareholder?
It won't happen.
Put yourself in Lehman's shoes: Would you rather pay "interest" on debt OR if you had the chance to wipe out the debt and start over? What would be smart business sense?
People who continually defer debt will always be in debt. Example: Credit cards concept.
Higher tier creditors will get all recovery until they are paid in FULL because they are entitled to it.
Once someone here becomes OBJECTIVE, the sooner they will realize what I have been saying all along.
For those who have their own businesses, they will understand what I am talking about.
I have been here since the day Lehman filed BK, a lot longer than most (w/ the exception of the very, very few).
imo of course.
I have posted it before and I rather not retype the whole thing.
I am sure someone will figure it out without me having to type it again between now until the end of the 3 years (w/ extensions).
imo
Interesting how you associate "truth" with "negativity". Prime example as to only wanting to hear "good things about their investment/decisions" and dismissing the other side of the coin.
imo
I would say yes, they have 100K @ $0.535 showing on the ASK now, and they were higher when the market opened. So far they have dropped. We will see if DBAB continues to drop. He DBAB continues, I would say WMIH will be back in the .40's next week.
On a side note, there are 2 MMs at BID of .51, 1 at .501 and 1 at .50.
Also, NITE is not playing today (likely because of their computerized trading malfunctioned - heheh).
imo
I am sorry you have poor reading comprehension, but I won't hold it against you since you are a noob, "pal".
There is no equity committee formed. eom
I sure love this. I wished this happened in WAMU, pre-WMIH (or other stock I was in -- haha -- Karma).
WMIH = A few days for the "Q" to be taken off from Distribution date. Lehman = No Hope. imo/eom
Well, I guess this explains the buying pressure today. Penny advertisement. Thanks for posting. imo/eom