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.
I prefer ALIN-A and B over the E series. A and B series are fixed rate. The E series is fixed to floating.
Thinly traded. Use limit orders.
CSIQ covered call. Bot at 28.03. Sold the April 30's for 2.01
Solar is hot today with ENPH stellar earnings.
FBRT - Bought more at 13.16. Reports on February 23rd. I have a full position on this issue at 5% of portfolio.
4th largest Commercial Mortgage Reit as I recall. Currently yields 10.79. This one is flying under the radar. Merged with CMO in the fall. Not much coverage since. Earnings report will go far in explaining the combined current book value. I feel pretty safe with this one.
Bot ALIN-A and ALIN-B preferreds. Special situation and risky. Divindends suspended. This may take several years to pay out. In the mean time dividends accrue. Note due in 2023. A bit iffy that ALIN defaults. ALIN is now privately held. ALIN is now owned by Brookfield Business partners.
Looks like a good earnings report. So, backing out the non-cash impairment charge of $116.4mil they would have had net income of $28.5 mil? 9% net profit adjusted? Is that correct? Preferred payment runs about $8mil per quarter. I understand they need consent from secured PIK notes lender to pay out a dividend. Dividends accumulate.
July 21 presentation looks interesting.
https://cms.alterainfra.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Q2-21-ER-Presentation.pdf
I am very much intrigued by a buy here. Bought A's and B's with average cost of $3.56 and $4.02 on the B's. Now less than 1% of port as I still evaluate and digest the risk. Usually a PIK loan would have me thinking BK filing and a bondholder trying to steal the company. But with ALIN being privately held by Brookfield Business Partners et al., and from what I understand the PIK note is also held by same, I don't see much benefit or possibly of ALIN going bk. I assume the ships are collateralized. So, no benefit there. Brookfield certainly did their due diligence before buying. And with adjusted EBITDA of $165.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2021 it would appear business is not that bad. I know that the big headline loss may be scaring some away, but a good part of that was a non-cash impairment charge. I don't see much benefit for ALIN to defer the dividends on the preferred for a lengthy time as the divy accumulates. I see the preferred owners and BBP somewhat aligned in the future of ALIN. I am a patient investor. I accept the 1% risk and prepared to wait this one out for years. If they were to defer the B's for years and then settle up, and they returned to par, that would be a 70% annualized return - 750% total return approx.
Saw this headline today. "Six North Sea #oil and #gas fields are set to be given the green light this year, The Telegraph" I believe AFIN has at least about 12 vessels in the North Sea.
Fitch Rating notes of Sept 2021.
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-upgrades-altera-infrastructure-lp-idr-to-ccc-following-exchange-offer-expiration-03-09-2021
Bot PBI-B
Exchange traded debt for PBI yielding 7.2
Shame on you all for making fun of my senior moment!
The Senility Prayer
"God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference."
By tomorrow I will forget all about this. But, I am sure you will remind me.
You are right. Too late to be saved.
But now it is time to put this train wreck behind you and move on to greener pastures. I am here to help you in that transmission. First step is you have to admit you have a problem.
>>There is 480 billion in assets at last check.<<
This is the problem I have always had about this board. You can say anything, no matter how outlandish, but as long as it supports the CTs getting a recovery no one questions it. Often the words are praised!
Me, on the other hand, when I agree with what the original disclosure statement said (The CTs will see zero recovery), and my statement is backed up with the current price per share activity and financial filings I get attacked and ridiculed.
s404, There is not $480 bil in assets. How do you support such nonsense? Your source? Certainly not in the court filings.
>>And still have 480 billion in assets... BY my calculation.<<
I will pray for you.
Just in case you don't understand what took place in court that Cotton is posting about. Lehman filed a letter with the court in response to Wu's motions. Wu responded with a letter. Court came back and said to Lehman that no further response is required by Lehman at this time, and motions from WU have been terminated.
>>Very Interesting, Judge Ronnie Abrams cancelled her previous Order [10] today: <<
She did not. Wu is the "appellant". All this order says and confirms is that Lehman, the APPELLEE, no longer needs to respond to any of the nonsense that Wu produces.
An example that you don't fully understand the CTs that you own. The CTs are just another form of debt. All bankruptcies have debt to be resolved through the bankruptcy process. On top of that the CTs are subordinate to all more senior debt. That means that the CTs do not receive any recovery until all senior debt is paid in full.
If you all would have followed my trades and got out of this one years ago when it was clear that the CTs would never see a recovery you would have made good money. Now you sulk for over a decade and fail to be able to admit that you have been wrong about this investment giving you a healthy return.
Wake up guys! Big market out there and plenty of money to be made.
I tried to help. You can't say you were not warned.
Just think what you guys could do if you put as much effort in to an issue that has a chance of making you money instead of these CTs that obviously for 99.9999999% of investors that follow issues like this see zero recovery.
>>For da CTs, for dose looking to buy in, do you DD. Da devil is rolling full stream ahead to da end games for da financial crisis era plays, ala DA TRIFECTA. Its not for everybody but like fnf, da risk reward is once in a life time......1.23m shares goobers....YES...mark it....Da devil is going for it....and its cheap...why not...DD points to a good play of risk reward......at minimal 2.5 is still a massive gain....good luck to us all..<<
LD is a pump and dumper. That is why he got kicked off of IHUB. Do you really want to be holding 1.23 million shares of CTs right now? Don't answer that. Probably most here still in denial and would.
Facts are if you are winning a debate on the prospects of the CTs you don't fight hard to get your opponents posts removed. And you don't do personal attacks involving the deaths of their loved ones. LD was a pump and dumper and I got in the way of his scam.
>> Quote:The discharge received by a nonindividual debtor in a Chapter 11 case depends on whether the plan confirmed is a plan of reorganization or a plan of liquidation. The discharge received in the confirmation of a plan of reorganization discharges a nonindividual debtor from all scheduled pre-confirmation debts without exception. However, if the plan confirmed is a plan of liquidation and if the debtor does not engage in business after consummation of the plan, a nonindividual debtor does not receive a discharge.<<<
Here again you do not understand what this actually says.
And sorry, I don't have time to educate you.
Read 16.
You tend to read things for what you want it to say, and not what it actually is there.
>>They say there are no funds for 10B under the plan. Pray for after the plan.<<
Unfortunately there is no "after the plan" for Lehman nor the CT holders. The plan calls for ALL assets to be liquidated, and if anything remains it is to be donated. Lehman is no longer. The BK judge said just the same. I don't know why you all hold on to these baseless hopes.
You all are so addicted to this worthless stock play. I see that Swiss appears to want to draw me back in for debate. No time. You guys keep hashing over the same points years after years with no clue what you are talking about. It took me years to convince you all that JPM was no longer the trustee although the information was right in front of you. Nols? Clueless again Now, if they were more readily available you guys would buy more. This is like attending an AA meeting where they serve beer. Crazy that you all still think there is hope for a recovery.
I tried. Talking GUS to get out at 30 cents looks very good now.
Get out and get excited in something else. So many issues to get excited about and time better spent.
The article says nothing about GMO's. In fact, wheat (as in bread you throw out to birds) is not grown from GMO seeds. And GMO seeds are bought specifically for the GMO properties by large farming operations for mass production. The seeds you buy and the plants you grow your own are not GMO.
https://www.fda.gov/media/135274/download
Poor birds. Bread is not good for wild birds (any birds). And your Lucky Charms not good either.
https://armstrongbirdfood.com/why-you-should-never-feed-bread-to-wild-birds/
Complications from Agent Orange (Ischemic Heart Disease) have compromised my heart. Suppose to stay away from meat and stick with more fruit and vegetables.
I am a vegetarian. A good steak dinner sounds tempting, and I will join someone for a trip to a nice restaurant to have one, but I'll end up ordering the bake potato and salad, and take my friend's meat scraps home to my dogs.
Anyway, I can't see any fault in saving 9 baby Opossums found in the pouch of their mother after a deadly car accident. Or a snake seriously cut by a lawnmower. Our goal is to save 10,000 a year, and be a collaborative resource for other rehabbers. Nature is a pretty neat thing. You should try it sometime. What you eat, and what you save have very different value profiles. I mean, would you go out and eat a steak, and the next day eat your dog? Nevermind...I guess one that thinks the CTs are the same as the ECAPs may.
I agree.
Here is a link that does a good job explaining the ECAPs.
https://www.aciclaw.org/news/2019/mid-atlantic-update-in-re-lehman-brothers-holdings-inc/
Nols show up on the balance sheet if it appears a company is projected to have income to use them.
Solyndra's NOLs went to the investors.
LBHI "plan" is to liquidate. A plan to liquidate is in the modified plan. There is no plan to reorganize. It has to be in the plan to be so. The trustees have their orders. None of which say anything about reorganization. Even if the assets sold covered all debt with funds left over for equity the trustees would still be charged with liquidating the estate for the benefit of the shareholders just like where LBIE is now.
The CTs are in class 10B.
ECAPs are not in class 10A. ECAPs are in the LBIE bk in Europe. The ECAPs had a conversion clause to LBHI preferreds. Under the terms of the ECAPS, upon the occurrence of certain trigger events (which included a bankruptcy of LBHI), the general partner of the LPs was required to take all reasonable steps to substitute the ECAPS for preferred stock of LBHI. The substituted preferred stock would be “fully-paid non-cumulative preferred stock (equity) issued directly by LBHI.
If those shares would have been issued they would have been in class 12 as equity shares.
Of course we know the owners to the ECAPs fought this in court and won. They felt they would get a better return with in the LBIE BK framework.
The ECAPs have no bearing on the CTs. Anyone discussing them in relationship to some kind of parity to the CTs is very much misinformed and have not done their homework.
I agree.
I mention Solyndra because you brought it up in defense of your reorganization and liquidation argument. You can't pick out things in Solyndra to suit your argument without looking at the Solyndra Bk in whole.
Solyndra is not even close to being like Lehman to use them as an example of a company that liquidated their operating comany, but reorganized the holding company.
Swiss, That is nuts that you want to define a word chain to defend that LBHI is not a liquidating trust.
The title says modified plan. Then you read what the plan is. The plan says for the trustees to set up a liquidating trust. It says nothing about setting up anything for reorganization. There is no plan to reorganize. That would have to be in the plan. But the plan states very clearly and often that the estate is to be liquidated.
Read Article 10 of the plan. And Article 7.4 and 5.
LBIE would not have any NOLs because any net operating losses would be generated and reflected on the consolidated operating statement of the holding company.
LBIE will not merge with LBHI. No point in doing so. LBIE would just be liquidated if they did to satisfy creditors. LBIE will continue to liquidate for the benefit of their shareholder, LBHI.
Keep in mind that LBHI is a holding company. A holding company that in general had no operating company. LBHI job was to manage LBHI assets and produce investment income. The affiliates are who generally generated all income/losses. LBIE is more like LBI that LBHI.
This is why the judge said Lehman is no longer.
Swiss, Yet again you are not reading what is there. You think that because the word 'reorganization' appears at the top of the page, but no where else in the plan that there is a plan for reorganization. Don't you think they would mention reorganization in the plan? Wouldn't think it would be included in the definitions? That is dumb.
>>BUT if you type in "plan of liquidation" those 3 words do not appear in the page together anywhere<<
Try "liquidating trust". 171 times
"Liquidate" 255 times
How can you read the plan and not see that it is a plan to liquidate the estate. How can it be they say this below that they don't mean everything leaving nothing to be reorganized!
And LBIE fits that definition. They have excess funds to operate.
They are solvent. That doesn't mean they are going back in to business. Many companies decide to wind down certain businesses that that don't meet their objectives. They are still going concerns because although they are liquidating, they are still solvent.
LBHI has been court ordered to liquidate. That includes any ownership of LBIE as well.
Here again you are reading in to this for what YOU want to hear and not what is actually there.
LBIE is only identified as a "going concern" because they are currently solvent. They have no intention of continuing as an ongoing business. Like LBHI, they are liquidating and all proceeds not going to creditors will be returned to the shareholder. That shareholder being LBHI meaning anything they receive from LBIE will be distributed for the benefit of Lehman creditors.
Swiss, Here again you are reading and sharing what looks good but leaving out significant differences between Solyndra and Lehman. The cases are apples and oranges. Solyndra's filing called for a reorganization. Lehman's does not. You are looking for what
is the same, but not concentrating on what is different. What is different lies why Lehman's BK is widely different from Solyndra's.
2good, You are as bad as Swiss when it comes to reading comprehension. I said that Lehman is no longer a publicly traded company. If it is not publicly traded then it is basically privately held. Worse than that. Not only not publicly traded, but private transactions are also not allowed.
You see, Swiss, you still don't know that words mean things, and should be read in context. The judge may have used the term generically for the plan, but he did not say that Lehman was reorganizing. How could read that in context any other way? And read the plan yourself. Not one word referencing reorganization. The plan goes as far as saying if there is anything left after liquidation it is to be donated to charity. Why would the judge say ""There is no Lehman. There is only a plan administrator collecting assets and liquidating claims and sending out distributions for the benefit of creditors." if Lehman was reorganizing?
Don't listen to me or the judge. Read the plan for yourself. Put your thinking cap on.
Lehman as a publicly traded company is no longer. The shares do not trade. The quite period is there to protect shareholders that may trade shares. Lehman is now a "Liquidating Trust." Even the judge said Lehman Brothers is no longer.
Judge Chapman, ":"There is no Lehman. There is only a plan administrator collecting assets and liquidating claims and sending out distributions for the benefit of creditors."
Why do you guys completely ignore that facts and come up with these silly schemes that you think will get you paid. Right here the judge in this case says there is no Lehman. If you don't believe me, why not the judge in the BK case?
BTW, how is the lawsuit going? By now surely you know the name of the lawyer that is filing it.
>>"It was really surprising to me that LBHI did not have any PR issued about the Oct 7th 23rd Distribution."<<
And as to "quite periods." SEC rules as to quite periods apply to publicly traded companies. Lehman is no longer a publicly traded company.
Yes. The ECAPs have a claim against the LBIE estate.
Me saying "LBIE claims were always seen as seeing a near full to full recovery." is not the same as me saying that the LBIE claims will see a full recovery.
That would be like me saying "the CTs fill see a close to zero or zero recovery" and the CTs getting a 2 cents a share recovery and you coming back and saying "you said the CTs would see zero recovery!"
That said, mark my word, the CTs will see zero recovery. Years from now you can share and link this post and say "I should have listened to Joe Stocks! He had no investment in the CTs but yet he came to this board, spending valuable time, to try to stop us from making a bad investment."
Quit paying so much attention to what I said in the past. What I said in the past has nothing to do with what you discover for yourself to prove or disprove the value of your investment. Study that link I sent you. If you understand what it says you will see why the ECAPs would not be a class 10A claim.
If you understood the nature and positioning of the ECAPs you would understand how pointless it is to discuss them in relationship to the CTs. They should have never been brought up on this board as having ant significance.
Got to go. Hosting a fundraising event with 200 people for my non-profit this early evening. Big announcement being made!
Swiss, You don't appear to fully understand the ECAPs.
Here is a good read.
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-lehman-bros-holdings-inc-19
Very strange.
Very easy for anyone to go back and see what the comment was and with what I replied and judge for themselves.
>>Then you said it it was known LBIE would make a full recovery. <<
As I said in 2018, and now, I never said that. This was in relationship with you asking why I did not buy LBIE debt. I explained very clearly that there was more profit potential buying LBHI debt. If I buy LBHI debt at 10 cents on the dollar and sell for 40 cents that is a 300% return on my investment. If I buy LBIE debt selling higher due to the higher expected recovery at 50 cents on the dollar and they see a full recovery that is a 100% gain on my investment.
And also as I said before. I was not familiar with the ECAPs. Not until someone brought them up and they became part of the LBHI BK litigation.
Just because I once specialized in distressed debt doesn't mean I was watching debt traded in other countries. I had my hands full here at that time.
If you read the article you link it says nothing about making "large" money on ECAPs. You do know that ECAPs and LBIE debt are not synonymous, no? ECAPs is just one subordinated financial obligation of LBIE.