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.
74,200th post.
Is this a record?
mojo
As far as I know, RSM has not paid out any funds for this allocation to the UK partnerships.
RSM has the right to withhold this distribution.
The UK judges and partners may re-register in corporate records but RSM is withholding funds.
If anyone has information about what RSM will do next, please post.
If anyone thinks they may know what RSM is going to do, please explain. A RSM news release would be even better.
Thank you.
mojo
I heard someone say a while back, "When you get caught between the moon and NYC, the best that you can do is fall in love."
It's nothing personal, jersey.
But, maybe that helps.
mojo
It's the price action of the algos.
There were two $0.60+ run ups then nothing.
There are a lot of things about the debtholders that I don't know and relationships don't always work the way they're expected.
That is what starts to wake me up early in the morning. I've been polite, or try to be, and the Courts and Lawyers hit me over the head with this thing.
It's a life changer if it happens at a big price.
If I buy more, it won't take so much to do very well even if it's a "hill of beans" to these Trustees who hang out at the FED's Discount Window while pounding client's with collateral calls and besiege them in the Press over common financial practices in the market.
But, what does that matter? Does any of their misrepresentation matter? At all? And, how?
If this ever gets back to $1 to $4 for any extended period of time, many will be hard pressed not to sell.
I know you'd want at least $5 in a new Company: Institutional Grade.
But, right now, the Institutions are saying, "No can do."
Are we the Last Friends of Lehman?
mojo
jersey,
200k - 300k in shares or about $15k - $30k at risk in the market.
Face + Coupons & Penalties would make a fortune for some.
A lot of investors could stand to lose $15k - $30K on an educated bet like this.
A lot may own what they left over from the lots they bought prior to the $0.60 run up a few years back.
For others, it isn't that easy.
Even if they have a few grand around, why put in more if a possible settlement on the CTs & Preferreds could make them a Millionaire?
After almost 9 years, why do they want to re-position now?
If it happens in 2018, what is the stock going to do between now and then?
mojo
Why post share counts?
Jersey?
Wayne?
LD?
Coach?
Cotton?
Dine?
Camaro?
Jim?
Dnello?
How many are board moderators?
How many own bonds?
Mow many are market makers on the exchanges?
How many are licensed brokers representing houses with customers buying shares?
How many have multiple IDs?
mojo
Does anyone have a good idea as to who is "accountable" for Lehman now?
If Lehman is a Debtor-in-Possession it would be the Debtors, no?
So, what are we going to hear on the 17th, from who and why?
mojo
Maybe next week they will present some ideas that will reflect a stabilization of some kind.
For years, they've put this thing on blocks and let their friends strip it clean.
If we can survive a stabilization, we might get re-positioned on the market.
mojo
Bre'r Rabbit,
How can we complain?
They assumed we would object to their plan, gave us no vote and this I-Hub Board to piss in.
mojo
JH,
I checked the link in epiq.
I don't think there is anything to it.
I don't think it's a big deal.
Don't know why ines posted it.
Maybe she thinks epiq should have posted it and is raising the question.
I don't know if epiq thinks its necessary to post all cover sheets that reference other doc filings.
I don't know.
mojo
Really, jh?
It was a cover sheet.
What info would they put in a cover sheet that would be significant without posting the doc?
I doubt they're trying to hide something.
mojo
Is Santa Claus coming to F&F?
What else are they going to do?
Is there an effect on Lehman?
Why?
mojo
Many in the market complained about 40:1.
Other companies are higher but they may not be hoping to get to the discount window of the FED.
So, maybe not that high but something around 30+?
mojo
Is the delay to 2018 because of the Citi re-trial?
Is it because of FNMA/FMC? What would be the sequence of events?
There were over $1T in claim filings for assets of $679B. Ridiculous.
They should be sued for filing false grievances.
If they didn't short the stock on fraudulent theories of REPO facilities all the other banks were using at the time, they were filing false claims.
JPM was covering it's own behind asking for collateral.
And, Citi's derivative re-trial is a waste of time.
How is that allowed to go on?
mojo
Everyone is going to die someday.
Right, Jersey?
I think it would have to be $5 at least.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.
Good luck.
mojo
Thinking about it.
It has to come to a resolution someday.
When is enough, enough?
mojo
I hope you're right, Doc.
If it is the case, they should re-instate the Trust CTs.
mojo
Yep!
Why bring them back for 9 years if they were going to trash them?
Why did Marsal say they were going to have Lehman back on the market within two years if they were going to trash them?
mojo
It looks like LBI has an $8B surplus in the UK the Courts are evaluating.
At the same time, the LBHI parent in the US just filed a complicated RMBS Settlement of $2.4B designating proceeds to institutions that receive 0.00%-0.25% FED funds they denied Lehman.
Yet, they let LBHI trade securities for almost 9 years now without re-establishing the trust with the $55B in NOLs that Marsal said would be done 7 years ago?
What is going on?
mojo
MMs jumped my order for Ls last week.
Haven't cancelled it yet.
It's getting closer, down here in the bone yard.
mojo
In the financials, competitors offer similar services and can easily absorb the asset management responsibilities of the other making consolidation simple really.
The customer suffers in a market place with fewer market participants and quality service providers like Lehman.
Since 2008, even the Government hasn't restructured the industry to offer consumers the credit options as the rich have gotten richer with tighter lending requirements & lower rates and large bank penalties levied as revenues for Obama's Democrat slush funds.
Same with the Lawyers who can take over management responsibilities.
The biggest benefactors of Lehman's demise have to be JPM,
BCS, GS, Blackrock & some others.
The question remains are the debtors willing to take larger write offs or smaller write offs while Lehman is re-positioned and put back on the market with the NOLs in some core business segments.
Until this is announced and done, we're in the shadows.
mojo
You know RSM has this LP IV & V fund disbursement under review, cotton, as per the announcement you are quoting.
The document states the funds have not been distributed from RSM.
Has anyone heard what has been decided by RSM?
mojo
Argus63,
Am I reading this correctly?
Lehman owns Lightfoot Capital that was 58% owned by GE and was in an oil services business.
What about the Lightfoot Offices in Trump Tower, 745 Fifth?
Maybe they're now GSE?
The address for Lightfoot Capital says 1271 6th, like Lehman, according to the 3/12/12 sample contract on LI.
Where is Lehman going with 42%+/- of Lightfoot?
mojo
Who knows what the MMs are doing?
They brought it down to $.02 early this week.
Then, they jumped offers to grab a bunch at $.07.
What are they doing?
mojo
Are you counting the penalties and cumulative payments, Jersey?
Why or why not?
With 6% penalties, after 5 year deferral period, and cumulative payments, I compute $12.35 - $12.04 for CTs.
I'm likely missing something somewhere.
Did you see your former Governor catching foul balls last night?
He's tired of the beach.
mojo
I'd like to think Lehman & Lightfoot/GE are putting together something positive.
It would explain the Shadow Banking activities over the past few years.
mojo
lol
mojo
"cotton don't play?"
mojo
Are you serious cotton?
What can't they say to an outsider and who is an outsider?
LP IV & LP V partnerships have been restored to the Register of Companies by Judge Hart effective 3 February 2017 because the Partnerships may be entitled to assets from LBHI in a "wind up."
LBHI was holding cash ("the funds") which would be paid in May 2017.
LBHI has not paid the funds as was originally anticipated.
LBHI has advised that it may wish to make a claim to some or all of the funds and this is currently under consideration by LBHI.
Please explain.
mojo
Yes, jersey!
I'm trying to get to the end of this thing, too.
There have been many misleading statements.
Furthermore, I continue to hope the NOLs will be an asset to re-incorporate with or provide the incentive for a purchaser to take over the Lehman remains.
Now that the RMBS settlement has mitigated downside risk in the mortgage program we might find the answers to our questions sooner than later.
The decision to invest in the CTs at such a low price is easy mathematically; just add the face value with the cumulative payments and penalties over the years and, when they survive the BK, there isn't a portfolio under management that wouldn't benefit from this type of wealth management creation.
However, the schedule of this process seems to "tread on the turf of all the remaining CT shareholders" and it isn't clear to me why this is, if it is legal or even moral, and it is exhausting.
B. Marsal said it was to be finished within 2 years of the 2008 filing and it isn't.
Barclays said they'd assume billions in retirement accounts, they didn't.
Breach after breach while the assets have been liquidated in a subsidiary Chp 7 and cherry picked for management in "winning" firms that get 0% interest funds from the FED.
The recent LP IV & LP V issues are interesting but how will they be administered?
Where is this going? What are we doing it for? Who needs it?
mojo
cotton,
"Subordinated unsecured to secured" would be a good sign.
I need to read more to understand the point of all your legalese in your posts.
However, I did find this from the new LP IV (200M UK) & V ($500M USD) prospectus:
"3.10 The majority of funds raised by the Partnerships from the issue of the Securities were applied in purchasing subordinated note investments as follows:
3.10.1 LP I, LP II, LP III purchased subordinated notes from LBH.
3.10.2 LP IV and LP V purchased subordinated notes from LBHI."
So, it looks like issues IV & V are for the purchase of unsubordinated LBHI notes.
And, I think half of the $1.2B CTs are unsubordinated, unsecured LBHI bonds that have a valid claim approved by the Courts.
Plus, there is an attractive exchange rate between the British pound & the $USD.
Why didn't they mention the CT issues outright? They might still be trying to accumulate as many shares as they can until it's converted into another ticker.
Still reading. There is a lot to read.
mojo
Cotton,
What response to this did RSM provide you?
Thanks.
mojo
How do I know you other than on this Board?
Can you send me a message at stockmojo9@outlook.com?
I can't message you on IH.
mojo
Don't you get the Magic Wandoo?
mojo
Have you guys ever heard of forensic accounting?
Yes! LIFO, FIFO. Just don't be WIPO!
No matter how good looking I get, there is always a question!
mojo
After I bought WAMU common and it went into the tank, I bought the pink then sold them but never sold my original WAMU common.
LIFO.
What do you think will happen?
mojo
Great post, stox.
My question is "Could JPM re-assign the Trust to an interested party with the deposit?"
After all, JPM was the Trustee or Advisor to Barclays, too, and held $7B in Barclays deposits.
mojo
The Giddy Messages Citi Traders Sent While Lehman Died
by Tiffany Kary
May 19, 2017 2:00 AM PDT
Citi is accused of inflating $2 billion bankruptcy claim
‘This is the time to make a lot of money,’ Citi manager says
As U.S. officials and bank executives scrambled to save the global financial system after Lehman Brothers’s bankruptcy in the fall of 2008, Citigroup Inc. traders were doing what traders always try to do.
"Ringing the register, homey,” Thomas Giardi, a trader in the bank’s credit derivatives trading unit, said in a chat message at 6:40 a.m. on Sept. 17, two days after Lehman’s bankruptcy. Subject line: "YOU MAKING $$$."
His gleeful boast -- along with at least a dozen from others -- came as Citigroup’s top traders were furiously trying to deal with thousands of derivatives terminated by Lehman’s collapse. Contained in chat messages and recordings from that turbulent September week, the exchanges are the most colorful, if not potentially damaging, evidence so far in a civil trial on allegations that Citigroup inflated its $2 billion bankruptcy claim related to those derivatives.
At the time of the bankruptcy, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Citigroup had entered into more than 30,000 derivatives trades tied to an estimated $1.18 trillion of wagers on everything from interest rates to corporate and sovereign debt. Lehman’s bankruptcy gave New York-based Citigroup the right to determine its damages.
Make Money
At stake in the trial, which began in April in U.S. bankruptcy court, is whether Citigroup has to return any of the $2 billion to unsecured Lehman creditors. Those creditors allege that the messages help show how the bank profited from the very financial instruments that regulators worried would take down other banks.
“Throughout this matter?, Citi has always acted appropriately,” the bank said in a statement. “Citi will continue to vigorously pursue its right to recover the substantial damages it is owed as a result of Lehman’s breach of contract.”
Giardi didn’t return messages seeking a comment.
Lehman lawyers argue that heightened volatility in that period meant bigger profits for Citigroup.
“This is the time to make a lot of money,” Carey Lathrop, head of Citigroup’s credit division, said in a Sept. 17, 2008, recording, according to Lehman’s exhibits. “There are a lot less competitors... and there’s a lot of bid/offer spread. And people have to do things.”
$300 Million Risk
Two days after Lathrop’s recording, a trader would exult in what Lehman said was the hedging of much of the $300 million of risk in Venezuela’s sovereign debt.
"Ho! Forty bucks!" David Rosa, head of Asia/Pacific emerging markets, said in a Sept. 19 phone call. He was referring, Lehman lawyers said, to $40 million in profits a trader had made.
“Four-zero, yeah,” replied Marc Pagano, head of emerging-markets credit trading.
“Holy smokes,” Rosa said.
Citigroup said in court papers that there was actually a $30 million loss, and that the emerging-markets credit group had mounting losses after Lehman filed.
In another example of how well Lehman said Citigroup traders were faring in the turmoil, Pagano was recorded as saying: “It’s like ‘Brewster’s Millions,’ every time you try to spend money you make more.” In that 1985 movie, a man struggles to spend $30 million in 30 days in order to inherit $300 million.
Lathrop, Rosa and Pagano, the only trader to be recorded, didn’t return messages seeking comment and Citigroup declined to comment on their behalf.
Hedging Techniques
Lehman also offered exchanges it said show that Citigroup, despite its protestations in court, was able to easily replace its risk using broad hedging techniques, known as macro hedging. It contends that Citigroup then inflated its claim by acting as if it had actually closed out each derivative contract individually and adding phantom fees.
Lehman lawyers say Citigroup picked prices to its advantage by using, for example, the bid or offer side of a trade rather than the midpoint. They cited a message by Pagano on Sept. 22 that Lehman said shows Citigroup’s inflated pricing strategy.
"if we were to reprice individual deal bid/offer rather than net risk bid/offer it might have a large impact on all of our mtm result in that Leh would owe us more money." MTM refers to mark to market.
Citigroup’s methodology followed the so-called master agreements, governed by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, that call for using “commercially reasonable procedures” to close trades, the bank said in court. Nothing requires picking a midpoint price to come up with a close-out cost, Citigroup lawyers said.
London Whale
Even after the hedging the bank was still sitting on substantial risk, Citigroup said at the trial, referring to that as “leaky bucket syndrome.” In court papers, it argued that the broad hedging techniques had major pitfalls, as demonstrated by JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s “London Whale” episode in 2012, when the bank lost more than $6 billion.
Indeed, by December, market sentiment had turned on the Venezuela debt, prompting Pagano to write in an email: “we are getting crushed in the LEH management book by $10mm...”
Darrell Duffie, an economics professor at Stanford University’s business school who specializes in derivatives hedging, said the dispute illustrates a problem that remains in trillions of dollars of derivatives today: The ISDA agreements allow parties broad leeway in how they set claims, he said, giving banks an incentive to overstate the damage.
Citigroup traders had worries, too, that week.
“It’s the end of the world as we know it,” Lathrop said in an 8:21 a.m. phone call on Sept. 16, presented by Lehman.
“I know,” Pagano replied. “F*cking AIG.”
American International Group Inc. was bailed out that day by the government, and Citigroup would go on to borrow as much as $99.5 billion under government assistance programs as of Jan. 2009.
linda1,
Are you saying Senior Unsecured Creditors will receive shares of the new issue and not equity holders?
mojo
So, this is a problem?
"While attempting to purchase assets from the failed Lehman Brothers, Barclays made a massive error that could have only resulted from someone not fully understanding how Excel works. The company had sent Lehman Brothers a spreadsheet of all the assets they wanted, but an employee looking to delete the assets the company did not want to purchase failed to understand the difference between deleting and hiding a row. As a result, when the company exported the spreadsheet as a PDF, all the hidden rows were included and sent off to Lehman Brothers for purchase. Barclays bought 179 extra assets thanks to the mistake."
Link: http://www.accountingweb.com/community/blogs/jowyang/how-to-avoid-the-worst-spreadsheet-blunders
You can run but you can't hide.
mojo