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.
Good timing on EQR & AVB sales.
Prolly...but they can after they bring them current.
They may have to declare default on other corporate matters.
If that is the case, I hope BARs doesn't decide to go another 20 div payments without paying...
If the CTs are not part of the BK, then they are part of the debt Barclays assumed for the Broker-Dealer bringing the amount paid from $250M to $250M + $1.2B = $1.45B.
This would be a wise move for BCS who can then use the CT reaffirmation clause in the prospectus to stand in-line over the rest of the Lehman carcass.
That it for today.
Have a great day all!
Scottrade is a technician. That's all.
They don't tell people what to buy or give advice or interpretation of markets or anything.
They do have online seminars and communities but I haven't done a lot with them.
There is a way to make discussion with Scottrade reps and you have to be very specific.
For example, to understand charts, you can call a Scottrade rep pull up a chart and talk about the settings and changes leading to different results and interpretations and what the similarities and differences are between the two. And, why.
Now whether you call that advice or not, isn't a big deal.
In fact, I would recommend investors work with any financial quarterback in that manner whether they are at Scottrade or not.
Talk about what people are shown on a screen.
Running out of posts for today.
der goober Scottrade doesn't give advice...coca cherry cola goobers...
you see, cotton, that I'm willing to read the legalease the attorneys and Courts are manufacturing to describe situations and events should they happen.
However, these happenings could occur by default or incident and not by agreement or will.
Maybe Barclays has been hurt by their unwillingness to negotiate and define their actions with counterparties and insisting on the "fire-sale and vulture" act.
It only matters if we're moving to close.
By the way, CT Ask prices were up to $.45 to $.65 as of late last week.
So, if you have orders in for below asking, you could be waiting a while to fill.
cotton:
How does BCS get specifically identified as the Successor Obligor especially when their attorneys are in Court arguing to Peck that Barclays bought the Broker-Dealer business in Chp 7 and not the Lehman parent?
mojo
catdaddyrt:
"Barclays has some vulture in them also"
LOL!
That is also my point that companies in BK were wise to be recovering assets or purchasing their own stock issues at deep discounts and could have been doing this for up to 5% of the issue without public notification as per the SEC.
Whether or not they were a debt or equity issue makes no difference.
Biz:
"It appears that the lack of an equity committee may now come back to bite us hard."
What is the difference between an equity committee and the creditors committee?
We have a creditors committee with GS, MET, etc.
I doubt we need both.
I agree, cotton.
But, as edbk46 identifies, all Barclays does is argue in Court that BCS bought a business from Lehman and no debt.
Nomura got something, too.
So, if BCS is the successor what are they obligated to?
The Lehman Estate legacy?
Jim jimminy:
If the CTs trade as debt, they are unsecured debt.
It doesn't matter to me if they trade as debt or equity.
They are trading as an unsecured instrument that is trading for $5B in NOLs a year.
edbk46:
"it will simple state that it bought "business" not liabilities"
This is the "Cherry Picking" problem of Barclays.
They can pay cash, assume debt or both.
But, $250M?
Thats a rip off!
catdaddyrt:
"we can be paid as debt"
Thank God for Face Value.
This is the reason the commons have a big problem for settlement.
catdaddyrt:
"we can be paid as debt"
Thank God for Face Value.
This is the reason the commons have a big problem for settlement.
cotton,
I'm well aware of Barclays involvement and interest in a Lehman acquisition prior to Lehman's 2008 Bankruptcy.
I'm well aware of their delays in closing as well.
The likelihood of an International partner stepping in for Lehman is probably why Lehman didn't get the help from the Fed as a "Too Big To Fail" Bank: If Lehman was to be foreign owned, Lehman wasn't going to get US Federal Treasury assistance or participate at the Discount Window.
So, Barclays was operating to "cherry pick" and not closing on the entire deal and bringing the entire company into the British fold with British resources and under a British mandate.
This delayed results for Lehman US creditors.
What is your point in posting copies of the quotes you identify?
cotton,
I don't have a problem with you converting the Convertible Preferreds with common BCS stock, assuming Barclays is the is the successor.
Your use of the BCS common for CT conversion seems to fail in it's $.25/share divvy after the cumulative portion you computed.
CT divvies are from $1.50 to $1.59 per $25 FV where the $.25 is 1%.
Thanks.
I get you, cotton.
If it is "good faith", why has it taken 5 years to close?
Can Barclays just provide a brief explanation?
In 2008, Barclays was struggling to survive.
Now, they're getting what they want, have the control and everyone is hoping they won't be cheapskates.
Have you seen the commercial on TV?
Mr. Barclay: "I'll never forget the way we bought the Lehman Broker-Dealer for $250M!"
Mrs. Barclay: "And I'll never forget the CTs..."
The guy in the back of the car says, "OK...Can the test drive be over now?"
Right?
If Barclays wants the assets then Barclays needs to pay Lehman creditors, assume the debts and close.
Simple.
Well understood, jshuey.
It has been my point Barclays should quit cherry picking, put their slacks on and close.
Thank you, cotton, but the US Federal regulation is not the Tier 1 regulator for a British Bank except for the extent of their US operations.
Why must Barclays, a British Bank, adhere to US Federal Reserve laws for TRuPS?
Barclays is old hat.
<<Barclays is paying $250m in cash and taking on $72bn in trading assets and $68bn in trading liabilities. They include mortgage assets, equities, corporate debts, government bonds and commercial paper.>>
Barclays coveted assets then didn't want to pay for it. $250m for a state of the art algo computerization system and $4B+ A/L?
Come on!
Yes, Barclays had a $7B deposit at JPM to buy a broker-dealer that JPM confiscated.
This is all coming up again because the Courts are finishing the "Non-Cash" sale.
Barclays should have bought the entire company and streamlined it.
Instead, they want to cherry pick, fire management, label assets as "toxic", blame accounting practices different from the UK, and leave the creditors in limbo or worse.
It's been going on 5 years.
go der goober team!
good for cherry coca cola for der goobers.
mojo
daisy,
I don't believe all holders of each class of share would be able to agree on the principles that could make that determination possible.
So, the "determination" would be more of a speculative "guess" than an eventuality.
Of course, each share owner hopes to see their share class survive.
But, name one bankruptcy where that has been the rule of law.
I think the Bear common was bumped to $10.
It's much better to have the cumulative divvy & nominal value.
What do you want camaro?
A $1/share deal like Bear?
der goobers & der goober mik-lachevsky:
Chp 7 is liquidation.
Chp 11 is re-organization as well as selling assets.
Both need the approval of the Court, of course.
So, why would a bankruptcy attorney file Chp 7 if their intent was to re-organize?
They wouldn't.
Why would a bankruptcy attorney file a Chp 11 with the intent to liquidate?
They wouldn't.
crazy and hazy...but don't be lazy...
der goober hestheman:
<<The emerged successor will then have a "Fresh Start" accounting and "Re-evaluation" that will be applied to the acquired or merged business (AKA the "successor") which includes the entire new corporation including subsidiaries that were not part of the bankruptcy filing) The company will have a newly valued balance sheet with less debt....in essence a leaner, meaner Lehman Brothers (although technically no longer Lehman Brothers Holding).>>
I've been posting a lot of questions on many of the ideas in your thoughts and the tone of the Lehman entity exiting bankruptcy.
Lehman assets were quality, if not, top quality assets. The currency of keeping top quality assets together positively effects valuation.
The currency of keeping managers responsible for accumulating and managing quality assets positively effects valuation.
Further, the write downs of debtors and creditors are decreased and the currency is improved if debtors and creditors have opportunities to participate in the company going forward should there be a significant market opportunity after bankruptcy.
Lastly, the currency or asset valuation is improved if fewer quality assets have to be sold to pay off debtors at deep discounts.
So, how they will decide to do this depends, does it not, on the strategies and market opportunities of the entity exiting bankruptcy and the roles of debtors and creditors in that entity?
I hope we can see some debtors and creditors step up with management and discuss these opportunities soon as opposed to a "stealth lean & mean plan" aimed at rewarding Estate operators and letting loose a hated company with a poor currency and reputation on the Street.
If the Lehman Estate can't do it with about $20B in assets, do we have the right people administering the bankruptcy for Lehman?
Probably not...
der goober mojosteen
mik-lachevsy & devils der gooberman,
You are correct that the Lehman Brothers is a Chp 11 which allows for the re-organization and Lamco legacy as it provides for the selling of assets.
The Lehman Broker-Dealer subsidiary has always been a Chp 7 Liquidation as it was liquidated to be sold to Barclays.
So, this has been a confusing story to read about if not write about for the press.
der goober mojo
Linda who?
Where is she from?
The entire $1.2B CT float could have been bought for $2.4M when they were trading at $.05/share.
What about the Bonds?
What about the Preferreds?
Most all Common doesn't survive BK.
There was a time a few years ago when Lehman Estate announced they were investing in some Lehman activities they felt would increase in market value and remain with the Legacy company.
They could have been making improvements then with the debt & shareholder equity side of the balance sheet in addition to the asset side where they invested equity on foreclosed loans.
I think there are merits in owning creditor asset recovery instruments if possible, especially if there is a Legacy Company.
However, Lehman had a lot of these instruments and may not have always had the cash to buy them and restructure.
der goober mojo
They already have the control to make the decisions that are best for them with or without majority interest in the CTs, Iron!
The benefit of gaining large stakes in the CTs is that Lehman won't have to payout as much in coupon & cumulative payments and will be rewarded if trading the shares should they reach the Big Board once again.
It isn't just Lehman as a legacy company that considers this. After the last drop, AAPL announced plans of a dividend increase and a share buy back making investors tolerate a drop from $700+ and a good investment for the Company.
Thanks, biz...
Who told JPM to develop their capital markets business & derivatives risk?
Why weren't the CDS ratios published & monitored by the larger market and not the relative New York few?
JPM called in loans because JPM needed collateral.
So, the collateral of WAMU & Lehman & Barclays went to re-establish JPM.
And, the Barclays $7B wasn't a loan but CASH in a deposit account to facilitate an acquisition for a US Broker/Dealer!
So, what are you trying to say for Jamie Dimon & Democracy? That they're messy, necessary and it all comes down to a vote?
Lehman was trying to do a deal with BAC, then a S. Korea firm, then Barclays.
While JPM was asking for more collateral from Lehman, they were also confiscating deposits from WAMU ($4B) & Barclays ($7B).
Why was this allowed to be done by JPM and what are the penalties?
Barclays was trying to size up the deal for Lehman and they look for their $7B deposited at JPM and it's gone...
How are they supposed to buy "jack"?
All preferences aside, daisy, it depends what Lehman wants to do and what the Courts decide.
What you are stating omits the fact of the earnestness Lehman could show creditors in reaffirming issues on some level or the "rolling out of the red carpet by the debtors" as cotton has described.
As we've suggested, there could be more "currency" on the Street if the Lehman Estate were to do this and may mean a better reputation for Alvarez.
What is the currency of exiting BK in a legacy with no debt?
How is the Street to interpret that event that Alvarez and the Courts can decide to screw all debtors and creditors and pay all attorneys no matter what assets are at work?