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.
Wow - I am even more confident about my investment in the CTs (and other prefs) than ever!
Man this is good!
This posting is not meant to offend anyone!
It's not meant to try and bash anyone either!
No personal attack, all on topic! WOW! YEEHAWWWW!!!!
Can't wait to see what the next step is going to be in the Lehman ordeal!
We're all going to be RICH I tell ya!
Just trying to welcome the newbie Viva! We need to be careful what we say after all!
Hey Key!
I hope you do well with this investment!
Just hold on to the shares and you should be ok!
Or you can sell since they are still trade-able!
Either way, best of luck!
Sure hope it works out!
These shares may be worth $35 each!
Or less than that of course!
Crazy to think they could hit big!
Keep them is my advice!
See you at the bank!
I'm not expecting (any longer) that the CTs will get paid as part of the POR. I believe there is a longer-term plan concerning mergers and an ongoing concern for LB, at which point the CTs will be in the money. This bankruptcy has dragged on long enough and IMO the next phase is just around the corner. I believe there are other ways for the CTs to be paid, but the ongoing concern path is the most likely IMO.
No matter who you are (even an alternate Joe), if you are long on the CTs, I hope you do well!
Same sort of scenario today, B/A (.25/.50) posted, time (last transaction?) updates constantly, but volume shows ZERO.
I would have to agree!
United Western Bancorp, Inc. (UWBKQ)
-OTC BB Watchlist
0.0350 0.00(0.00%) 10:38AM EST
Bid: 0.25 x 1000
Ask: 0.50 x 5000
OK - if I believed what you believed, I wouldn't own any CTs either.
I just happen to believe that the outcome of this whole ordeal will be a business where all remaining creditors get a piece of the pie, and OBS sees something at some point as well. That would be a LOT of common and preferreds owners to tick off if they get zilch in the end. Ex-employees are left out at that point too if that happens...
Yes, I now no longer expect the CTs to receive anything as part of a distribution every 6 months.
Can you guarantee that a merger of some sort as an ongoing concern will not take place, at which point the CT holders can receive new shares in that entity. Wouldn't a path like that be in the best interest of ALL creditors?
Can you say 100% without a doubt that scenario won't play out, benefiting at that point all the creditors including the sub-debt tied to the CTs? Maybe you can say it will never happen, but it's a scenario I'm still willing to bet on...
The CTs have rights to payment in full of principle and interest before any common or preferred stockholders receive payments. If OBS sees a penny, CTs would have been paid in full.
You surely wouldn't disagree with that would you?
I remember reading a while ago that the documents posted on the epiq site are not necessarily everything that goes on in the court. It's not always showing a complete picture of what's happening behind the scenes. I guess it would take someone with pacer access to see if something a magnitude (or two) of higher importance has taken place in the last few days, that wasn't posted on the epiq site. Does anyone have pacer access here?
Found it...just over two months ago Cotton posted this:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105391181
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC just started buying CTs last month July 2014. The LBI September 10, 2014 distribution order was approved on July 30, 2014. They are only listed for LEHLQ. I am curious about their plans for LEHLQ. Friday, August 15, 2014, all the Ls were sold at ask .35 until the ask increased to .38. I look forward to their August 2014 numbers.
Quote:Select a different report by entering an issue or MPID: Sort By: Report Date:
Issue Market Participant
Volume Issue/MPID
Jul 2014 Jun 2014 May 2014 Apr 2014 Mar 2014 Feb 2014 Jan 2014 Dec 2013 Nov 2013 Oct 2013 Sep 2013 Aug 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEHLQ - LEHMAN BR CAP TR IV
Page of 1
July 2014 June 2014 Year-to-Date
Volume Rank % Volume Rank % Volume Rank %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Share Volume 165,445
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NITE
Knight Capital Americas LLC 88,934 1 53 107,795 1 67 794,295 1 70
ETRF
G1 Execution Services, LLC. 35,012 2 21 14,817 2 9 59,854 4 5
CDEL
Citadel Securities LLC 17,292 3 10 12,106 3 7 89,414 3 7
JPMS
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC 12,000 4 7 - - - 12,000 7 1
CSTI
CANACCORD GENUITY INC. 9,620 5 5 9,350 4 5 117,658 2 10
STXG
Stockcross Financial Services 2,587 6 1 6,242 6 3 26,091 5 2
I thought I saw somebody post a link within the last month or so, but could be wrong about that. Maybe I was looking at old posts when I saw it.
I like your thinking toogood!
Again, why else would they buy a measly 12K shares???
I do remember seeing the link documenting the fact they bought the 12K shares, but don't have it handy. Can anyone else point me back to it?
Thanks!
Makes perfect sense. Why else would they buy such a small quantity???
That would be my guess...
There may not be a need to see the unsigned version, but it is usually (or always) part of the Motion. It does provide clarity though on what exactly is being requested...
Every motion I've seen on the docket has the proposed order (as an exhibit) that the Motion-er would like the judge to sign. Sometimes the judge will modify it, and then order the modified version.
Toogood - the exhibit is the proposed order, it hasn't been signed by the judge yet. I DO believe it will be signed without any objections though...
I agree, IMO the creditors would be very satisfied to collect new shares based on that $66+B being part of the new venture...
Makes sense....but keep in mind we are not told what the impact of those investments were (positive or negative). That's the column they are hiding from us. IMHO I would guess that would be a way of hiding a lot of $$$, and that lot of $$$ could have turned into lots more $$$. An investment by LBHI into their subs would not be a money loser IMO!
Toogood - what about the $66B investment in the subs? Wouldn't that come back into play at some point? In the balance sheet it is subtracted from the assets correct?
Wow - I guess this finally the end game??? Good luck to us who hold!
Yep - that would be a big miss on my part! Another reason they went from $639B to $258B!
Thanks!
Good question robigus. I don't know right off but can take a look at the DS to see what you're saying. Maybe someone else on the board can answer?
OK - fair enough. Have a good weekend toogood!
It sounds like you are saying the numbers in the BS are the accurate bottom line numbers, what they are leaving out is not going to affect the bottom line, it's just extra information.
What I am thinking is that the information they are leaving out WILL affect the bottom line numbers, just like it would have if they left it out of the smaller debtor's BS.
If you are right we know where we stand. If I am right we don't know where we stand, and it's probably a lot better than we realize...
They (LBHI) also dropped $175B in the Due To Controlled and Uncontrolled Affiliates in that time period. The Due To affiliates row was one that showed a decrease in liabilities for the smaller debtors. Wonder what the impact of dropping $175B would be for LBHI in the same time period???
You can't be sure though can you? For the other much smaller debtors it had a positive effect on the assets while also reducing the liabilities.
Maybe they've made multiple billions in their $64B that's been invested in their subs over the last 4-5 years!
I guess we won't know until they choose to provide the numbers on it...
I agree, I guess the point is that there was a 60% drop in assets prior to the end of 2009. Understanding it must have been because of the sale of the brokerage and Nomura, it seems pretty obvious a substantial portion of their business was gone by the end of 2009. Substantial and "crown jewels" would probably be an acceptable way of describing it.
And what are your thoughts about the "impact of eliminations of intercompany balances and investments in subsidiaries."? Got any numbers to use?
Joe - do you know exactly what the "impact of eliminations of intercompany balances and investments in subsidiaries is" for LBHI?
It's a number they are not reporting, and has a direct, positive effect on the assets and liabilities of the balance sheet, at least for the other debtors.
It's a number that shows the complete picture a little more clearer wouldn't ya think?
Maybe that's why they say things like:
The Balance Sheets:
• are not prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”);
• include certain items that remain under continuing review by the Company and may be accounted for differently in future Balance Sheets.
"The Balance Sheets are not meant to be relied upon as a complete description of the Company, its business, condition (financial or otherwise), results of operations, prospects, assets or liabilities."
"Estimates are based on available information and judgment. Therefore, actual results could differ from estimates and may have a material effect on the Balance Sheets. As more information becomes available to the Company, including the outcome of various negotiations and litigations, the Company may revise estimates accordingly."
On the balance sheets for some of the other Debtors and Debtor-Controlled Entities they ARE showing the impact of the eliminations, and they increase assets and decrease liabilities!
Here is the footnote for those OTHER balance sheets:
(1) Balances reflect the impact of eliminations of (i) intercompany balances only between Debtor-Controlled Entities and (ii) investments in subsidiaries only between Debtor-Controlled Entities. And there is a column titled:
Debtor -
Controlled
Group Elims (1)
Had they shown the same for LBHI, who knows how much it would increase the assets and decrease the liabilities! Probably at least a magnitude higher than the OTHER debtors...
Maybe it's too early to show what's REALLY happening behind the scenes!
Toogood - you're a balance sheet guy, I was wondering why the debtor reported only $258B total assets (inc controlled affiliates) in 12/31/09 when I thought they had $639B in assets when they filed Chapter 11? That's a 60% reduction, which IMO would definitely qualify as "substantial" and a giving up of the crown jewel(s) (LBI Brokerage, Nomura).
Also, do you have any thoughts about the footnote relating to the Debtors Column Total:
(1) Balances for Debtors do not reflect the impact of eliminations of intercompany balances and investments in subsidiaries.
Does that mean the following wouldn't be reflected in the Debtor's totals (Delta between 12/31/09 and 6/30/14)?
- Decrease of $70B Due from Controlled Affiliates
- Decrease of $47B Due from Uncontrolled Affiliates
- Decrease of $115B Due to Controlled Affiliates
- Decrease of $59B Due to Uncontrolled Affiliates
Would the Liabilities Subject to Compromise for the Debtor Total (currently $255B) have been different had footnote(1) not been added, thereby also having an effect on Total Liabilities, etc?
Last question - there was an increase for Investment in Affiliates of $44B between 12/31/09 and 12/31/11 causing a reduction of the assets of the same amount. Did that go poof or do the affiliates still have it?
It still seems like to many unknowns to be 100% certain the money won't flow to class 10, and possibly equity. I understand that's the position you've taken, and maybe in the end you will be right, but I'm still going with a expectation of a brighter outcome.
The balance sheet isn't telling the whole story IMO, and it doesn't even claim to...
The Balance Sheets:
• are not prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”);
.
.
• do not reflect certain off-balance sheet commitments, including, but not limited to, those relating to real estate and private equity partnerships, made by the Company;
.
.
• include certain items that remain under continuing review by the Company and may be accounted for differently in future Balance Sheets.
"Estimates are based on available information and judgment. Therefore, actual results could differ from estimates and may have a material effect on the Balance Sheets. As more information becomes available to the Company, including the outcome of various negotiations and litigations, the Company may revise estimates accordingly."
And where exactly did the over $600B in assets that they started this bankruptcy with go to???
Joe, you have seen the line in the Balance Sheet Basis of Presentation that states:
"The Balance Sheets are not meant to be relied upon as a complete description of the Company, its business, condition (financial or otherwise), results of operations, prospects, assets or liabilities. "
And you also don't how many settlements <$200M have taken place without court approval, which the debtor is very much allowed to negotiate...
So, how do you know for sure how much is left to payoff the higher classes? My guess is you really don't know, do you?
I disagree. The Prospectus wouldn't allow a payment into the trust for our dividends, and then have them go to anyone other than the CT holders. If this happened, LBHI would be paying us directly after that happened. Instead I just see the money flowing directly to the senior classes without passing through our trust first. JMHO of course...
"Lehman Brothers Holdings will irrevocably guarantee that if a payment on the junior subordinated debt securities is made to the trust but, for any reason, the trust does not make the corresponding distribution or redemption payment to the holders of the preferred securities, then Lehman Brothers Holdings will make the payments directly to the holders of the preferred securities."
The same indenture, at least Articles 1-13, is part of the WT claim #10082
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/2377457
It's an image so I can't cut and paste from it, but it's there starting on page 107/139.
Nowhere was I claiming that the Barclays sale should have been at least $83B because WT had a lien of that amount. Instead, I was making a point that because the sale wasn't for $83B, there must be more to it than just Article 8, or for that matter anything else our CTs share with Class 3 as far as indenture agreements.
If the math works for the CTs, then that looks good enough for me!
Have a good day!
Good to know! I sure hope you're right on about!
I first want to thank Barclays for not taking on the CTs in 2008, thereby preventing my investment in said Cockroach Technology. And second to the crafters of the POR, not allowing me (owner in 2011) to vote on it!
Cockroaches need not vote anyway, they are in the business of surviving!
One sticky point for me is that the same text, Article 8, Section 801, (3), is in the Wilmington Trust Indenture for their Class 3 claim word for word.
The WT indenture has Articles 1-13 and our Sub-debt Indenture has the same with Article 14 thrown in dealing with subordination. The BNYM claim 22122 also has the CTs Prospectus of course.
I don't want the only hope for full CT payment to hinge on Article 8 in the Indenture, because we share that same condition with the senior unsecured we are subordinated to.
Cotton, Toogood, and Hestheman, feel free to pick this apart, because I want to be wrong! Although I feel comfortable that CTs will get paid down the road, just not based on Article 8 alone.
What would set our Article 8 apart from theirs, the fact they agreed to the POR and we didn't? Something else perhaps?
The question wouldn't be what does the BBX senior debt prospectus say, it would be what does the LBHI class 3 prospectus say concerning blocking power. In other words, would the WT bond holders have the same blocking power? I'm guessing not. If so, wouldn't the $50-$83B in class 3 been enough to stop the sale to Barclays? That tells me the blocking power wasn't there....
And if I'm not mistaken LBHI owns ALL the equity of the subs too, including LBI of course...