Replies to post #25554 on Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[hestheman]

Add to the speculation of the possibility JPM may hold a position in CT's and represents our guarantee....is a double WOW...Jumping Jupiters...and Baboom!

[camaro4me]

The Barclays purchase of assets/CTs may have been the blip we saw in trading.

[Starnes]

Would it not be more "eye opening" for us as the CT holders to qualify our inquiries about who holds the debt? My understanding is the CT holders own the assets held within the guarantee, whereas Barclays hold the debt associated with its liabilities ( as you point out)......That is broken down further by stating that the hybrid nature of the CTs have an equity component but the bond component is a debt instrument which cannot be dismissed...It seems we are off track these days about the NOLS but if they are still intact, they have to be mentioned as "debt" moving forward..

I may be off, but think it would spur along more conversation to mention debt in equal light as assets...I think our key to recovery is we are a debt instrument, often labelled as unsecure creditors..

[Nelia]

you mean preferred and common aren t included in the barclays equation except CT

[catdaddyrt]

my jaw dropped when BNYM sent me that email saying Barclays is the survivng entity - it took a lot of emails before they let it out - Barclays or Morgan I dont' care just pay us -lol

the CTS were part of the banking assets as we all talked about the federal banking rules - some said Lehmans was not a bank holding facility now - but Barclays is - I sent another email to BNYM asking when they ceased to be our trustee as I did not get the memo -

I remember the case you are talking about and the "roaches" got their way

things are heating up Ladies and Gentlemen - Daisy you are cracking me up - very funny posts - keep it up