Talk:Lehman Brothers

Lehman Brothers Death

See main article Bankruptcy section...

With Lehman Bros declaring bankruptcy Sept 15, 2008, it is clear that shortseller David Einhorn and his group succeeded in destroying Lehman Bros.

What may or may not play out next, is the SEC may bring suit or indict v. Einhorn and the group of short sellers of Lehman Bros stock for "market cornering" / market fraud and hopefully, jail them for life for destruction of one of the core assets of the US economy - Lehman Bros who raised capital for some of the US best companies for 150 years.

While short selling is a normal feature of markets and normal investing, it is NOT when it is hyped into "market cornering" which becomes mega fraud, an issue in Lehman Bros demise.

Check with Enforcement at SEC.

In addition, the failure of SEC to do anything at all during short seller attacks on Bear Stearns, then Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and other main Wall Street firms seems a mega failure by the SEC to defend the core of the US economy - the capital raising function - from not only attacks, but from annihilation by short selling investors gone crazy to the point of destroying the USA and its economy.

On review and proof, in proper court venue, I would vote for the death as traitors of such mass short selling attackers, as investing to cause the destruction of a nation's economy is just that, acts of traitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.7.194 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lehman Brothers

---

Should something be said about lehman's slave history and current private prison holdings?

Shouldn't the first sentence be something like: Lehmann Brothers is a ?bank, ?Wall Street investment firm, ?hedge fund, or whatever the hell it actually is? Instead of telling us 15 things that it does? Tell us those in the second sentence. Hayford Peirce 17:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point, done.--Samuel J. Howard 04:02, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

May I recommend a change to the "New Owners" section? It's really not accurate. "New" owners didn't arrive until the Firm sold out in 1984. Before that changes related to acquisitions by the firm, not of the Firm. Kuhn, Loeb was structured as a merger, but Lehman was clearly the dominant partner in that transaction, and I don't think the deal qualifies as "new" owners. Perhaps the pre-1984 information should just be in the general history section and the post-1984 should be in the New Owners section?

I don't like it either. Go ahead and change. Lotsofissues 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we also dissolve the subsidaries section into the lead for cleanliness? Lotsofissues 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm going to put some thought into it. We should probably add a bit of color to the consolidation which was overcoming Wall Street, led to a large degree by Sandy Weil and how that impacted the Firm and its sale.

I like the subsidiaries section, but maybe we should move it to the bottom, more as a reference?

Also, in terms of history, does it make any sense to list the partners of Lehman somewhere?

The Firm was NOT acquired by Abraham & Co., it acquired that Firm.

The subsidaries section would be too short though to warrant a section; I feel it would congest the page. I wish I could join you in research because it is always fun to collaborate but I don't want to invest too much time diving into an obligation. I'm procrastinating finals study right now. Lotsofissues 17:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Good change on the global settlement stuff lots of issues. We should consider revising the entire settlement discussion. It seems to give far too much prominence to a matter, which although not insignificant, does not seem to merit half of the article. This is particularly true when one considers Lehman's "middle of the pack" status as compared to the rest of the participants. --ButtonwoodTree 01:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the opening section, an introduction, following the brief initial sentence, be a short summary of what the firm is at present, e.g. how it is currently structured, existing CEO and its major locations in the world? --Paddymoose 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with the deletion of the section on the Global Research Analyst Settlement, for a number of reasons. First, Lehman has been involved in significant litigation before, yet these actions have not merited inclusion. Second, as I noted above, Lehman was just one of just 10 firms to participate in the settlement. As written, Lehman appears to be the only firm. Although the participation of other firm's could be made clearer, the reality is that there is already another page devoted entirely to the research settlement. Finally, the author of this section acknowledged he went long, and did so only for the benefit of strengthening what had been at that time, an otherwise weak page. ButtonwoodTree 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Quality

On reading the book by Ken Auletta, it is quite clear that while this firm had a fine reputation for its first 130 years at the time of the dispute between Pete Peterson and Lou Glucksman, the partners had weak quality and were mediocre. That remark esp applies to both Pete Peterson, (who comes across as an arrogrant buffoon) and Lou Blucksman (who had great trading street sense) who was also near mad at times. Then trader Richard Fuld emerges after 5-6 years incubating at American Express to lead and even then , the firm treaded water until this writer pointed out to Fuld the pace of market expansion. Only then did Fuld energize this crew of coffee drinkers to grow.

Speaking of poor quality, didn't Lehman Brothers employ the pathologic liar Jeff Beck??? Yes, I seem to recall he was there. Also, what about that nitwit partner James Glanville?, the one who got into a fight with Peterson and left for Lazard in the 1970's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.186 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of the corporate directory

This material is unencyclopedic and does not inform the reader about the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a directory and not a collection of unrelated facts. Any employee of outstanding notability and relevance to the history of the company should be included in the text of the article. All others should be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. See WP:ENC and related links. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Agree, Lehman Brothers is no different from any other corporate entity (for e.g GE, IBM ) as far as its wiki article is concerned. It is in the best interest, readability, consistency, I suggest we remove the notable employee para. Peace. --Smet (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Subprime mortgage sell-off

There must be a typo here: "Lehman reported losses of $2.8 billion and was forced to sell off $147 billion in assets". If they had $147 billion in assets, they wouldn't be in such a pickle. Should it be Million instead of Billion? 12.193.27.158 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nice catch. That must have been a typo and I've corrected it to confrom to the source. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 YTD losses

"In 2008 alone, Lehman stock lost 73% of its value as the credit market continued to tighten.[28]"

year is far from over.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's true, but the manual of style discouraged the use modifiers like "so far" or "thus far in 2008" etc. I'll correct it to read from the source, which cites second quarter data. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

language distinction needed between early existence as partnership to later (and longer) life as corporation

i've made many minor (to me any way) emendments to article already today. don't have strength to tackle nuances of partnership years (with "the partnership" vs. "the company" and "they" vs. "its") against the later years as a corporation (with "the firm" or "the company" and all possessives to "its."). perhaps after a refreshing cuppa. article still somewhat reads like a brochure written by firm. --68.173.2.68 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews article

Hi. There an article over at wikinews that could always use more input and updates on the rescue. The article is at n:Work on Lehman Brothers’ rescue to continue over weekend. --Patrick (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

too quick to throw article into "past" tense

the company has announced it "intends" to file for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proctection. Even after it files, a company continues to exist (albeit in a different form) until a liquidation or some other sort of demise by the court (or otherwise). i think it unwise to jump the gun and put article in past tense. i'm not making any more changes because i don't care to get into an editing war; it's much too late at night.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

i see that "cumulus clouds" correctly (in my opinion) reset article's lead to present tense. however, i think you missed one "was" (at "active"...although it may cease being active in some areas (e.g., new business), the press release indicates that investment mangagement (neuberger) and such will remain active.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

footnote reorder?

i suspect (although i confess i did not study them carefully) that footnotes 1 and 43 are to the same source. thus, renumbering is needed. i'm clearly not experienced on footnote confirming.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

external links - "citigroup's ancestor companies 1812-2000"

been stumbling past this all day and wondering why it's on the lehman page. while it's a quite interesting chart (albeit impossible to digest...short of printing and taping together), i don't grasp relevance to lehman. i may have missed something in lehman's article, but i don't recall any (or much) mention of citigroup (or citibank or its even older moniker, First National City). conclusion: can someone enlighten me why the link is on lehman's page? --68.173.2.68 (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• No. Well, I think it's a holdover from ButtonwoodTree's POV promotion of Lehman's corporate history, but I still don't get why it would be there. Anyway I've removed it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks. i thought i was just getting too bug-eyed to comprehend relevance.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

article states nytimes reported (on 9/14) that firm will file - i suspect the article has a 9/15 dateline

i can't easily access nytimes articles, but from reading the international herald tribune's version i suspect the times reporatage of lehman's intention to file was datelined 9/15.

suggest, something is out of whack and i don't mess with footnotes.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

lehman slogan

i see that there was a reversion of vandalism to the company's slogan. however, in the article info box i see no slogan. i only see it as a category in the edit mode. is a slogan generally included in an infobox but left out on purpose in this case? or was it tinkered way back (in good faith perhaps) such that it doesn't show by mistake? i'm not too savvy on the protocol on the info boxes. hope someone can educate me.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection

This page has been vandalized after the bankruptcy news came out. Please protect this article in the meantime. Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would second that request. But only for low-level protection (is that "semi-protection" in wikipedia parlance?). Aside from the blatant vandalism ("RIP" and "Lehman is toast" type entries, many editors (some probably in good faith) insist on flipping present tenses to past tense). Lehman has announced its intention to file for chapter 11 protection (and that filing may perhaps, have happened earlier today nyc time). However, the company remains in existence until it winds through the full bankruptcy process. Also, its subsidiaries continue to operate.

All these changes create unneccessary reversions to conform to reality. Yes, the company by well be "toast" (or some stronger language in the vernacular) but it remains an "is."

Also, since this is a very fluid topic, many other changes are being made, some of which would seem to deserve some concensus on the discussion page...said discussion page being virutally snoring).

--68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I second the request. One question, though--is it absolutely certain that the firm will cease to exist when Chapter 11 is over, or should those sentences be worded in a less definitive manner (e.g., "The company will remain in business at least through . . .")? Samer (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for even semi-protection of this article. Yes, there have been some vandals inserting inappropriate comments, however, the number has been low and should be easily dealt with by the many vigilant editors who are presently watching and editing this article. On the basis of normal threshhold for protecting an article I will request that this article gets fully unprotected. Should the vandalism become more persistent, this should rather be considered in the light of that. As for ill-judged good faith edits, protection is absolutely not a tool to be used in dealing with that issue. __meco (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lehman Brothers

You forgot to mention that it was Lehman Brothers who loaned money to the plantation owners to buy West African slaves. That company profited from the misery by loaning money and insuring the slaving ships and the human cargo that it carried. They also accepted payments for the purchase of African slaves. So whe you tell the histroy of a company please tell the truth even if it is embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.125.28 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When a reference for this can be provided I'm sure an editor will add this information. __meco (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

It was the news in the UK that Lehman Brothers had gone into administration that prompted me to check Wikipedia for the correct pronunciation of "Lehman". Most BBC newscasters are saying something like "Leeman" which agrees with the current Wikipedia entry, whereas some industry experts interviewed say it as if it was spelled "Layman". Certainly, the latter pronounciation was the one I've always used (having known people who worked there in the past.

Amy (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Canada, and have never heard it pronounced anything other than "Layman". From the little German I have learned, Lehman (originally Lehmann) is pronounced basically as "Layman" ("Lay-mahn"). M.Nelson (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I interviewed at Lehman in London and have friends who worked there. They all pronounced it 'Leeman'. 78.32.228.17 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

request(s) for edit(s)

1. non agreement between footnote #1 and the text. footnote is Lehman announce it WILL file/text in intro has it a fait accompli. suggest different footnote.

2. believe footnote ordering remains in needs of hard look for cleanup.

3. bankruptcy section; paragraph 2, sentence 1. delink "chapter 11"...already linked in intro.

4. bankruptcy section; paragraph 1, sentence 6. i continue to question date that nytimes reported "to file." lehman released press announcement early hours 9/15. how could nytimes be reporting on 9/14. believe dateline of times article to be 9/15. check source of footnote.

5. bankruptcy section; final paragraph. switch "UK" to "U.K." or "United Kingdom" and if, not linked earlier in article (don't think so), please link here.

6. bankruptcy section; paragraph 2. "were shown leaving the Lehman Brothers building in Times Square, New York." a. lehman's offices are a bit up from "times square"...being even above "duffy square." perhaps ", in the Times Square area in New York City," (with "Times Square" linked). clearly can't read "Times Square, New York."

thanks.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

crisis hit? puhleeze!

I've removed the words "crisis hit" from the first sentence in describing the company. The words were being used as a collective adjective, and just didn't sound right at all. Plus, I think it might violate WP:NPOV. It's not like people don't get that the company has bankruptcy issues and a "crisis" by reading the first paragraph anyway,... Dr. Cash (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

archstone-smith trust

It is the reason for the trouble "The acquisition of Archstone-Smith Trust by Tishman Speyer and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was completed on Oct. 5, 2007. Payouts of $60.75 per share." That was 22 Billion Dollar. 22,000,000,000 Dolar. 80.228.199.163 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sotheby auction

Hello, nice to meet you. Saw you removed this which is fine from my point of view. Where in Wikipedia does it belong? Would you like to copy it there instead of disposing of a bit of work? I've done it myself but don't understand it in this instance. Thank you for any idea. The two events, according to the source, were related in my first reading. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"In the United Kindom, the investment bank has gone into administration with PricewaterhouseCoopers appointed as administrators. Prompted by the announcement, on the first day of a two-day auction, Sotheby's earned commission on USD $15 million above estimates in London when fine artist Damien Hirst bypassed his representatives, Gagosian Gallery and White Cube, which is located in the UK and was invited to participate in the auction. Some buyers received six months to pay."

References

As far as I can tell the only way they are related is that they happened on the same day and involve large amounts of money, and because of this one is referenced in an article about the other. --86.164.126.9 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"The fall of this company also shook the Indian economy which is already in tense position, especially Indian IT industries. It also effected China, Japan & England's financial system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.53.42 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Major Effected Countries

"The fall of this company also shook the Indian economy which is already in tense position, especially Indian IT industries. It also effected China, Japan & England's financial system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.53.42 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsure

So the entire company collapsed? In all branches of every country? 68.205.177.67 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Shame on America!

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/banken-versicherungen/lehman-bringt-deutsche-einlagensicherung-in-not;2041475 79.210.66.55 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)