Talk:Lehman Brothers/Archives/2012

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc?

So if you search Wikipedia for exactly 'Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc' (which is their name and also the first words of the Wikipedia article in bold) you come up with nothing? How lame is that?

read the books

there are several very good books out about lehman. the article completely misses important topics covered in the books, especially Lehman's culture, it's CLO and CMBS businesses, long term capital management in 1998, etc etc etc. also missing: early involvement in slave trade, statement to city of chicago, etc, Decora (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Do the books also teach people about only using lower case cos it's so teenage angst and so cool?

compensation

The part that was here about the waxman/fuld exchange was completely misleading. Fuld did not give a "meandering response". He tried over and over to explain that compensation packages are voted on by a committee, not him, and that he did not receive anything close to $500 million dollars. He actually received options and other incentives that ultimately proved to be worthless. His actual receipts total ~300 million over a decade. WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The current paragraph is biased towards Lehman Brothers' CEO Mr. Fuld, and even trys to explain the situation on behalf of Mr Fuld to disarm the situation. From the context of Rep. Waxman's question, Waxman was pointing out the disproportional remuneration of Mr. Fuld for managing a company into eventual bankruptcy. After the bankruptcy and subsequent bailout, the remuneration in cash or stock Mr. Fuld and the other executives have taken, seems to be unfairy funded by the tax payers as pointed out by Rep. Waxman. The original paragraph has less emphasis to Mr. Fuld's perspective, and bring more balance from weighting Rep. Waxman's original question.

Original paragraph:

On October 6, 2008, CEO Richard Fuld testified before Congress. Rep. Waxman pointed out that Fuld had made nearly $500M since 2000, a salary incomprehensible to the average taxpayer, while Fuld was guiding Lehman to bankruptcy. Waxman said to Fuld, "My question is a simple one. Is this fair?" Fuld did not give a straight answer to the question, but only a meandering reply.

118.93.93.64 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it better to quote a factually inaccurate statement that someone made without pointing out that it is factually inaccurate? If Waxman claimed Fuld was a zillionaire with 50 houses, would you also be in favor of adding that to the article? Saying that Fuld gave "a meandering reply" is pure opinion. My revision adds what he actually said, not some anonymous person's intepretation of what he said. WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The options ARE worthless, not "may be". No one can/will/has/will ever buy those options. They are without any tangible worth. Waxman did not "point out" that he received $500M, he alleged it, incorrectly at that. No one other than waxman is pointing to this imaginary $500M sum. I will continue to correct this paragraph in the future. Wikipedia is not a platform for political advancement. It is a statement of facts. WhoIsJohnGalt? (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

defunct box

Shouldn't the info box for Lehman be the defunct business-style one like Washington Mutual's page has? I changed it but put the old one back because I wasn't sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfan623 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

The above comment does not belong in Wikipedia even in talk section. It shows a misunderstanding of short selling and makes accusation that not only have not been proven, but indeed have not been made by any government agency!72.75.34.146 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

o kwantreaux, mon hund - short selling to the point of market control, becomes FRAUD,

and an illegal market manipulation; never mind the US SEC is too dense to understand, same as you ... and see below einhorn, the largest short seller's attacks ab slave trading profits by lehman bros 150 yrs ago - ALL LIES ... etc sha nya de twain, chero key 69.121.221.97 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2009 (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 history 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) That sad mention needs to be added along with the fact that it was also West African's, specifically in the Ivory Coast, who sold their brothers into this slavery. I agree it is embarrassing for all who were involved in this sordid business, but the whole truth needs to be told not just partial truths to meet a political end.

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)

first section above written by Einhorn, the LB mega "short" to cont. trash talking after he

destroyed LB already, and ALL of it, that LB profited off slaves, is an absolute LIE ... and this is ongiong part of the dis information, and econ attack that the destruction of LB represented... all orchestrated by ... guess lads, laddies, AND we will make sure the perps are ALL meted out appropriate recompense as USA is too un organized and un educated to follow what occured, but still, they/usa have/has , the "only source", backing em and watch as ... perps decimated ... jesrun CXII 69.121.221.97 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (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)

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)

Reply to previous commenter (above Indian economy). Hello, yes that's probably the only connection. So no reply yet from the person who made the deletion so for now I'll add it to the long section in Bankruptcy of Lehman_Brothers. I agree it is a fine detail but the two sales influenced each other to some degree at the UK office I would guess. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:48, 19 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)

no it is fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.119.125 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Need for better wikilinks to financial topics

The following financial market terms are used in this article which apparently refer to topics that do not exist in Wikipedia. Are there any articles related to these, or are new pages needed for each of these? I am not an economist nor do I have any expertise in these areas. I am hoping someone with knowledge of these can help improve the article (and Wikipedia) by fixing these. DMahalko (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• commission house
• commodities house
• house of issue
• underwritten

request for consensus - "is" vs. "was" for describing existence of company

every time i drift by this article, it seems that an editor has determined that references to Lehman belong in the past tense. while it may be racing toward a bad memory in the minds of many, the company STILL exists and WILL exist for some time to come while it wrangles its way through the chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (remember, it didn't file for "liquidation," it filed for "protection).

can we have some consensus on tense?--68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having the exact same problem over at Richard S. Fuld, Jr., and you are absolutely correct. As of today, the company still exists. So far, it has only filed for protection under Chapter 11 (if it was going to be liquidated, it would have filed under Chapter 7). I have not seen any reliable sources reporting on the existence of Lehman Brothers as past tense, so this article should not either. Support changing back to present tense. — Satori Son 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree in case you need support (I changed it from "was" to "is" once, too). WSJ explained which Lehman company filed probably but I am not sure and as Satori Son says it was not Chapter 7. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

i see it's again back to "was." impossible to be a "was" and still be on pink sheets and company filed for bankruptcy protection vs. bankruptcy liquidation. i'm tired of changing. there must be a way for lede paragraph to be semi-protected.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The company is. --Kalbasa (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lehman Brothers vs. Bear Stearns

Why was Bear Stearns bailed out while Lehman Brothers wasn't bailed out?Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

how can company be "was"?

opening sentence has company defunct. it has absolutely NO life whatsover? it has gone through full liquidation? i rather doubt it. it filed for protection under chapter 11 and not chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. even a chapter 7 liquidation is not a slam dunk and over in a matter of a few months.--98.116.115.220 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lehman indices

Where would be a good place to mention / list Lehman indices, such as the Lehman Aggregate Bond Index? --Kalbasa (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Settlement of credit default swaps

The current section discussing settlement of credit default swaps cites only a single source, which is a blog. This does not meet WP:RS so I am removing the section. It would be very helpful for any having verifiable info about the credit default swap impact of the Lehman failure would add it to the article. Verbivorous (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Former Officers - Jeremy Isaacs link is wrong

Sorry, but I don't know how to remove the link to the other Jeremy Isaacs.Zin92 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of Lehman

The article says Lehman is pronounced /ˈlɛhmən/. If so, it is the only word in the English language pronounced like that. What is the source for this pronunciation. Is it not /'leɪmən/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwebb1969 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a friend that worked for them in the past and he says everyone pronounced it as LEE-MUN. In this case the source is an ex-employee, but that only shows how insiders pronounced the name; it still may not be the "correct" pronunciation. It does not really matter if the common pronunciation is "technically incorrect" because the 'Lehman' in Lehman Brothers originates from the last name of the founders, and although any name can have a "technically correct" pronunciation, names are pronounced on a case by case basis depending on how any given individual wish them to be pronounced. For example, many people with the name "Sara" prefer it to be pronounced SAIR-RUH, but the more accurate pronunciation is SAR-UH. If an individual named "Sara" prefers her name to be pronounced like "Sarah"(SAIR-RUH), then people are going to pronounce her name as SAIR-RUH, even though not "technically correct". Adrianw61 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal knowledge: I am a great(3) grandson of Mayer Lehman. In Rimpar, as in the rest of Germany, Lehman is pronounced Lay-mahn. Our family, which includes Frances Lehman Loeb, my grandmother, pronounced it Lee-man. John Loeb Beaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.245.150 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible bailout

The following was added in the last edit (line 16), but has no source (and I can't really understand what it's saying). Source or votes for removal?

There was an issue that an Indonesian investor, Dave Suwandra will bailout US$3.4 billion in order to wake this company up again. Markleci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

Linklaters

Apparently, according to the "Independent" of 13/3/2010, American lawyers refused to endorse a "Repo 105" but it was endorsed by Linklaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.3.123 (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC) This has been pointed out in the article on Linklaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.3.123 (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Repo 105" Scam

How Lehman Fooled Everyone (Including Allegedly Dick Fuld) And How Other Banks Are Likely Doing This Right Now

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/repo-105-scam-how-lehman-fooled-everyone-including-allegedly-dick-fuld-and-how-other-banks-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.138.1.245 (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Accounting irregularities - a footnote

No mention of recent news items (March/2010) on the accounting irregularities related to Lehman; because of lighter regulations in UK, Lehman debts were moved from States(where stricter compliance is required) to London. Linklaters law firm were involved in advising the bank on legality of these issues. Subsidiaries 'Southern Pacific Personal Loans' and 'London Mortage Company' also in focus in the continuing investigation into Lehman's activities over the previous decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.249.66 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Depression era history?

If somebody has the information, it would be great to include a better description of what happened at the bank at the beginning of and during the great depression. This was a very chaotic time in finance, it would pose an interesting comparison to the events of the early 21st century. Currently, there is no significant content other than a few public offerings with respect to this period of history.

if someone would pay authors to write wikipedia articles, then maybe that stuff would be included. Decora (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe a more major obstacle is the difficulty of wikipedians to introduce material that is viewed as "original research". For more discussion on this issue see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Checks_and_Balances_in_the_Articles_for_Deletion_Nomination_Process Ottawahitech (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)