and they said it was over... Analysts expecting large loss from Lehman: report http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080817/bs_nm/lehman_dc_1 NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some analysts are girding for a third-quarter loss of $1.8 billion or more from U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEH.N), instead of the modest profit they had previously expected, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.... [more]
and they said it was over...
Analysts expecting large loss from Lehman: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080817/bs_nm/lehman_dc_1
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some analysts are girding for a third-quarter loss of $1.8 billion or more from U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEH.N), instead of the modest profit they had previously expected, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT
If losses keep piling up, Lehman could need to raise additional capital beyond the $6 billion it got in June, the paper said.
Lehman is considering pre-announcing its earnings this month, the paper said, citing a person familiar with the matter. The end of Lehman's fiscal third quarter is less than two weeks away, and the bank typically announces its third-quarter earnings in mid-September.
In June, the bank posted its first quarterly loss as a public company, of $2.8 billion.
The likelihood of back-to-back quarterly losses is fueled by widely anticipated write-downs in a portfolio saddled with more than $50 billion in risky real-estate and mortgage assets, the Wall Street Journal said.
Lehman declined to comment.
(Reporting by Megan Davies, editing by Richard Chang)
[less]
Response by ritchi
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 61
Member since: Aug 2008
ok
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LBKL
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 10
Member since: Aug 2008
I work at Lehman, yeah we have our problems, but what is yours, and what does a writedown have a damn thing to do with streeteasy discussions on real estate?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
If you really have to ask... its been a long-running thread on the effects of Wall Street losses/layoffs on Manhattan real estate. Hell, we've had bulls saying "Wall Street will keep NYC from crashing" for a LONG time, so why on earth would this *not* be mentioned.
Or think of it this way.... how can anyone interested in NYC real estate NOT keep an eye on the sector that drives thirty percent of NYC income (source:NYC budget office) and 30% of its apartment buyers (source:NY Times). Ignoring Wall Street issues in that case would be idiotic.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LBKL
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 10
Member since: Aug 2008
Seems like a new discussion topic, hardly a long running thread.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LICComment
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007
Hmm, another person thinks Eddie Wilson is a jackass. Interesting . . .
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by faustus
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 230
Member since: Nov 2007
LBKL - it's probably one of the longest running topics on Streeteasy, even if this particular thread is only 30 minutes old.
Pretty simple. 1. Wall Street (i) compensation/bonuses, (ii) headcount and (iii) share prices all have an effect on NYC disposable income, net worths and tax revenues and, therefore, NYC real estate demand and the local economy. 2. Further writedowns undermine the belief that the worst is over. 3. Further writedowns suggest compensation and headcount may be lower. 4. Further writedowns represent a greater hit to capital, which in turn may require raising capital, which in turn dilutes existing shareholders. 5. Further writedowns call into question LEH's viability on its own balance sheet and as a stand-alone investment bank. etc. etc. etc.
Thoughts?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
> Hmm, another person thinks Eddie Wilson is a jackass. Interesting . . .
Yes, welcome another clueless person to LICC's fan club! He's got all the newbies, Korean-speakers, and folks who own land in Ohio. He's got all the winners!
> Thoughts?
From these two? You've got to be kidding...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LBKL
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 10
Member since: Aug 2008
Only on a real estate topic board is Lehman's viability called into question.
If you looked at the volume of trades executed, counterparty risk taken, institutional and high net worth money managed, and Fortune 500 corporations hiring us for strategic merger advice, you might get beyond thin headlines.
This discussion and the one on Morgan Stanley just seems designed to attack investment banks, probably EddieWilson is a bitter guy who couldn't make it on Wall Street, after all if you said this is a long running topic, I didn't see it, but why did he start brand new headlines one after the other on Lehman and Morgan Stanley instead of incorporating into the long running discussion topic?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by faustus
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 230
Member since: Nov 2007
LBKL - I know many people at Lehman. There are plenty of folks at your own firm (assuming you actually work there) who are concerned about its viability as an independent investment bank. I think it's a little naive to believe otherwise.
"Only on a real estate topic board is Lehman's viability called into question."
No, on just about every finance-related topic board. And at every bank. LEH may not go under, but I would say it's far from a sure thing that it will be able to survive on its own.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
> Only on a real estate topic board is Lehman's viability called into question.
Actually, its viability is called into question in a lot of places. Hell, Jim Cramer did an entire NYMag piece on its viability. And all the major financial sources have brought it into question as well.
And, dude, your bitterness is showing. You can insult others all you want, but your defensiveness is awfully apparent. I simply posted an article.
> why did he start brand new headlines one after the other on Lehman and Morgan Stanley instead of
> incorporating into the long running discussion topic?
You got it! I'm running a conspiracy against investment banks! Yes, thats it! BTW, the Morgan Stanley post was on a MARKET PREDICTION, not an assessment of the bank. Very different things.
I'm sorry you're scared that you'll be laid off this week, but I didn't do that to you... thats your bosses, who did a pretty crappy job of running the bank.
BTW, I own some goldman. They came out EARLY with their bad news and didn't try and BS the public. Lehman should have behaved better.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LBKL
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 10
Member since: Aug 2008
Do you know how many years people have been talking about whether Lehman can stand alone?
Remember 1998 as probably one of the best examples?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
Well put, faustus. This guy really needs to read the papers. Did they stop making first year analysts pick up the journal? Or is this guy like an admin or something?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by newbuyer99
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1231
Member since: Jul 2008
For the record, Lehman's viability has been questioned (rightly or wrongly) in many, many news stories in the mainstream media and the financial press for the last 4-5 months, ever since the Bear debacle. Certainly NOT only here.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
> Do you know how many years people have been talking about whether Lehman can stand alone?
Huge difference between "might need to merge to be able to compete with the big boys" and "might needto be saved from insolvency". I have never heard the chatter about Lehman be THIS bad. It died down a bit in the last few weeks, but I'm hearing it start to pick up again.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LBKL
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 10
Member since: Aug 2008
Yes, Jim Cramer also was telling people to buy Bear Stearns days before a $2 offer from JP Morgan. Good source, congratulations.
Also, you simply posted an article? No agenda? Why didn't you post about Julia Child being a spy? Why did you choose the article on Lehman if you have no agenda?
And no, I'm not scared I'm going to be laid off. I'm a producer and ahead of budget. Which also means that if I were laid off I'd have excellent prospects.
Thanks for playing "post and article," tomorrow early morning I'll be making money.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by ESueCho
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 58
Member since: Apr 2008
so EddieWilson, is this situation worse than when you were at Bank of America?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
> Why didn't you post about Julia Child being a spy?
If she owned 50% of Manhattan real estate, I would have...
> Why did you choose the article on Lehman if you have no agenda?
Uh, because ONLY LEHMAN is being covered as a potential crisis right now. Dude, if you don't like the coverage, complain to the papers. But its only Lehman thats getting this sort of treatment. Actually, you should really blame the hedge funds for shorting it.
> And no, I'm not scared I'm going to be laid off. I'm a producer and ahead of budget.
Oh, I got it now... you're a *broker*. Good for you! Now that explains why you don't get how the markets work...
But stop blaming the folks only pointing out the truth.
If you know everything and things are great, GOOD FOR YOU! But until you become a stock analyst or journalist covering Lehman, keep quiet...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by faustus
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 230
Member since: Nov 2007
LBKL - glad to hear that you're personally holding up okay. Not sure that's what we were talking about, but, hey... attaboy! Keep at 'em! As Dick Fuld says "Let's get those bastards!!" Right?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
> Good source, congratulations.
Yes, every single major financial publication. Horrible sources, I know. Keep reading highlights magazine.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by faustus
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 230
Member since: Nov 2007
LBKL - what group are you in at Lehman?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
He outed himself as a broker on the other thread... that makes a lot of sense....
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LBKL
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 10
Member since: Aug 2008
Yes, the media always has it right, and the one source you quoted besides the original posting, "Hell, Jim Cramer did an entire NYMag piece on its viability" has a lousy record on investment banks.
He's also been screaming for people to buy Sears Holdings because of financial genius Eddie Lampert. Also a good call before he finally disclaimed it.
Congratulations.
Keep on posting articles, you are very proficient at it.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by faustus
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 230
Member since: Nov 2007
Oh EW - missed that. Just trying to get a sense if he actually works at LEH, and understand which group he claims to be profitable.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
So, every single financial publication has covered the Lehman mess, and somehow this guy misses it?
Seriously, dude, where do you do your research?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by EddieWilson
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 1112
Member since: Feb 2008
> Oh EW - missed that. Just trying to get a sense if he actually works at LEH, and understand which
> group he claims to be profitable.
Well, its getting a little boring for me anyway. This guy seems to know less about Lehman than anyone with a WSJ subscription, and he's going to tell us that he's rich and Lehman is the best bank ever until the L breaks off his keyboard. Then ehman will be the best bank ever, and he'll still be rich.
ok
I work at Lehman, yeah we have our problems, but what is yours, and what does a writedown have a damn thing to do with streeteasy discussions on real estate?
If you really have to ask... its been a long-running thread on the effects of Wall Street losses/layoffs on Manhattan real estate. Hell, we've had bulls saying "Wall Street will keep NYC from crashing" for a LONG time, so why on earth would this *not* be mentioned.
Or think of it this way.... how can anyone interested in NYC real estate NOT keep an eye on the sector that drives thirty percent of NYC income (source:NYC budget office) and 30% of its apartment buyers (source:NY Times). Ignoring Wall Street issues in that case would be idiotic.
Seems like a new discussion topic, hardly a long running thread.
Hmm, another person thinks Eddie Wilson is a jackass. Interesting . . .
LBKL - it's probably one of the longest running topics on Streeteasy, even if this particular thread is only 30 minutes old.
Pretty simple. 1. Wall Street (i) compensation/bonuses, (ii) headcount and (iii) share prices all have an effect on NYC disposable income, net worths and tax revenues and, therefore, NYC real estate demand and the local economy. 2. Further writedowns undermine the belief that the worst is over. 3. Further writedowns suggest compensation and headcount may be lower. 4. Further writedowns represent a greater hit to capital, which in turn may require raising capital, which in turn dilutes existing shareholders. 5. Further writedowns call into question LEH's viability on its own balance sheet and as a stand-alone investment bank. etc. etc. etc.
Thoughts?
> Hmm, another person thinks Eddie Wilson is a jackass. Interesting . . .
Yes, welcome another clueless person to LICC's fan club! He's got all the newbies, Korean-speakers, and folks who own land in Ohio. He's got all the winners!
> Thoughts?
From these two? You've got to be kidding...
Only on a real estate topic board is Lehman's viability called into question.
If you looked at the volume of trades executed, counterparty risk taken, institutional and high net worth money managed, and Fortune 500 corporations hiring us for strategic merger advice, you might get beyond thin headlines.
This discussion and the one on Morgan Stanley just seems designed to attack investment banks, probably EddieWilson is a bitter guy who couldn't make it on Wall Street, after all if you said this is a long running topic, I didn't see it, but why did he start brand new headlines one after the other on Lehman and Morgan Stanley instead of incorporating into the long running discussion topic?
LBKL - I know many people at Lehman. There are plenty of folks at your own firm (assuming you actually work there) who are concerned about its viability as an independent investment bank. I think it's a little naive to believe otherwise.
"Only on a real estate topic board is Lehman's viability called into question."
No, on just about every finance-related topic board. And at every bank. LEH may not go under, but I would say it's far from a sure thing that it will be able to survive on its own.
> Only on a real estate topic board is Lehman's viability called into question.
Actually, its viability is called into question in a lot of places. Hell, Jim Cramer did an entire NYMag piece on its viability. And all the major financial sources have brought it into question as well.
And, dude, your bitterness is showing. You can insult others all you want, but your defensiveness is awfully apparent. I simply posted an article.
> why did he start brand new headlines one after the other on Lehman and Morgan Stanley instead of
> incorporating into the long running discussion topic?
You got it! I'm running a conspiracy against investment banks! Yes, thats it! BTW, the Morgan Stanley post was on a MARKET PREDICTION, not an assessment of the bank. Very different things.
I'm sorry you're scared that you'll be laid off this week, but I didn't do that to you... thats your bosses, who did a pretty crappy job of running the bank.
BTW, I own some goldman. They came out EARLY with their bad news and didn't try and BS the public. Lehman should have behaved better.
Do you know how many years people have been talking about whether Lehman can stand alone?
Remember 1998 as probably one of the best examples?
Well put, faustus. This guy really needs to read the papers. Did they stop making first year analysts pick up the journal? Or is this guy like an admin or something?
For the record, Lehman's viability has been questioned (rightly or wrongly) in many, many news stories in the mainstream media and the financial press for the last 4-5 months, ever since the Bear debacle. Certainly NOT only here.
> Do you know how many years people have been talking about whether Lehman can stand alone?
Huge difference between "might need to merge to be able to compete with the big boys" and "might needto be saved from insolvency". I have never heard the chatter about Lehman be THIS bad. It died down a bit in the last few weeks, but I'm hearing it start to pick up again.
Yes, Jim Cramer also was telling people to buy Bear Stearns days before a $2 offer from JP Morgan. Good source, congratulations.
Also, you simply posted an article? No agenda? Why didn't you post about Julia Child being a spy? Why did you choose the article on Lehman if you have no agenda?
And no, I'm not scared I'm going to be laid off. I'm a producer and ahead of budget. Which also means that if I were laid off I'd have excellent prospects.
Thanks for playing "post and article," tomorrow early morning I'll be making money.
so EddieWilson, is this situation worse than when you were at Bank of America?
> Why didn't you post about Julia Child being a spy?
If she owned 50% of Manhattan real estate, I would have...
> Why did you choose the article on Lehman if you have no agenda?
Uh, because ONLY LEHMAN is being covered as a potential crisis right now. Dude, if you don't like the coverage, complain to the papers. But its only Lehman thats getting this sort of treatment. Actually, you should really blame the hedge funds for shorting it.
> And no, I'm not scared I'm going to be laid off. I'm a producer and ahead of budget.
Oh, I got it now... you're a *broker*. Good for you! Now that explains why you don't get how the markets work...
But stop blaming the folks only pointing out the truth.
If you know everything and things are great, GOOD FOR YOU! But until you become a stock analyst or journalist covering Lehman, keep quiet...
LBKL - glad to hear that you're personally holding up okay. Not sure that's what we were talking about, but, hey... attaboy! Keep at 'em! As Dick Fuld says "Let's get those bastards!!" Right?
> Good source, congratulations.
Yes, every single major financial publication. Horrible sources, I know. Keep reading highlights magazine.
LBKL - what group are you in at Lehman?
He outed himself as a broker on the other thread... that makes a lot of sense....
Yes, the media always has it right, and the one source you quoted besides the original posting, "Hell, Jim Cramer did an entire NYMag piece on its viability" has a lousy record on investment banks.
He's also been screaming for people to buy Sears Holdings because of financial genius Eddie Lampert. Also a good call before he finally disclaimed it.
Congratulations.
Keep on posting articles, you are very proficient at it.
Oh EW - missed that. Just trying to get a sense if he actually works at LEH, and understand which group he claims to be profitable.
So, every single financial publication has covered the Lehman mess, and somehow this guy misses it?
Seriously, dude, where do you do your research?
> Oh EW - missed that. Just trying to get a sense if he actually works at LEH, and understand which
> group he claims to be profitable.
Well, its getting a little boring for me anyway. This guy seems to know less about Lehman than anyone with a WSJ subscription, and he's going to tell us that he's rich and Lehman is the best bank ever until the L breaks off his keyboard. Then ehman will be the best bank ever, and he'll still be rich.
[ignore key]
zzzzzz