Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
SleepyHead

The Last Days Of Lehman Bros Bbc2 Bbchd

Recommended Posts

Looks like really good TV, the type not seen since

God i hope its not that bad! Not Eldorado!

Its a bit slow, but lets face it, it is a drama about a financial collapse. Tough to spice it up really.

I wonder how accurate these conversations between Paulson and Dick Fuld are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was quite entertaining - watching a few bankers getting more and more depressed for an hour. Was even more hilarious when Paulsen said Alastair Darling had said no so Lehman's was finished - bet you didn't realise that man's powers. :lol:

If only we could have an investment bank going bust every September - far more entertaining than this fake 'recovereh'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was quite entertaining - watching a few bankers getting more and more depressed for an hour. Was even more hilarious when Paulsen said Alastair Darling had said no so Lehman's was finished - bet you didn't realise that man's powers. :lol:

If only we could have an investment bank going bust every September - far more entertaining than this fake 'recovereh'.

Can you imagine if Barclays had bought Lehmans and then the UK Govt would have effectively had to bail out Lehmans - it would have crushed this country worse than Iceland has been. Even the Yanks could not afford to save AIG AND Lehmans so what chance any other country?

A;ways have time for James Cromwell as an actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you imagine if Barclays had bought Lehmans and then the UK Govt would have effectively had to bail out Lehmans - it would have crushed this country worse than Iceland has been. Even the Yanks could not afford to save AIG AND Lehmans so what chance any other country?

A;ways have time for James Cromwell as an actor.

So Lehmans went under because Darling refused to give a waiver to prevent the takeover having to be approved by Barclays shareholders. Maybe we have judged him too harshly - although the programme made you think the whole thing had been fixed up by Darling and Paulsen.

So when is Darling due to start his multi million pound job at Goldman Sachs - June or will he take a holiday first. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Lehmans went under because Darling refused to give a waiver to prevent the takeover having to be approved by Barclays shareholders. Maybe we have judged him too harshly - although the programme made you think the whole thing had been fixed up by Darling and Paulsen.

So when is Darling due to start his multi million pound job at Goldman Sachs - June or will he take a holiday first. :lol:

When I heard that Darling had vetoed Barclay's bid for Lehman, I found my first iota of respect for the man who, in every other circumstance, seemed to have no spine whatsoever.

I thought Paulson was presented in a remarkably good light - very charitable, I thought... though I don't conform to the view that Paulson, or the Fed, or another 'favoured' bank (Goldman Sachs, for example) engineered Lehman's collapse.

I found it interesting that the figures trusted to do seal deals over multi-billion-dollar companies were portrayed as admitting that the they knew that the pricing of credit instruments had been a sham... If fair, it is the most damning thing about any of the bankers included in the film. If they knew that the valuations they were using were nonsense, then they should all be arrested for signing off on accounts that they knew to be fraudulent.

I suspect that Darling had an easy choice to make over giving 'special permission' for Barclays to buy Lehman... If I were him, I'd want to take no active hand in swaying deals... especially not dangerous deals that could, in principle, take Barclays the same way as Northern Rock, the Halifax, and RBS. We might see Darling put the final nail in the coffin - but, if the Fed wanted the deal to go through, it could have arranged to bridge a couple of days. I suspect that both Darling and Paulson knew that Barclays would be mad to have bought Lehman - and that if Shareholders had voted, they'd probably have voted 'No'.

I was also surprised to see this on the BBC so soon... it certainly makes these times seem historic - where there appears to be a concerted effort to bring seemingly esoteric economic events into the popular concious. Greenspan is disparaging about communist centralised planning - but, one has to ask, is the sort of decision making described in this film any better a way to manage an economy? What credibility can western governments claim if hundreds of billions of dollars are gambled by a bunch of grand-standers obsessed with a how-high-can-you-pee contest, while the regulatory bodies allow arbitrary fictitious valuations for assets to be used, without contest, to document solvency.

I was very curious about the religious angle - The biblical recital; alluding to Nebuchadnezzar - and the religious art and Judas - whose relevance to banking I found more difficult to fathom. I wondered if this was a mere embellishment for dramatic effect and artistic merit in the making of the program - or if it captured a culture among western bankers to consider Judeo-Christian scripture as a frame of reference. I wonder if this was intended to be an oblique comment on western perspectives about Islamic and Buddhist fundamentalist views? I wonder if the point is that the senior figures involved need a philosophy other than capitalism in order to make any meaningful decision? I'd have liked this theme to have been taken further and be better explained... but, perhaps, this is just my making too much of some basic filler material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I heard that Darling had vetoed Barclay's bid for Lehman, I found my first iota of respect for the man who, in every other circumstance, seemed to have no spine whatsoever.

What about

1). Him telling the worls how bad it was really going to be last year

2). Refusing to be pushed from being Chancellor

3). Calling Gordon a liar re 500000 jobs created

I have grudging respect for him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about

1). Him telling the worls how bad it was really going to be last year

2). Refusing to be pushed from being Chancellor

3). Calling Gordon a liar re 500000 jobs created

I have grudging respect for him

Likewise.

I thinking that dealing with Gordons meglomania is probably more difficult than dealing with the UK economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about

1). Him telling the worls how bad it was really going to be last year

2). Refusing to be pushed from being Chancellor

3). Calling Gordon a liar re 500000 jobs created

I have grudging respect for him

What about bungling (lying) to the public about underwriting bank deposits with repeated U-turns? What about a complacent complicity by way of a conspiracy of silence about the culpability of the FSA? I don't think Darling did tell the world how serious things would be - in fact, I don't think he even recognised the implications of events as they unfolded. Furthermore, I consider his position as chancellor to be undermined by the fact that he appears to allow Brown to make fiscal policy unchallenged (and unsupported...)

Refusing to waive the rights of Barclays shareholders was a rare good decision - though, I recognise, this might be a fluke - such is often the way with binary decisions. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it because they used actors that actually looked like the people they were playing. The scenes of the meetings reminded me how they portray Mafia godfathers meetings in the movies. John Thane came across as a wimp in a room full of testosterone charged Italian Americans, but then he was a bit like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I enjoyed it because they used actors that actually looked like the people they were playing. The scenes of the meetings reminded me how they portray Mafia godfathers meetings in the movies. John Thane came across as a wimp in a room full of testosterone charged Italian Americans, but then he was a bit like that.

Fuld, Blankfein (sp?) and Dimon are all Jewish I think...

...but then so was Bugsy Segal...

(....maybe Mack was the only Italian-American...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuld, Blankfein (sp?) and Dimon are all Jewish I think...

...but then so was Bugsy Segal...

(....maybe Mack was the only Italian-American...)

Aye, it was a reference to the godfather style that I perceived used to film the meetings scenes, not to fact. Having watched vids of plenty of congressional hearings, they use a much more formal style of language and speaking in turn. Alas I have never attended a meeting of Wall St CEO's so have no idea how they would interact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bloke who bought Merril Lynch for 29 bucks a share must be unhappy - if he had waited a week he problably could have got the entire company for a single buck!

I think that is one of the most hilarious things about what happened at that time was that all these bw ankers were like strutting peacocks, masters of the universe and all that but, truth be told, they didn't have a clue what was going on... they would have been more informed if they had visited sites like this one IMPO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That bloke who bought Merril Lynch for 29 bucks a share must be unhappy - if he had waited a week he problably could have got the entire company for a single buck!

I think that is one of the most hilarious things about what happened at that time was that all these bw ankers were like strutting peacocks, masters of the universe and all that but, truth be told, they didn't have a clue what was going on... they would have been more informed if they had visited sites like this one IMPO.

Yes, as an account holder with Barclays, I can now look back and feel distinctly uncomfortable about the men running the company.

Were Barclays serious about taking over Lehmans? - they seem to have got to due diligence stage.

Why pay so much for Merrill Lynch? - as you say it could be bought much cheaper in a few weeks.

Just goes to show what idiots we have running one of our biggest and well established banks.

Scary. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Paulson was presented in a remarkably good light - very charitable, I thought... though I don't conform to the view that Paulson, or the Fed, or another 'favoured' bank (Goldman Sachs, for example) engineered Lehman's collapse.

That occurred to me too. Paulson's connections with Goldman Sachs were never hinted at, which was disappointing and a little flexible with the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That occurred to me too. Paulson's connections with Goldman Sachs were never hinted at, which was disappointing and a little flexible with the truth.

I thought they were putting words in his mouth. For instance his speech on the West being over and "our" children having to learn Chinese. Not sure he has ever said anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, as an account holder with Barclays, I can now look back and feel distinctly uncomfortable about the men running the company.

Were Barclays serious about taking over Lehmans? - they seem to have got to due diligence stage.

Why pay so much for Merrill Lynch? - as you say it could be bought much cheaper in a few weeks.

Just goes to show what idiots we have running one of our biggest and well established banks.

Scary. :o

I wasn't that impressed with Barclays when they were going after Abn-Amro. The slightly bigger fools proved to be Rbs.

Enjoyed the prog except for James Bolam bad casting and accent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.