Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lehman are apparantly the third largest, who is

> one and two?


They mean institutions that are largely and solely investment banks. One year ago:


1. Goldman Sachs

2. Morgan Stanley

3. Merrill Lynch

4. Lehman Brothers

5. Bear Sterns.


4 and 5 are gone, and Bank of America has bought Merrill, thus leaving only the top two.

Good on yer macker, did you read in private eye where the biggest council estate in the world is in USA since the government bought up fanny and johnny plus jenny and freddie (or some names like that) the two biggest mortgage brokers.


I can't understand how they are all going to the wall when the US borrowed 150 billion from china a few weeks ago.

A good friend of mine worked at Lehman's in Canary Wharf. Got in for work on Monday morning, got handed a memo basically saying clear your desk immediately. The LSE has frozen any dealing so they couldn't work even if they wanted to. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are absolutely enormous in comparison, I'm sure they're in a pretty bad place at the moment but I cant see them collapsing anytime soon. More concerned about AIG to be honest...!
I've quite a few friends at Lehman and know a lot that moved over there this year (recently). One of my friends now has to move back to Moscow due to her working VISA. Many others will also have to leave the country. It's a pretty sorry situation in the city at the moment...

I spent this morning helping a friend clear out her spare room so she can let it. She is 64, has temped as a telephonist at Lehman's for a long time (didn't accept a permanent position due to her late husband going in and out of hospital) and has no prospect of another job.


Her immediate supervisor asked the telephonists to stay on but they had no briefing; 'phones were going 19 to the dozen from the media, and no head honchos in sight.


All a bit pants for her.

As a company, Lehmans were always up their own arses IME.Though the vast majority of staff are 9-5 workers doing clerical stuff and they are the ones that will feel the pinch, not the big bonus boys - I take no pleasure in seeing the majority of its workforce having their pensions screwed and being dumped onto broadgate with their careers in a cardboard box - Loyalty ?


I would like to see Goldmans go under - they have a certain greasy smugness about them that makes my teeth grind - if Goldmans were an actor, it would be Tom Cruise in full on scientology mode - On Fleet street , they have occupied one of the most beautiful 20th century buildings in London - what a travesty.


Still, in defence of global capital, they have had a good few years caning it & churning out illiquid and opaque shite relentlessly for a while now - they will lose a few names, there will be some mergers and things will go on.in half a decade people will speak of 2008 in revered terms , business school automatons will write essays on it and the city employees will likely forget how bad it felt.


its just another blip.


Move on


nothing to see here

If AIG went down, that would be serious. They insure may of the financial deals that the banks have done with each other, if that insurance cover disappears, then those dodgy but sustainable deals will suddenly lose what little credibility they have.
Actually v good news for Merrills - BoA have v little presence in Europe so apart from investment banking there will limited job losses


Yeah, there won't be much of a cull in London because BoA are such a dollar house. They've been trying to get into the Euro Market for the last 10yrs without any real success.


Snorky

Completely agree about Goldmans, it would be worth being dragged back into the stone-age just to see them go under.

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Other than acting as 'interested parties' Southwark Councillors have no responsibility for water issues. And no real leverage either. Considering the complete disdain with which Thames Water treats its own Regulator, and the government, (let alone its customers) I doubt very much whether an entire battalion of councillors would have much impact. What powers could they exercise?
    • That may not be so - many on this site are experts in many areas - you yourself claim huge traffic management (or similar) expertise for instance. And I think you will find that Southwark employees are unlikely to support criticism or challenges to Southwark policy - why, you don't and you apparently neither live in, or vote in, the borough. Do you, however, work for it, as you are such a cheerleader? If not, then you are the most passionate disinterested person on this site, as regards so many aspects, not just traffic.
    • Rather than have a go at Southwark,  contact them, they will employ at least one arborist who will know far more than most people on this site. Here's one: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shaun-murphy-morris-03b7b665/?originalSubdomain=uk
    • I would look in the surrounding area as once they realise it has nothing they could sell or of obvious monatary value in it they'll dump the bag and contents.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...