Talk:Lehman Brothers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Finance, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Finance. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale. | |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
