Slashdot Mirror
Credit Suisse Traders Manipulated IT Systems To Hide $500m Losses
New submitter Qedward writes with a snippet from ComputerWorld UK: "Two traders at Credit Suisse have pleaded guilty to wire fraud and falsifying data after authorities said they had manipulated the bank's record systems, as the credit crunch approached, in order to help conceal over half a billion dollars' worth of losses. The traders admitted to circumventing a mandatory real time reporting system introduced by Credit Suisse, manually entering false profit and loss (P&L) figures as the products they handled collapsed in value. They did so, according to the accusations, under heavy pressure from their manager, who has also been charged."
...we don't need no stinkin' regulations.....
I don't think putting incorrect data into the software can really count as manipulating the IT system.
Even banking systems have to obey the cardinal rule: Garbage in, Garbage out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdF76QhVEFE#t=22s
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, these guys were fooling their bosses after the crisis had started. They must have thought prices were going to "come back" so that the deception would never be uncovered. It makes me wonder how many times in history traders have actually pulled this trick, and gotten lucky enough that prices really did revert and save their sorry behinds.
Yeah so what ?. They added a few "0"s to a spreadsheet. Big deal.
Money that's not backed by gold (or other fuingible good) is worthless. All the current so called "debts" I keep hearing about are worthless. nobody's lost any real goods just some "0" characters ioff a spreadsheet.
Wise up suckers. Bankers write "0"s into spreadsheets and then expect you to carry out real work to pay them back for "Money" they create out of their ass.
"I dont understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves ...." (Alan Greenspan, in front of senate inquiry committee on wall street scam)
Read radical news here
"Regulation" is a meaningless term. There are useful regulations (be able to cover over half your debts at any given time) and damaging regulations (skip credit checks and background checks).
The danger of regulations is not that some exist, the danger is that some people will attempt to micro-manage everything if given a chance, and a few will try to micro-manage in fraudulent ways through oddly worded legalese in what appears to be a reasonable law.
This is indicative of the main problem in the banking system - money can be brought into existence regardless of whether it actually represents anything. In this case it's through fiddled figures, but it's perfectly normal and acceptable to do essentially the same thing en-masse. As long as enough people are claiming something is worth more than it is then it's worth more, and there's extra money to be had, the only mistake these guys made is not being thousands or millions of people. Look at the Facebook floatation - I don't know what the company is actually worth if you were to break it up today, but it's market value will be pretty much unrelated to that figure simply because lots of people want it to be valuable.
There's only one regulation that's really needed (outside obvious fraud), and that's a conservation law a-la momentum. You want more money? Well you're either going to have to achieve it by taking it from somebody else or by creating new resources through mining, manufacturing or man-hours etc. I'd like to see the hypothetical world-wide balance sheet for the last couple of decades, because I bet it would fail the most simple anti-fraud tests.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
we too narrowly avoided that shit here in turkey too. strict controls and standards were placed after 2001 liquidity crisis.
but, american government was pressuring the american backed islamist party here, to remove those regulations, so that there could be 'competition'. the street speak is, banks like Merrill lynch, goldman sachs were just wanting to enter turkish market to peddle their scam there. the economy minister here had had already started to babble about the issue, trying to make ground for the changes they were demanded by u.s., citing various run-off-the-mill right wing catchphrases about 'competition, free market' and whatnot. and those two banks had had already set up their first hqs in istanbul.
a month later, wall street scam had came out into open. and everyone shut up. bank-wise, turkish banks stayed as they were, intact. economically everyone got affected from the worldwide crisis though.
Read radical news here
...in the fuck are the subordinates being charged? They were just following orders!
Now some might say "Just think of what they would have been able to do with even LESS regulations!"
- that's the proper question, but it's incomplete.
Think about what they would be with less GOVERNMENT regulations!
The only real regulations are capital requirements that force banks to be risk averse by default, and no amount of government regulations does that, on the contrary - the Federal reserve of USA states that one of its goals is to ensure that people take MORE RISK than they would otherwise take in the market, which is obviously regulation and it's hurting the economy and it's done with counterfeit money.
So the correct statement is: think how much stronger a position of a bank would be that had REAL regulations, that are not corrupted by political system, but instead are ensured through the market - real money, gold.
The only real regulation in the market is real money. Can't gamble with real money without the government standing there with handouts.
Can't give risky loans, can't NOT have capital. Can't break contracts - otherwise you go to jail, thus can't commit fraud.
Committing fraud is all the 'government' regulation that needs to be enforced through CONTRACT LAW and the rest of the regulations are all market driven - gold as money and no fake credit, no fake mandates from government to give out risky loans. Can't buy worthless government paper either with real money, nobody would support a bank like that in the market.
--
But this requires people to understand that inflation is BAD for economy, not good, and people are obviously still not ready for it, even though they've been suffering the consequences of inflation in the world for near half a century (and countries have disintegrated because of counterfeiting of money in last century too, including USSR.)
Growth of economy depends on production, not consumption, of-course some think that 'supply side economics' is wrong, but they are the ones who don't understand that it worked marvellously for those, who actually manufacture the supply, not for those who stopped manufacturing and only consumed based on fake money.
The companies who want inflation in order to sell more of their goods - they have to be honest with their shareholders all of a sudden! It's not that they are gaining more purchasing power by selling more goods at lower valued money - the opposite is true. They are losing their purchasing power while gaining more nominal quantity of currency. So who benefits in that? Definitely not the people of the country and not even the shareholders. Do you know WHO benefits?
The top management, board of directors, simply because they can show nominal growth, which in reality is often a loss of a steady in real terms, but it looks like growth because more is sold in lower priced currency. Well, it's the same thing as selling in unchanged currency but cheaper! But it doesn't look good for their bonuses, and those are the people who go to the government to ensure that policy of inflation stays in effect.
They don't have to do much convincing there either, the government is happy to oblige - they love inflation, they are net borrowers and they want to win more elections, and giving out free money and creating inflation and using the nominal currency to give out more 'free stuff', programs, wars, laws, whatever pork, they get re-elected based on that.
The only real discipline does not come from government, it comes from real regulations - market money.
You can't handle the truth.
The amount of losses caused by government enforced loans to minorities are an infinitesimal part of the mortgage losses, most bad performing mortgages were granted because they could be sold on for short term gain with credit rating agency collusion, not because of government force. Unless you like hockeystick theories, blaming the MBS's fiasco on government is insane.
Your first example of good regulation is actually micromanaging. It acknowledges that the incentives for "banks" (rather bankers) are to incorrectly judge risk, but tries to fix it by micromanaging their credit rating methods. Which is doomed to failure ... they will find other ways to take on bad risk for short term gain.
Yes, America has a messed up tax system, no pizza being categorized as a vegetable has nothing to do with the tax system. That is just... the fuck?
"Some regulations are good, so ALL regulations MUST be good."
Look at the americans, they have laws that say pizza is a vegetable, that's how messed up their tax system is.
I don't know about the tax system, but frankly, I'd rather have the American education system than whatever they're teaching you about taxes.
Sadly, they haven't kept the series up to date...
Your argument assumes that bank employees do what is good for the bank. The last fnancial crisis has showed that this is simply not true. The excessive compensation schemes put in place at banks have disconnected what is good for employees from what is good for banks.
Huge bonuses were obtained by employees for deals that were very bad for the banks. Enough money to retire was paid in bonuses in a couple of years, so why would those employees care about the long-term health of the bank? External market pressures won't change that dynamic -- banks have to reform their compensation schemes.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Credit Suisse has a long history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Suisse#Criticisms They should have been hit harder, sooner. However, I suspect that they're being investigated now because of their history of playing the harlot with Iran: "Credit Suisse settled on charges that it violated sanctions regulating financial transactions with Iran. The charges included "stripping", the practice of removing the identity and origin of funds used in transactions. Credit Suisse employees stripped the identities of Iranian banks enabling funds to be transferred to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and the Aerospace Industries Organization, entities respectively involved in the production of nuclear weapons and long range missiles. Credit Suisse advised Iranian banks such as Bank Melli and Bank Saderat on methods to hide their identities and send more than a billion dollars through New York banks."
They were sold on to government chartered non-profits (Freddy and Fannie).
Ignoring the fact that the government setup the secondary mortgage markets and wrote the underwriting rules is an example of selection bias.
You only want to focus on the unregulated aspects (derivative markets) while ignoring the miss-regulated aspects. Not unregulated, miss-regulated.
Mortgage markets are heavily regulated in the USA. Miss-regulation is the worst part of regulation.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Given all the issues with both hacked outside and inside manipulated complex IT systems in banking, I am surprised more banks haven't collapsed.
The mentality in the trading operations actually is a psychological statement that the bank is greedy and wants every penny it can wring out of trades and they think that doesn't affect their workers.
Go fuck yourself. That was not the argument being made. Yours is a strawman and completely polarizing. Someone can be for regulations without being for "regulations for everything". Yours is a packaged deal fallacy. So go fuck yourself.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
They underwrote a lot of the mortgages ... but they didn't underwrite the majority. With TARP you could have bailed them out whole.
What we need is exchange transactions made with electronic signed cash species. Actually, transactions revolves around pure arithmetic and thus permit this type of frauds by creating more virtual fictional money with no real value.
If we could have signed species objects made of {{serial#,amount,emitter},emitter-signature},owner},owner-signature}, transactions made by signed clusters of species objects. No one except countries, central banks authorities would be able to electronically sign the species with the same process as printed money is done. Fictional fraudulent species would be much identifiable by their invalid signature. Each transaction would require a signed transfer from current owner and next owner of the currency/cluster, not the fictional arithmetic operation +/- we are used to.
Léa Gris
You are assuming that it is possible for bank management to do what they did without government backing them with free money and various regulations, that required them to give out much riskier loans than what they normally would give out if they didn't have either government backing in the money or regulations.
All of those huge bonuses, etc., it's all only possible when there is a huge government put on all those terrible risky loans that banks give out and it's prevented from ever happening with real money in the first place.
You can't handle the truth.
Disclaimer: I've got a Master's in Finance from a top university, hold a highly recognised multi-year professional qualification and have spent several years in the industry. Not primarily risk management or macroeconomic oversight, but I know enough to see the issues.
A lot of what is said about banks and bankers and contributions to "the financial crisis" is plain bunk. I'm not going to point out specifics here.
The one area where a finger should be pointed, and largely hasn't, is the enormous pressure that has been exerted to lower capital requirements.
Effectively it works like this: A bank doesn't create money out of thin air (in spite of what untold millions of crazies think - only the banking system does). Every dollar it lends out, it has to borrow. The bank's balance sheet consists of assets that interest is generated on (the loans it has made, interest-paying bonds it has purchased etc.) and liabilities that interest is paid on (the bank's own short term paper, the deposits people have placed at the bank, various other funny ways to borrow money).
Effectively, for a 'simple bank', the money that the bank makes is the margin between the two.
There is however a problem: what is some of the bank's assets disappear? In other words, what if someone who has borrowed money and promised to repay it, can't? The bank still has to repay its own liabilities. Suddenly your assets are 90m and your liabilities are 100m and you are effectively insolvent. The people the bank owns money would get only 90 cent on the dollar.
Which is why banks have a capital buffer. The 'equity' of the company. The only thing the shareholders really own and generates returns for them. If you have a capital buffer of 20m, then in the example above, your capital buffer would be cut in half. Equity owners take the first loss. The bank's creditors doesn't suffer.
Now, the calculation of shareholder returns is effectively the interest margin, in absolute monies, applied to the equity. So-called Return on Equity. For example, if you lend out 100 at 5%, borrow 100 at 3%, that gives you gross income of 2. If your equity is 10, that implies a 20% return e.g. that can be paid out as a dividend.
Increasing the size of a balance sheet is extremely easy. You can just give tons of risky loans at medium interest rates, and get funded by borrowing at slightly lower interest rates. This means if you e.g. have 10m, you could start a bank that immediately borrows 100m, lends 100m, and generates you 2m per annum. Quite a decent rate of return compared to other investment options.
This means that the amount of capital required is of _extreme_ importance. If you are required to hold 10% of your total loans/debts in capital, then in the example above, starting a bank with 10m lets you lend 100m and borrow 100m and make 2m per annum as described.
If this requirement is lowered to 5%, you can do one of two things: you can suddenly crank up your lending and borrowing to 200m, still generating a gross margin of 2% (now 4m per annum), which doubles the returns on your investment from 20% to 40% per annum. Or, you can start a bank with 5m instead, lend/borrow 100m, and generate a 40% RoE still.
There has been an enormous pressure from banks and investors to reduce capital requirements. This has been pushed along and justified with models, for example, that says that bankruptcies (assets disappearing) are not correlated with each other, so if e.g. you have 100 borrowers that each borrow 1m you only need to hold 2m in assets because it's statistically very very unlikely that more than 2 of these go bankrupt each year.
What happens if the model breaks down and 3 borrowers go bankrupt at the same time, e.g. in the housing market? The bank falls over. It's not simply a matter of injecting 1m, because an enormous legal mess occurs, other suppliers of capital to the bank run away fearing bankruptcy meaning that the bank has to recall loans to repay them (which it can't), etc.
Here comes the crucial par
Given the emergent issues with Canadian mortgages and banks/etc offloading the risk onto CMHC, I'd say that us Canucks are in for an unpleasant surprise sometime in the not-too-far future as well.
That is just... the fuck?
Congress didn't actually classify pizza as a vegetable. They said that it meets the federal requirements of a vegetable serving in school lunches.
In a nutshell:
The government wanted (wants) to make school lunches healthier choices to combat the rise in obesity - reduction in starchy foods (potatoes) and sodium, increases in whole grains, fruit and vegetable servings. Currently federal regulations require school lunches to include one half cup of vegetables. A loophole allows pizza in lunches (also salsas and spaghetti) to count as a vegetable because they contain tomato paste at levels which are supposed to be nutritionally equal to one half cup of vegetables.
The proposed changes the government wanted to introduce would have required a volume based vegetable serve size. For pizza to be classified as a vegetable it would actually have to have half a cup of vegetables on it or half a cup of tomato paste on it. Lunch providers such as ConAgra / Schwan, and the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) argued that the proposed changes would result in increased costs, congress caved to their lobbying (to the tune of US$6m) and blocked the proposed changes (this included blocking limiting of starchy foods, requiring further study on sodium reduction and requiring the USDA to classify whole grains before they could regulate it).
This pissed off the public / press and sensationalist headlines read: "Congress declares Pizza a vegetable" ;)
doesn't matter, Freddie and Fannie were an important part of the perverse incentive structure. Implied government guarantee turns everything upside down.
You earn more money when you give loans left and right and peddle them to the government with infinite funds than when you are cautious and prudent.
Also if you don't participate in that death race, you lose business; investors leave because the other guys offer better returns.
Flooding market with money to stimulate economy didn't help maintain sanity either - it was the root cause of that silly notion that housing can go 10%/year for eternity.
Gold has no inherent value, but cannot be easily gamed.
Well, for certain definitions of "easily". Quoting from http://www.fgmr.com/move-over-fisk-and-gould.html we read that a manipulator (ironically named Gould) did just that:
In 1869, Jim Fisk and Jay Gould tried to corner the gold market, and for a time, this notorious duo succeeded...When Fisk and Gould started their manipulations, gold hovered around GB$130....Gould got some newspapers to help him in his task by printing stories that a gold squeeze had begun. By Thursday, gold had risen to the low GB$140’s, but the real fireworks began the next day, September 24th, what has become known as Black Friday... Many faced ruin as gold began to soar, and the margin calls began to mount....The gold price had risen to GB$162, when James Brown (who with his brother took over the firm started by their father, which exists to this day as Brown Brothers Harriman) stepped up to the plate. He sold 250,000 ounces to a Fisk and Gould broker at GB$160
Put that in your calculations and smoke it.
captcha: discord
Their fraud was too small. If they had gotten into the mid-billions, they wouldn't have been punished, and We the People would never have heard the grisly details we will be paying out for perpetuity.
Go Big or Go To Jail.
In theory contingent fees solve this problem. A poor defendant can sell a portion of their suit to a rich investor for a upfront payment. Today that is normally the lawyer handling the case. So being poor is not the major issue.
What is the major issue is when the plaintiff doesn’t have the money. One can be poor, hire a good lawyer, but you can’t squeeze Bernie Madoff for money he does not have. (I am working off the assumption that he is telling the truth when he says he spent it all)
A bank doesn't create money out of thin air (in spite of what untold millions of crazies think - only the banking system does). Every dollar it lends out, it has to borrow.
Where does it borrow that money from?
How about you change your education system to teach you about taxes, interest rates, geography, food ... anything would be an improvement.
Pricing bonds, especially subprime bonds, it a bit of an art. The market is huge, but the chance that the exact bond you hold is rare
Let us say you hold a 9 year IBM bond. The 5 year bond and 10 year IBM bond traded, but not yours. What’s the price? You would base it on “observable, Level 2” inputs – basically taking apart the value of the bonds and putting it back together.
For subprime bonds, it may be nothing like you bond has traded for months. They are customized things, or “unobservable, level 3” inputs. These are subjective.
One could enter “high” values and claim to be an optimist. Or, one could ask your boss if they wanted high or low number and then manipulate the system to deliver the desired number. There is subjective delusional and then there is lying to deceive.
“Hacking” is not about illegal access to the system. It’s knowing what manual numbers to enter to manipulate the system to generate the desired results without tripping any compliance alarms.
The top 4 now rank within the TOP 12 in the WORLD.
According to this article, which ranks banks in 2011 by assets, the largest Australian bank made 36th place and only four Australian banks placed in the top 50.
It borrows it from people who have money. They have money because at the initial point someone implemented a cash rather than a barter economy, and it kind of grew from there.
If you're gearing up for a sequential, Socratic dialogue then please put all your questions and perceptions in one post instead.
If you're asking genuinely: there's a huge number of sources. For ease, let's pin it down to 'rich people' and 'pension funds' (who in turn may invest through money market funds or hold these instruments directly). Many of these have significant assets in fixed income securities and bank debt is usually considered reasonably safe.
For example, UK state and public sector pension liabilities are in the range of £2trn+: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6771822/Taxpayers-face-2-trillion-unfunded-pensions-liability.html
That is money which effectively the entire society will have to pay pensioners. In the process of paying that the pensioners will naturally spend it on goods and services. Effectively work to the value of £2trn+ will be performed on behalf of and to the direction of pensioners.
Basically, the European debt issue is as much a European asset issue - for every piece of debt, someone owes the assets. Old people and rich people have been "lending" to the younger generation (through the pension system: by accumulating pension benefits), and it's soon payback time. You can make the debt go away in real terms (inflation) or nominal terms (bankruptcy), but you cannot make debt go away without making someone's assets go away. That is why left-leaning people and institutions now often lean towards inflation, and right-leaning people and institutions lean towards austerity.
ironically it's the same packaged deal fallacy that screwed thing up in the first place
"some loans in this package are good, so the entire package must be good"
The securitization of mortgages was un-regulated. This unregulated derivatives market feed the desire to underwrite more and more mortgages. This was the crux the problem. Freddy and Fannie were small players and had nothing to do with banks underwriting mortgages that were crap so they could sell them as derivatives.
Mortgages are not heavily regulated as evidenced by the lax underwriting standards banks engaged in.
Don't ignore the facts: Wall Street created this mess and Wall Street writes the regulations.
Quit using your sock puppets to mod your crap up.
I didn't know I had 'sock puppets', but whoever moded me up must find this extremely amusing.
You can't handle the truth.
A bank doesn't create money out of thin air (in spite of what untold millions of crazies think - only the banking system does). Every dollar it lends out, it has to borrow.
And it borrows that money from another bank, which borrows that money from another bank, which borrows that money from another bank...
A bank doesn't create money out of thin air (in spite of what untold millions of crazies think - only the banking system does). Every dollar it lends out, it has to borrow.
Where does it borrow that money from?
You, and anyone else with deposits in the bank. That money in checkings/savings accounts yielding 0.05%? That's a loan to the bank. CDs? Loan to the bank at 1%(ish, depending). Bank issued credit card? You get the idea.
Example and math time:
Bank has 1000 customers each with 1000 in savings and 1000 in checking, so total loans of 2 million to the bank at a rate of 0.05%. Meanwhile, 9 customers of the bank have 200k$ mortgages there at 4% for a total of 1.8 million dollars yielding 4%.
We'll assume the 10% requirement from above, so bank balance sheet at end of year:
200k cash on hand
- 2000k * 1.0005 = -2001k
+1800k * 1.04 = +1872k
= +71k
Banks also borrow money from each other and the federal reserve at the 'prime rate', which is the one you hear in the news about the fed raising/lowering rates, but ye olde traditionale banke operatese offe ofe customere depositse.
It seems to me people hold the banks/investment firms in such a high contempt because 1) Just because the capital requirements have some minimum doesn't mean the banks should only keep the minimum. I think we expect the banks to be intelligent with their risk and balance sheet. 2) The investment firms found a way to sell bad mortgages as investments by bundling them. This allowed all companies involved in writing loans to not be on the hook if the loans went bad. They wrote the loan, took a commission, and passed it on to the investment firms for resale. 3) This allowed for bad loans. The name of the game was simply how many loans could be made. Verifying income didn't matter anymore. Adjustable rate loans were sold, to make them cheap enough that anybody could get a house. Nobody cared if they could pay when the rates went up. 4) The banks were telling appraisers to appraise homes at higher values. If the appraiser didn't give the right value, the banks wouldn't give them anymore work. 5) The bundles of bad loans were given AAA credit ratings by the credit agencies. 6) The banks which sold the loans to the investment firms, conveniently didn't keep the proper paperwork. The banks now want to foreclose on homes that they likely don't have the right to foreclose on, because they already sold the note. 7) The banks got around this by forging documents(robo signing). The banks have also shredded documents to cover up their fraud. The banks say it is simply a clerical error. I think most people see this for the BS it really is. 8) The naive public sees the price of homes doubling every 2 years. How are they supposed to react to this? A lot of people saw easy money now. Just buy a home and flip it or take a second or whatever. The public was dumb, but the investment firms and banks started this mess. 9) We bailed out the banks, and the executives paid themselves multimillion dollar bonuses. These crooks go around and act like it is not enough and they deserve so much more. Well, there a probably a million more reasons. I think there was massive fraud by the investment firms, the banks, all involved in writing mortgages, and the appraisers. Our government is also to blame for encouraging lending and lack of oversight of the problem. And now that the states are trying to investigate and sue, it is all a little sad, because we bailed out the crooks. How much money can they be sued for when they are too big to fail?
No, not exactly that way.
Firstly, any money a bank lends out it would have to borrow from someone. Let's say bank A and B both have 100m in deposits and 100m in loans. If a customer comes to bank A and wants to borrow 20m, and it's an attractive customer (low risk for the rate charged), bank A will try to raise the funding to cover the loan from someone. This can naturally be done instantly in the overnight markets.
But if B lends to A, then B suddenly needs to raise 20m. Where should B get that from? Another bank? That must also raise it from another bank? In practice this happens to some extent, but each bank must make a profit/margin on its lending, i.e. lend at a higher rate than its funding cost. That means a chain cannot be infinite. It can be long, because the margin can be small, and banks continually adjust their balance sheet for minor fluctuations (e.g. a bank has marginally more capital than its capital requirement? It lends it to a bank that has marginally less). But not _too_ many steps removed there must be a lending/funding entity that isn't itself a bank and hence doesn't need to borrow in order to lend.
That can be a rich guy or a pension fund or an insurance company or an endowment or anyone with a pile of money.
But thanks to heavy regulation, the Aussie banks steered away from bad debts, and therefore were relatively immune from the collapse.
Canada has had a similar experience. Which just goes to show that regulation is not bad in and of itself - the pertinent question is whether it's the right kind of regulation, or not. Like any other tool, it can be used for both good and evil things - and then it also depends on who you ask. A functioning democracy is supposed to be the mechanism by which we decide such matters.
Our government is also to blame for encouraging lending and lack of oversight of the problem. And now that the states are trying to investigate and sue, it is all a little sad, because we bailed out the crooks. How much money can they be sued for when they are too big to fail?
I don't believe you - you are constantly posting delusional garbage, yet it gets modded up well before anything rational in the thread. And there aren't that many stupid moderators.
It costs a lot of money for those earth boring machines to tunnel down to a safe depth, and then there's the cost of the complex itself, the oxygenerators, decades of food, water and electric and the list is long. It may be true now that D Trump is moving underground as well. Its not hard to see where most of the big bucks are going. Not to forget the driverless cars now being touted around the news either. When will the smoke clear? Astalavista ba b y..
just because you don't recognise a meaningful post doesn't mean nobody else does.
You can't handle the truth.
The lax underwriting standards were written into the regulations.
Like I said miss-regulated.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'