High-Frequency Trading is a bet, not much different than counting cards at a Las Vegas blackjack table.
You're betting that:
- You get your trade in milliseconds or less before the opportunity vanishes. - Your coders are not missing anything that would cause you to fail. - Your coders are sharper than the other coders our there, or... - You are taking from the humans, and aren't at risk from other HFT code. - Nothing goes bad in all of this, from comm links to the market platform.
And of course you can always beg the SEC to unwind the transactions, claiming it was a programming glitch. That's been done before. The SEC is no longer an effective watchdog over the industry. It has in effect been 'captured'. Game Over unless Mary can turn it around. Unlikely.
When you dig into how the NYSE actually works today, with DMMs and 'liquidity providers', that one entity can account for 10-20% of total volume, and all of that is HFT, you may realize that the days of humans trading on news and speculation are over. If you want to hold for a duration and take profits over the span of years, just hope you don;'t need to cash out on the same day as the machines have decided they see opportunity in trashing your holdings. Nothing personal, it was an algorithm you know. Just happens.
It's a genuine miracle that we don't see more flash crashes and >$1B fails than we do. HFT is going ot destroy the market, but only for actual humans. One day, when we realize that 70% of the market volume is HFT, we will then understand that the NYSE in particular is a house of cards. Then what?
And it's not too slow for being essentially 'free', as in beer.
Not 'too' slow. No, not speedy. But it works. SSL is an issue, so I suspect this is not useful to do any banking with.
BUT...
One important item. TMO and everyone else expects you to have a data plan with your smartphone. So this does not get you out of a data plan. It does, however, make that 200MB plan with TMO a lot more useful. By limiting your use of that to say HTTPS and anything SMOZZY doesn't handle, and using SMOZZY to fully exploit your SMS plan, you'll avoid overages (caps and throttling) and incidentally fully leverage your SMS plan.
Since SMS was always a clever use of signalling, it will be the carriers' response to re-prioritize any excess SMS traffic to ensure network signalling gets through. as far as I recall, they never even promise SMS will be delivered, so if SMOZZY gets out of hand, they could respond as if it were SMS spam. And TMO might, though they might hold off longer than, say, VZW, which I predict would boil your firstborn if you tried this on their network. AT&T would attend the buffet. Sprint would probably quietly block them and deny all knowledge.
We don't choose the CA's (there are 2), they are chosen by another party. We might be infected by malware, but our users are scattered over the U.S., Canada, and India. Switching OS is not an option. Microsoft was happy to take our ticket but could not answer any question.
And no, we are unaware of connection problems to Microsoft. We see good Windows Update sessions, we can download the rootsupd.exe when we ask for it, and we do NOT see any network call to Microsoft in response to the failed attempt.
I'm not professing to be an SSL expert, I just know what I see, and we see problems getting root certificates installed correctly and working, and there is literally NO help from MS or the CAs. MS is mute on the subject, even abandoning a support call without explanation.
My suspicion is that SSL is something they just don't want to explain or troubleshoot beyond what is publicly available, as if telling us how it works increases the possibilities of compromise. Like that horse isn't already gone.
Not one person. >40 of our users across the US and oversease are having these problems.
And the network traces are definitive. We see the connection attempt, the server offers its certificate, we refuse it, server says 'goodbye' correctly.
And we see plenty of root certificates in these Windows installations. MS has expanded the Root CA program dramatically. Lots of national CAs are in there. I like the proliferation of Chinese authorities about as much as a stick in the eye.
We regularly find Windows workstations that won't accept a valid certificate from any of several known good servers one of our applications use. Sometimes installing the root certificate solves it, but often it doesn't. Most of the time reinstalling Windows is the only solution.
Microsoft is of no use in these circumstances, as they avoid dealing with root certs at all. The CA also has no answer. Applying root updates, the specific certs, an all-encompassing cert, even removing and reapplying the CA in Windows doesn't always solve it. And yes, 90% of our users never have any trouble. Even clean Windows installs sometimes fail. It's not so simple as malware.
Several things are rotten in SSL. We need something better.
So it's drugs (and alcohol) that drives America's innovation.
Right.
Tell that to some of the sharper guys at Intel. Going to work on a fab line drunk is certainly going to drive innovation - as they learn how to clean up after you.
And the designers sure would agree with ya.
Do us the favor of staying home. We can only handle so much innovation.
The abolition of slavery - ensuring human rights is a mistake? taxation - always a point of contention. Look to growth of government instead. social security - we could debate the wisdom of this. child labor laws - ensuring himan rights is a mistake? welfare - making this a governmental function is debatable also. interstate highway system - excellent example of our Federal government's role. eminent domain - abuse by the government is always to be opposed. anti-trust laws (Sherman Act) - moderation is sometimes a good thing. minimum wage - ensuring human rights is a mistake? the draft - when needed, fine. the inability to sell your organs - the tension between human rights and personal freedom? pollution laws - and it's good to poison ourselves needlessly? Or at all? laws against exploiting poor people - this seems to be an amorphous concept to me. 'laws against exploiting people' would be worthy of debate.
Our federal government has, however, both overstepped its limits, and encroached on our liberties in unconstitutional ways:
Nationalized healthcare - beyond constitutional scope. Arbitrary reimbursment changes in Medicare cause providers to shift costs to other consumers, distorting the marketplace and justifying nationalization. Intentional cost-shifting makes nationalization attractive. Fix the real problem, finance Medicare correctly.
Excessive regulation and taxation of small business - If done under the heading of preventing the exploitation of people, it is failing.
Crony corporatism - small businesses fail all the time. Big businesses cannot be sheltered from their failure. 'Too big to fail' should mean 'too big to be allowed'. Antitrust? Maybe, but the proximate examples of the banks should be considered in light of the real problem - 'that too big to fail' was used to shelter their investors from financial doom. So it's ok to tax the rich, especially since you just saved many of them from ruin. Is this a scheme to preserve tax revenue at the cost of government debt? What a great scam.
Systemic debt - now is not a good time to rein in spending. So when is?
Failure to perform the proper role of Federal government - NOW we hear that infrastructure is in need of repair, only when it's useful to pump capital into the economy and encourage spending. Fundamental research has been suffering, and was a pillar of our economy. Not welfare, but useful work.
And ther other side of the coin of communism is that once the proles realize they cannot benefit from the system, they do one or both of two things; stop exerting themselves, or plot revolution.
And this may happen in capitalist societies also, for various reasons.
Whatever the system, if you think you're no longer benefiting from your labor, you risk losing incentive to work. If you see no solution but revolt, you either sit in your failure or you take action. Pretty simple.
Our society is well on its way to permitting the disaffected to simply not work. When those who do finally resent those who don't enough to stop exerting themselves, we have a huge problem. Do the disaffected return to the workforce? Is there work for them? Do we fight over the last tax dollar?
And being willing to sell that donut to someone for $130 instead of $100 is certainly the seller's preference.
But in this case, there's a lot of talk about Sprint wanting to buy the donut for $25B, and while these things are conducted quietly, surprise, AT&T offers $38B for the donut, and well, DT says yes.
Not one peep from Sprint that they still want the donut. Not one.
Sounds to me like there is only one buyer that DT is interested in. Proably cause AT&T offered them a 6% stake, where Sprint offered 10% of a much smaller outfit.
ps - In all likelihood, Sprint would have a hard time coming up with the dough, though it is alleged they made a serious bid. But that was then, and we are stuck with now. I'm a TMO subscriber, and I see the end. Two years tops.
March 8, 2011; Bloomberg reports Sprint is talking with DT about buying TMO.
March 20, 2011; AT&T announced merger with TMO.
Sounds like Sprint is out of the running.
Now, if DT will take maybe $25B from Sprint, then there may be a buyer. Will Sprint offer that much?
More to the point, and please turn up your hearing aid, Sprint has NOT made a counter-offer.
There was talk in 2010, but it never came to fruition. Even that was supposition.
BTW, these rumors go back to 2009. TMO and Sprint have been the subject of M&A rumors for so long I think these started when Sprint bought Nextel.
Unless Sprint starts talking like that again, we can, I believe safely say they are not making an effort to buy TMO. Unless their suit and other filings are intended to nix the AT&T deal and leave them in position to pick up TMO for substantially less than the original $25B alleged to be offered.
And note no one went on the record that this was a even an actual negotiation. In fact, before this all started, it was rumored that DT wanted to buy Sprint and gain enough market share to challenge the other tweo major players. Now, no one is going to admit that Sprint made an offer, since that;s the nature of these things. So in the absence of actual fact, shall I take your regurgitation of a rumor in Bloomberg as true, or more as an interesting possibility at the time, now off the table?
Really. Gimme some facts. You're confusing Bloomie's rumor mill with actuality.
First, I wrote "that seems like a significant danger..." One of several significant dangers of going out of business would be, as I was trying to point out, that "The parent company, Deutsche Telekom, wants to sell them off". May we agree that when your parent company doesn't want to operate you any more, that is a significant danger to your continued operation?
Secondly, and more importantly, I was responding to your statement:
"Sure, profits and revenue are down, but T-Mobile USA still made $1.3B on $20B in revenue last year. They are in no danger of going out of business for a few years."
Indeed, they seem fairly profitable based on multiples of revenue. But DT's intention to divest themselves of TMO would seem to trump that.
You disagree? I'm interested in what you see as a future for TMO if DT is genuinely going to let them go. Is there even a HINT of another buyer out there? Is it apparent that DT will continue to operate TMO as an aggressive competitor if this deal falls through?
Please, give me some other assessment supported by facts or logic. I'm aware of none, and you would change my viewpoint if you have one. But when you do, please address the facts - DT has made it clear they no longer wish to operate in the U.S. AT&T is not only the buyer they have chosen, but they have mentioned no other potential buyer, nor has one come forward.
I'm not making these statements in support of the merger, just making them as what I see are facts that are important in understanding TMO's future.
Spectrum was auctioned off to the carriers over several years/decades. Allocation at that level was a function of capital, more or less.
How the carriers used tha spectrum is a business decision. AT&T is regularly excoriated for their poor performance in hi-density areas, but this is as much system design as any complaints of spectrum. Here lies an interesting problem.
If you think AT&T can just build out a bunch of new towers to satisfy metro demand, you haven't tried renting out tower space. Many cities are not ready to let the carriers sprout up towers everywhere. And in some cities, like NYC, towers cannot easily voercome the challenging topology of skyscrapers.
Letting AT&T become larger doesn't by itself solve this. When they get bigger, and if they choose to not build more capacity, then nothing is fixed. If they use TMO spectrum to overlay another network, well, let's see those penta-band phones come from Apple, and soon, or we are not fixing anything. If AT&T uses TMO tower locations, well, that avoids leasing new sites. Unless the cities decide the change of ownership causes a new application for the licenses. In any case, expecting AT&T to use TMO assets to improve performance presupposes that AT&T actually wants to improve performance. Is this so patently obvious to everyone that we need not consider their business decisions that may or may not make that desireable?
If our government decides to impose some rules for how spectrum is deployed and managed, why the hell don't we just nationalize these carriers? Oh, right, this is the United States. At least for now we don't actually take over these sorts of businesses.
Andf we are right back to the issue of how big can AT&T become without making the markert uncompetitive, and causing consumers excess cost and diminished quality of service?
The better solution is to encourage competition. And I suspect the FCC will try to do this by making AT&T give up relatively large chunks of spectrum to new competitors. Which won't work as well as they think it will, since a national carrier is needed to compete well, and that means making AT&T give up a national-sized chunk. Which denies AT&T any benefits from a merger. Which is stupid.
And we also need to consider that DT seems to have given up oon TMO. Who else will buy them? Sprint? No, Sprint can't seem to say either way, which means no.
The parent company, Deutsche Telekom, wants to sell them off. that seems like a significant danger of going out of business in a few years. Maybe sooner.
4320p/120fps is the grail, equivalent to Red Digital. After that, we're facing more-than-film quality, which some will buy, just not me. And already,there are prototypes beyond that.
I know, IMAX in the home is the ultimate, until something else comes along. Sharp is already hitting that.
Slashdot Mirror
High-Frequency Trading is a bet, not much different than counting cards at a Las Vegas blackjack table.
You're betting that:
- You get your trade in milliseconds or less before the opportunity vanishes.
- Your coders are not missing anything that would cause you to fail.
- Your coders are sharper than the other coders our there, or...
- You are taking from the humans, and aren't at risk from other HFT code.
- Nothing goes bad in all of this, from comm links to the market platform.
And of course you can always beg the SEC to unwind the transactions, claiming it was a programming glitch. That's been done before. The SEC is no longer an effective watchdog over the industry. It has in effect been 'captured'. Game Over unless Mary can turn it around. Unlikely.
When you dig into how the NYSE actually works today, with DMMs and 'liquidity providers', that one entity can account for 10-20% of total volume, and all of that is HFT, you may realize that the days of humans trading on news and speculation are over. If you want to hold for a duration and take profits over the span of years, just hope you don;'t need to cash out on the same day as the machines have decided they see opportunity in trashing your holdings. Nothing personal, it was an algorithm you know. Just happens.
It's a genuine miracle that we don't see more flash crashes and >$1B fails than we do. HFT is going ot destroy the market, but only for actual humans. One day, when we realize that 70% of the market volume is HFT, we will then understand that the NYSE in particular is a house of cards. Then what?
And it's not too slow for being essentially 'free', as in beer.
Not 'too' slow. No, not speedy. But it works. SSL is an issue, so I suspect this is not useful to do any banking with.
BUT...
One important item. TMO and everyone else expects you to have a data plan with your smartphone. So this does not get you out of a data plan. It does, however, make that 200MB plan with TMO a lot more useful. By limiting your use of that to say HTTPS and anything SMOZZY doesn't handle, and using SMOZZY to fully exploit your SMS plan, you'll avoid overages (caps and throttling) and incidentally fully leverage your SMS plan.
Since SMS was always a clever use of signalling, it will be the carriers' response to re-prioritize any excess SMS traffic to ensure network signalling gets through. as far as I recall, they never even promise SMS will be delivered, so if SMOZZY gets out of hand, they could respond as if it were SMS spam. And TMO might, though they might hold off longer than, say, VZW, which I predict would boil your firstborn if you tried this on their network. AT&T would attend the buffet. Sprint would probably quietly block them and deny all knowledge.
We don't choose the CA's (there are 2), they are chosen by another party. We might be infected by malware, but our users are scattered over the U.S., Canada, and India. Switching OS is not an option. Microsoft was happy to take our ticket but could not answer any question.
No, the State of California would have charged you more than $150 dollars in sales tax.
Newegg is required to collect and deliver it.
And no, we are unaware of connection problems to Microsoft. We see good Windows Update sessions, we can download the rootsupd.exe when we ask for it, and we do NOT see any network call to Microsoft in response to the failed attempt.
I'm not professing to be an SSL expert, I just know what I see, and we see problems getting root certificates installed correctly and working, and there is literally NO help from MS or the CAs. MS is mute on the subject, even abandoning a support call without explanation.
My suspicion is that SSL is something they just don't want to explain or troubleshoot beyond what is publicly available, as if telling us how it works increases the possibilities of compromise. Like that horse isn't already gone.
Not one person. >40 of our users across the US and oversease are having these problems.
And the network traces are definitive. We see the connection attempt, the server offers its certificate, we refuse it, server says 'goodbye' correctly.
And we see plenty of root certificates in these Windows installations. MS has expanded the Root CA program dramatically. Lots of national CAs are in there. I like the proliferation of Chinese authorities about as much as a stick in the eye.
This problem affects >40 of our users. It's not me. Our application uses Windows and OpenSSL. The network traces are definitive.
Millions don't use these servers.
It still doesn't work.
It's SSL, the traces show SSL is refusing the connection.
Like I said, must be us.
One set of certs are Equifax, the other from GTE Cybertrust. Both have troubles.
Our problem is that we have workstations that cannot negotiate connections despite having valid certificates. The certs install fine, just don't work.
Yes, i'm sure its our fault. understood.
We regularly find Windows workstations that won't accept a valid certificate from any of several known good servers one of our applications use. Sometimes installing the root certificate solves it, but often it doesn't. Most of the time reinstalling Windows is the only solution.
Microsoft is of no use in these circumstances, as they avoid dealing with root certs at all. The CA also has no answer. Applying root updates, the specific certs, an all-encompassing cert, even removing and reapplying the CA in Windows doesn't always solve it. And yes, 90% of our users never have any trouble. Even clean Windows installs sometimes fail. It's not so simple as malware.
Several things are rotten in SSL. We need something better.
So it's drugs (and alcohol) that drives America's innovation.
Right.
Tell that to some of the sharper guys at Intel. Going to work on a fab line drunk is certainly going to drive innovation - as they learn how to clean up after you.
And the designers sure would agree with ya.
Do us the favor of staying home. We can only handle so much innovation.
The abolition of slavery - ensuring human rights is a mistake?
taxation - always a point of contention. Look to growth of government instead.
social security - we could debate the wisdom of this.
child labor laws - ensuring himan rights is a mistake?
welfare - making this a governmental function is debatable also.
interstate highway system - excellent example of our Federal government's role.
eminent domain - abuse by the government is always to be opposed.
anti-trust laws (Sherman Act) - moderation is sometimes a good thing.
minimum wage - ensuring human rights is a mistake?
the draft - when needed, fine.
the inability to sell your organs - the tension between human rights and personal freedom?
pollution laws - and it's good to poison ourselves needlessly? Or at all?
laws against exploiting poor people - this seems to be an amorphous concept to me. 'laws against exploiting people' would be worthy of debate.
Our federal government has, however, both overstepped its limits, and encroached on our liberties in unconstitutional ways:
Nationalized healthcare - beyond constitutional scope. Arbitrary reimbursment changes in Medicare cause providers to shift costs to other consumers, distorting the marketplace and justifying nationalization. Intentional cost-shifting makes nationalization attractive. Fix the real problem, finance Medicare correctly.
Excessive regulation and taxation of small business - If done under the heading of preventing the exploitation of people, it is failing.
Crony corporatism - small businesses fail all the time. Big businesses cannot be sheltered from their failure. 'Too big to fail' should mean 'too big to be allowed'. Antitrust? Maybe, but the proximate examples of the banks should be considered in light of the real problem - 'that too big to fail' was used to shelter their investors from financial doom. So it's ok to tax the rich, especially since you just saved many of them from ruin. Is this a scheme to preserve tax revenue at the cost of government debt? What a great scam.
Systemic debt - now is not a good time to rein in spending. So when is?
Failure to perform the proper role of Federal government - NOW we hear that infrastructure is in need of repair, only when it's useful to pump capital into the economy and encourage spending. Fundamental research has been suffering, and was a pillar of our economy. Not welfare, but useful work.
I thought that was Leninism. Or was it Stalinism? SO confusing, so many tyrants to blame...
And ther other side of the coin of communism is that once the proles realize they cannot benefit from the system, they do one or both of two things; stop exerting themselves, or plot revolution.
And this may happen in capitalist societies also, for various reasons.
Whatever the system, if you think you're no longer benefiting from your labor, you risk losing incentive to work. If you see no solution but revolt, you either sit in your failure or you take action. Pretty simple.
Our society is well on its way to permitting the disaffected to simply not work. When those who do finally resent those who don't enough to stop exerting themselves, we have a huge problem. Do the disaffected return to the workforce? Is there work for them? Do we fight over the last tax dollar?
And being willing to sell that donut to someone for $130 instead of $100 is certainly the seller's preference.
But in this case, there's a lot of talk about Sprint wanting to buy the donut for $25B, and while these things are conducted quietly, surprise, AT&T offers $38B for the donut, and well, DT says yes.
Not one peep from Sprint that they still want the donut. Not one.
Sounds to me like there is only one buyer that DT is interested in. Proably cause AT&T offered them a 6% stake, where Sprint offered 10% of a much smaller outfit.
ps - In all likelihood, Sprint would have a hard time coming up with the dough, though it is alleged they made a serious bid. But that was then, and we are stuck with now. I'm a TMO subscriber, and I see the end. Two years tops.
Ok, let's look at this:
March 8, 2011; Bloomberg reports Sprint is talking with DT about buying TMO.
March 20, 2011; AT&T announced merger with TMO.
Sounds like Sprint is out of the running.
Now, if DT will take maybe $25B from Sprint, then there may be a buyer. Will Sprint offer that much?
More to the point, and please turn up your hearing aid, Sprint has NOT made a counter-offer.
There was talk in 2010, but it never came to fruition. Even that was supposition.
BTW, these rumors go back to 2009. TMO and Sprint have been the subject of M&A rumors for so long I think these started when Sprint bought Nextel.
Unless Sprint starts talking like that again, we can, I believe safely say they are not making an effort to buy TMO. Unless their suit and other filings are intended to nix the AT&T deal and leave them in position to pick up TMO for substantially less than the original $25B alleged to be offered.
And note no one went on the record that this was a even an actual negotiation. In fact, before this all started, it was rumored that DT wanted to buy Sprint and gain enough market share to challenge the other tweo major players. Now, no one is going to admit that Sprint made an offer, since that;s the nature of these things. So in the absence of actual fact, shall I take your regurgitation of a rumor in Bloomberg as true, or more as an interesting possibility at the time, now off the table?
Really. Gimme some facts. You're confusing Bloomie's rumor mill with actuality.
Well, where do I start?
First, I wrote "that seems like a significant danger ..." One of several significant dangers of going out of business would be, as I was trying to point out, that "The parent company, Deutsche Telekom, wants to sell them off". May we agree that when your parent company doesn't want to operate you any more, that is a significant danger to your continued operation?
Secondly, and more importantly, I was responding to your statement:
"Sure, profits and revenue are down, but T-Mobile USA still made $1.3B on $20B in revenue last year. They are in no danger of going out of business for a few years."
Indeed, they seem fairly profitable based on multiples of revenue. But DT's intention to divest themselves of TMO would seem to trump that.
You disagree? I'm interested in what you see as a future for TMO if DT is genuinely going to let them go. Is there even a HINT of another buyer out there? Is it apparent that DT will continue to operate TMO as an aggressive competitor if this deal falls through?
Please, give me some other assessment supported by facts or logic. I'm aware of none, and you would change my viewpoint if you have one. But when you do, please address the facts - DT has made it clear they no longer wish to operate in the U.S. AT&T is not only the buyer they have chosen, but they have mentioned no other potential buyer, nor has one come forward.
I'm not making these statements in support of the merger, just making them as what I see are facts that are important in understanding TMO's future.
Spectrum was auctioned off to the carriers over several years/decades. Allocation at that level was a function of capital, more or less.
How the carriers used tha spectrum is a business decision. AT&T is regularly excoriated for their poor performance in hi-density areas, but this is as much system design as any complaints of spectrum. Here lies an interesting problem.
If you think AT&T can just build out a bunch of new towers to satisfy metro demand, you haven't tried renting out tower space. Many cities are not ready to let the carriers sprout up towers everywhere. And in some cities, like NYC, towers cannot easily voercome the challenging topology of skyscrapers.
Letting AT&T become larger doesn't by itself solve this. When they get bigger, and if they choose to not build more capacity, then nothing is fixed. If they use TMO spectrum to overlay another network, well, let's see those penta-band phones come from Apple, and soon, or we are not fixing anything. If AT&T uses TMO tower locations, well, that avoids leasing new sites. Unless the cities decide the change of ownership causes a new application for the licenses. In any case, expecting AT&T to use TMO assets to improve performance presupposes that AT&T actually wants to improve performance. Is this so patently obvious to everyone that we need not consider their business decisions that may or may not make that desireable?
If our government decides to impose some rules for how spectrum is deployed and managed, why the hell don't we just nationalize these carriers? Oh, right, this is the United States. At least for now we don't actually take over these sorts of businesses.
Andf we are right back to the issue of how big can AT&T become without making the markert uncompetitive, and causing consumers excess cost and diminished quality of service?
The better solution is to encourage competition. And I suspect the FCC will try to do this by making AT&T give up relatively large chunks of spectrum to new competitors. Which won't work as well as they think it will, since a national carrier is needed to compete well, and that means making AT&T give up a national-sized chunk. Which denies AT&T any benefits from a merger. Which is stupid.
And we also need to consider that DT seems to have given up oon TMO. Who else will buy them? Sprint? No, Sprint can't seem to say either way, which means no.
The parent company, Deutsche Telekom, wants to sell them off. that seems like a significant danger of going out of business in a few years. Maybe sooner.
This detail is commonly overlooked.
And listen to the deafening cries of the media as they lament the abuse of Gibson Guitar at the hands of the current Administration.
Oh.
4320p/120fps is the grail, equivalent to Red Digital. After that, we're facing more-than-film quality, which some will buy, just not me. And already,there are prototypes beyond that.
I know, IMAX in the home is the ultimate, until something else comes along. Sharp is already hitting that.
Well. That well.
Apparently you did not, either.
Look into which guitar company contributes to which candidate(s) and which party.
And then consider this happened two years ago, and no cases were filed from that incident, nor were the confiscated materials returned
Hmph. I've still got the 12 gauge pump and both the .30-30 and .300 lever actions, very useful. They'd have to come get them.