I appreciated Megan's explanation of commerical paper from early last week.
Can we get a primer on what a hedge fund is, and what a run on them would mean for people who are not, say, hedge fund managers or investors? What, in other words, would be the collateral damage from a run on the hedges?
That's an open question for anyone, including Megan.
I love the new spin out of the Washington media. The markets didn't crash yesterday and in fact rose after the deal died in the House on Monday because everyone on Wall Street assumes there will be a bailout and are acting accordingly.
So the market has so much faith that this Congress a month before the election in concert with a lame duck President are going to pass a hugely unpopular $700 Billion bailout for a bunch of Wall-Street billionairs that they are willing to bet their money on it. Yeah, that makes sense.
The credit markets for certain products that were fairly liquid last week are now extremely illiquid. Things are quite serious on credit desks on the street.
"John, I think you are looking at the wrong market. There is a reason why they are calling this a credit crisis rather than a stock crisis."
And the stock market won't fall because of a credit crisis? If the stock market actually believed that the credit crisis is going to adversly affect otherwise profitable companies, the stock prices of those companies will be adjusted accordingly. That doesn't seem to be happening. That fact makes me think that the "credit crisis" such as it is, is more of a crisis for a few wealthy and influential people than it is for the country.
A hedge fund is basically a counterparty to transactions. Sometimes they become great big hairy stinking counterparties to transactions. They get so huge largely because they employ so much leverage.
The reason they employ so much leverage is because they think they are magnifying returns on a sure thing. I.e., arbitrage.
They blow up once in a while because even arbitrage transactions aren't sure things. And even if they are, the timing on their payoff isn't, and sometimes the payoff comes AFTER the fund goes insolvent. C.f. Long Term Capital Management.
Hedge funds imploding every once in a while is not a terrible thing -- UNLESS you are a lender to them (enabling them to get highly leveraged, or unless they are a counterparty to your much-needed transaction.)
Hedge funds tend to be fairly nimble, though, which enables them to dodge the occasional bullet.
Problem is, there are a number of different bullets headed their way right now, including a sudden and sharp rollback in available credit. And some of these hedge funds rely on continued high levels of credit in order to maintain their highly leveraged positions. If they get a lot of loans called at the same time, they may be forced to sell assets...or even non-asset assets like positions in derivatives at fire sale prices in order to raise cash...all to a market that no longer exists because no one else can leverage up to buy so many positions at the same time either.
The markets are discovering the meaning of counterparty risk.
Ms. McArdle:
Thanks for a strong and interesting BH episode. You expressed your views clearly and used a variety of types of evidence to make your points. The audio levels were a little off (I had trouble hearing Yves), but I doubt that's something over which you have control. Good job, and I look forward to your appearance on future diavlogs of this quality.
John, stock prices are down. They have fallen over 10% in the past month.
Just as an aside, stock market prices reflect longer term probabilities of various states of the world including the probabilities that the economy will (or will not) collapse. If a policymakers wait for the stock market to collapse before he or she acts, then they will almost certainly act too late.
Nice technical explanation, but all of those thoughts are not why the "great unwashed" are against the "bailout".
What I hear from friends and relatives, who wouldn't know a CDS from a DVD,is that nobody trusts that it won't be just business as usual. Paulson, Benneke, they're all part of the good-ol-boy network, and handing them lots of tax dollars to distribute to the Wall Street fatcats will just result in lots of of that cash sticking to the hands of those it passes through, same as it always had.
"If a policymakers wait for the stock market to collapse before he or she acts, then they will almost certainly act too late."
That is just begging the question. If we wait until it is too late bad things are going to happen. There are a lot of bad things that may happen anyway and certainly will if we have the bailout. I love how everyone is so concerned about a possible credit crunch have no worries about the effect of the Fed creating $700 billion out of thin air. No inflationary risks there. No none at all.
If the alleged credit crunch occurs, inject the liquidity then directly to solvent banks and fix it. Let the money be loaned out and put into productive sectors on the economy. As it stands, the bailout just takes hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars from productive members of society and gives it to unproductive members and as an added bonus of creating the moral hazard of rewarding failure with government billions.
Stocks have already fallen, from north of 14,000 (DJIA) to the mid-10ks. Why? Well, largely because they discounted the possibility of something like this occuring.
The reason equities ONLY fell 670 points or whatever it was on monday is because they had ALREADY fallen nearly 3,000 points anyway.
Is it a crash? Or was it a bear market? That's a distinction without a difference. Bear markets can be more destructive to capital than crashes. The '87 crash had no lasting effects, for example, while the slow, steady relentless bear market of the 1970's destroyed half the value of American enterprise.
"Is it a crash? Or was it a bear market? That's a distinction without a difference. Bear markets can be more destructive to capital than crashes. The '87 crash had no lasting effects, for example, while the slow, steady relentless bear market of the 1970's destroyed half the value of American enterprise."
It may be that a bear market is inevitable. The fact remains that we have wasted untold billions of what amounts to a ponzi scheme in real estate. There is no getting around the fact that real estate is wildly over valued and a whole lot of "wealth" is nothing but paper built on speculation. We also have horrible credit practices such as teaser rates and MBS that ensure that the teaser rate defaults up the credit chain. There is something like $500 billion worth of teaser rate mortgages that are going to come due in the next five years.
No one is saying there is an easy sollution to this. But, instead of propping up insolvent banks, the better sollution seems to be to let those banks fail, take our medicine and come out the other side with a stronger economy. The market can never adjust and start growing again until the full impact of the paper losses is accounted. The last time we had a serious recession (1982) the end result was ending stagflation and setting the table for nearly 30 years of growth. Let's have our recession now, let people pay the price for their stupid behaviors and come out on the other side with a healthier credit system and a more fundementally sound economy. The day of reconing is going to come anyway. Putting it off just will make it worse.
I wish you'd consider a different type of webcam performance. You have a pornographic mouth, and give off a feeling of intellectual superiority, fiscal responsibility, and that you would be a wonderfully filthy fuck.
I'm sure there is an economic niche of brainy Amazon's willing to suck on demand.
What I hear from friends and relatives, who wouldn't know a CDS from a DVD,is that nobody trusts that it won't be just business as usual. Paulson, Benneke, they're all part of the good-ol-boy network, and handing them lots of tax dollars to distribute to the Wall Street fatcats will just result in lots of of that cash sticking to the hands of those it passes through, same as it always had.
Posted by bud
See, that's the problem with the treasonous scum who head these Wall Street institutions. For the good of the country, they should be the ones writing into the bailout that they will recieve perhaps a twentieth or a hundredth of the compensation they had before. For the good of the country, they should be the first to write into the bill that no organization can receive any aid _unless_ all of it's upper echelons publicly apologize on TV and admit that deregulation and 'free market' capitalism have FAILED. The people who own those mortgages should insist that courts have the ability to reset mortgage rates (at least, for those occupying the homes they have bought.)
For the good of the country.
Because, the Peepul, bless their flabby black little hearts know that if something isn't done now, there will only be a repeat collapse later. The bills presented so far try as much as possible to keep on with business as usual.
So what happens in 2015? In 2023? In 2031? Are we just supposed to keep on providing taxpayer funded bailouts? Because 'the magic of the marketplace' is just so wonderlicious compared to the alternative? Because Socialism for mainstreet will sap our precious bodily fluids?
No, you really don't have to know a lot to oppose a bill that just resets everything back to what it was a few years ago.
The people who own those mortgages should insist that courts have the ability to reset mortgage rates
Of course, identifying who "owns" a 30-year mortgage that has been split into 360 different little securities with 360 different maturity dates, partial shares of which were sold to thousands of buyers, is an interesting exercise, as servicing companies trying to foreclose and being denied by the courts are discovering. The opacity of these instruments (and, come to think of it, my preceding sentence) is probably a bigger problem for valuation than the defaults themselves, and one that resetting rates won't help at all.
So you're claiming that no one can petition the court for a reset because they don't know who holds their mortgage? Pray then, just who is in a position to foreclose upon these individuals? Are you saying that no one is being subjected to foreclosure?
Are you saying that no one is being subjected to foreclosure?
Certianly not "no one," but there have been cases of judges denying foreclosures because the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they the (securitized) mortgage.
It's possible--not even that hard--to structure a transaction so that the mortgage holder is clear and can foreclose, but it is apparently also possible to screw that up badly enough that you get laughed out of court.
That reality adds a frightening layer of uncertainty to the sale of mortgage securities and can't be helping their value or liquidity. Imagine the paperwork and due diligence necessary to determine whether the share you're buying is one of the "good" ones or one of the "bad" ones. It's probably tougher than determining the likely default rate. Even if only a few percent of mortgage securities are "bad" in this sense (and we don't know that number), it will cost a fortune to discover which ones they are.
First Profession: There are about 3.4 billion women in the world. Interestingly, the closest you've evidently come to any of them was somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-500 F4-6.3.
I'm sorry, I've cleared entered your turf roughly here. While I understand the jealousy such fellow fetishists share, I'm surprised there's such competition for one woman. Isn't this basic game theory?
And Mouse, I'm not sure smugly using statistics and lines in a bitchy way will woo your Queen, since she already has that ability.
Perhaps a large bottle of alcohol and an even bigger cock might be your best hope.
The porno troll is far to normal to be Sullivan. Sullivan is obsessed with minstral fluid and OBGYN records. He would never do anything so normal as comment on a woman's sexuality. Sullivan is far too strange and perverse to put up such mainline profanity.
I don't understand why Yves Smith stated that it was a "paranoid" school of thought to suggest that the audited annual reports due in January will be more honest than the unaudited quarterly financial statements.
CPAs in general are greatly chastened by Volcker's public dismemberment of Arthur Andersen after the Enron scandal. All CPAs from name schools had friends who lost their jobs from that takedown of AA.
The auditors that descended on corporate America in the first part of this year were determined not to have a repeat of the Enron fiasco. Recall that under current US law, auditing firms are liable for ALL of a firm's misreported losses. Given the size of these corporate behemoths, that means one major mistake and another huge accounting firm could go under.
Additionally, we know that there was a sharp downdraft in January of this year closely coupled with earnings "surprises" revealed in these audited reports.
Therefore, I do not understand why Yves said it was a "paranoid" school of thought to think that January's audited statements will pose surprises for the unprepared.
It doesn't seem paranoid to me to have this view.
It seems rather rational.
Am I missing something? Can someone clue me in to her thinking here?
"Because, the Peepul, bless their flabby black little hearts know that if something isn't done now, there will only be a repeat collapse later. The bills presented so far try as much as possible to keep on with business as usual.
So what happens in 2015? In 2023? In 2031? Are we just supposed to keep on providing taxpayer funded bailouts?"
First time ever I have agreed with SOV.
The main goal of this bill does not seem to be to avoid finacial calamity but to keep up business as usual on the lending front and kick the can of final reconing furthe down the road.
We borrowed too much on stupid things. Credit was too loose. Our growth was based on borrowing to build stuff (houses) that we didn't need (at least not at the price of construction). Getting the banks "back to lending" at same old low rates is stupid. Credit has rightly been repriced, those businesses and individuals who relied on cheap credit and high leverage need to realign thier activities. We don't need the government trying to get things "back to normal"
I agree completely. At some point we are going to have to face the reality that homes and real estate prices need to readjust and lending practices have to change. If we don't do that, I don't see how this bill does anything but put off the final recononing and make it worse when it finally comes.
Forgive my lack of knowlege, but what rate would the gov have to pay if it issues T-Bills. I thought I read that they were bid up to the point that yields were under 1%. If the fed can borrow at 1%, I don't think I'd have much issue with the bailout.
What rate would we get if we borrow to do the bailout?
I should have clarified that I thought perhaps your balls were fit to burst with frustration cum, held back only by your desperately prissy nature, which releases only in gushes of snide, snark and pointless data points.
When the moment comes - try not to use a slow exposure - and don't get upset you didn't laminate the Megan mouse mat.
And here I thought Yves Smith was a man. Silly me!!
Nice conversation to listen in on. Thanks for putting it up; I hope you do more of them...
That was very interesting.
I appreciated Megan's explanation of commerical paper from early last week.
Can we get a primer on what a hedge fund is, and what a run on them would mean for people who are not, say, hedge fund managers or investors? What, in other words, would be the collateral damage from a run on the hedges?
That's an open question for anyone, including Megan.
I love the new spin out of the Washington media. The markets didn't crash yesterday and in fact rose after the deal died in the House on Monday because everyone on Wall Street assumes there will be a bailout and are acting accordingly.
So the market has so much faith that this Congress a month before the election in concert with a lame duck President are going to pass a hugely unpopular $700 Billion bailout for a bunch of Wall-Street billionairs that they are willing to bet their money on it. Yeah, that makes sense.
John, I think you are looking at the wrong market. There is a reason why they are calling this a credit crisis rather than a stock crisis.
The credit markets for certain products that were fairly liquid last week are now extremely illiquid. Things are quite serious on credit desks on the street.
"John, I think you are looking at the wrong market. There is a reason why they are calling this a credit crisis rather than a stock crisis."
And the stock market won't fall because of a credit crisis? If the stock market actually believed that the credit crisis is going to adversly affect otherwise profitable companies, the stock prices of those companies will be adjusted accordingly. That doesn't seem to be happening. That fact makes me think that the "credit crisis" such as it is, is more of a crisis for a few wealthy and influential people than it is for the country.
A hedge fund is basically a counterparty to transactions. Sometimes they become great big hairy stinking counterparties to transactions. They get so huge largely because they employ so much leverage.
The reason they employ so much leverage is because they think they are magnifying returns on a sure thing. I.e., arbitrage.
They blow up once in a while because even arbitrage transactions aren't sure things. And even if they are, the timing on their payoff isn't, and sometimes the payoff comes AFTER the fund goes insolvent. C.f. Long Term Capital Management.
Hedge funds imploding every once in a while is not a terrible thing -- UNLESS you are a lender to them (enabling them to get highly leveraged, or unless they are a counterparty to your much-needed transaction.)
Hedge funds tend to be fairly nimble, though, which enables them to dodge the occasional bullet.
Problem is, there are a number of different bullets headed their way right now, including a sudden and sharp rollback in available credit. And some of these hedge funds rely on continued high levels of credit in order to maintain their highly leveraged positions. If they get a lot of loans called at the same time, they may be forced to sell assets...or even non-asset assets like positions in derivatives at fire sale prices in order to raise cash...all to a market that no longer exists because no one else can leverage up to buy so many positions at the same time either.
The markets are discovering the meaning of counterparty risk.
Pass the popcorn.
Ms. McArdle:
Thanks for a strong and interesting BH episode. You expressed your views clearly and used a variety of types of evidence to make your points. The audio levels were a little off (I had trouble hearing Yves), but I doubt that's something over which you have control. Good job, and I look forward to your appearance on future diavlogs of this quality.
John, stock prices are down. They have fallen over 10% in the past month.
Just as an aside, stock market prices reflect longer term probabilities of various states of the world including the probabilities that the economy will (or will not) collapse. If a policymakers wait for the stock market to collapse before he or she acts, then they will almost certainly act too late.
Nice technical explanation, but all of those thoughts are not why the "great unwashed" are against the "bailout".
What I hear from friends and relatives, who wouldn't know a CDS from a DVD,is that nobody trusts that it won't be just business as usual. Paulson, Benneke, they're all part of the good-ol-boy network, and handing them lots of tax dollars to distribute to the Wall Street fatcats will just result in lots of of that cash sticking to the hands of those it passes through, same as it always had.
"If a policymakers wait for the stock market to collapse before he or she acts, then they will almost certainly act too late."
That is just begging the question. If we wait until it is too late bad things are going to happen. There are a lot of bad things that may happen anyway and certainly will if we have the bailout. I love how everyone is so concerned about a possible credit crunch have no worries about the effect of the Fed creating $700 billion out of thin air. No inflationary risks there. No none at all.
If the alleged credit crunch occurs, inject the liquidity then directly to solvent banks and fix it. Let the money be loaned out and put into productive sectors on the economy. As it stands, the bailout just takes hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars from productive members of society and gives it to unproductive members and as an added bonus of creating the moral hazard of rewarding failure with government billions.
Stocks have already fallen, from north of 14,000 (DJIA) to the mid-10ks. Why? Well, largely because they discounted the possibility of something like this occuring.
The reason equities ONLY fell 670 points or whatever it was on monday is because they had ALREADY fallen nearly 3,000 points anyway.
Is it a crash? Or was it a bear market? That's a distinction without a difference. Bear markets can be more destructive to capital than crashes. The '87 crash had no lasting effects, for example, while the slow, steady relentless bear market of the 1970's destroyed half the value of American enterprise.
"I wanted this bailout to pass"
"I don't want to sound like a knee-jerk Libertarian"
Accomplished!
But seriously, thanks as always for a thoughtful bloggingheads.
"Is it a crash? Or was it a bear market? That's a distinction without a difference. Bear markets can be more destructive to capital than crashes. The '87 crash had no lasting effects, for example, while the slow, steady relentless bear market of the 1970's destroyed half the value of American enterprise."
It may be that a bear market is inevitable. The fact remains that we have wasted untold billions of what amounts to a ponzi scheme in real estate. There is no getting around the fact that real estate is wildly over valued and a whole lot of "wealth" is nothing but paper built on speculation. We also have horrible credit practices such as teaser rates and MBS that ensure that the teaser rate defaults up the credit chain. There is something like $500 billion worth of teaser rate mortgages that are going to come due in the next five years.
No one is saying there is an easy sollution to this. But, instead of propping up insolvent banks, the better sollution seems to be to let those banks fail, take our medicine and come out the other side with a stronger economy. The market can never adjust and start growing again until the full impact of the paper losses is accounted. The last time we had a serious recession (1982) the end result was ending stagflation and setting the table for nearly 30 years of growth. Let's have our recession now, let people pay the price for their stupid behaviors and come out on the other side with a healthier credit system and a more fundementally sound economy. The day of reconing is going to come anyway. Putting it off just will make it worse.
Megan,
I wish you'd consider a different type of webcam performance. You have a pornographic mouth, and give off a feeling of intellectual superiority, fiscal responsibility, and that you would be a wonderfully filthy fuck.
I'm sure there is an economic niche of brainy Amazon's willing to suck on demand.
I liked the part when the iPhone starts barking!
We had a bear economy for a long time with a bull market. I think a lot of that value wasn't real.
See, that's the problem with the treasonous scum who head these Wall Street institutions. For the good of the country, they should be the ones writing into the bailout that they will recieve perhaps a twentieth or a hundredth of the compensation they had before. For the good of the country, they should be the first to write into the bill that no organization can receive any aid _unless_ all of it's upper echelons publicly apologize on TV and admit that deregulation and 'free market' capitalism have FAILED. The people who own those mortgages should insist that courts have the ability to reset mortgage rates (at least, for those occupying the homes they have bought.)
For the good of the country.
Because, the Peepul, bless their flabby black little hearts know that if something isn't done now, there will only be a repeat collapse later. The bills presented so far try as much as possible to keep on with business as usual.
So what happens in 2015? In 2023? In 2031? Are we just supposed to keep on providing taxpayer funded bailouts? Because 'the magic of the marketplace' is just so wonderlicious compared to the alternative? Because Socialism for mainstreet will sap our precious bodily fluids?
No, you really don't have to know a lot to oppose a bill that just resets everything back to what it was a few years ago.
The people who own those mortgages should insist that courts have the ability to reset mortgage rates
Of course, identifying who "owns" a 30-year mortgage that has been split into 360 different little securities with 360 different maturity dates, partial shares of which were sold to thousands of buyers, is an interesting exercise, as servicing companies trying to foreclose and being denied by the courts are discovering. The opacity of these instruments (and, come to think of it, my preceding sentence) is probably a bigger problem for valuation than the defaults themselves, and one that resetting rates won't help at all.
So you're claiming that no one can petition the court for a reset because they don't know who holds their mortgage? Pray then, just who is in a position to foreclose upon these individuals? Are you saying that no one is being subjected to foreclosure?
Are you saying that no one is being subjected to foreclosure?
Certianly not "no one," but there have been cases of judges denying foreclosures because the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they the (securitized) mortgage.
It's possible--not even that hard--to structure a transaction so that the mortgage holder is clear and can foreclose, but it is apparently also possible to screw that up badly enough that you get laughed out of court.
That reality adds a frightening layer of uncertainty to the sale of mortgage securities and can't be helping their value or liquidity. Imagine the paperwork and due diligence necessary to determine whether the share you're buying is one of the "good" ones or one of the "bad" ones. It's probably tougher than determining the likely default rate. Even if only a few percent of mortgage securities are "bad" in this sense (and we don't know that number), it will cost a fortune to discover which ones they are.
That would be "that they OWN the (securitized) mortgages"
First Profession: There are about 3.4 billion women in the world. Interestingly, the closest you've evidently come to any of them was somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-500 F4-6.3.
Yea Yves!!!
Write down and recap! Write down and recap! Finally some sense. The question is why can't private capital do these recaps?
First Profession, I hold no briefs with Mousie, but in this one instance he is entirely correct and proper. Take your potty mouth elsewhere.
You guys did a great job. Very informative and much better than CNN. Keep it up!
I was unable to listen to this podcast in my car because the sound quality was too poor.
aMouseforallSeasons, and Scent of Violets,
I'm sorry, I've cleared entered your turf roughly here. While I understand the jealousy such fellow fetishists share, I'm surprised there's such competition for one woman. Isn't this basic game theory?
And Mouse, I'm not sure smugly using statistics and lines in a bitchy way will woo your Queen, since she already has that ability.
Perhaps a large bottle of alcohol and an even bigger cock might be your best hope.
I take it you don't approve of the following ideas:
1> Megan sucking various cocks to elucidate on various nation's import/export figures?
2> Megan taken orally and anally to demonstrate the evils of double taxation?
No wonder economics is called the 'dismal science' with killjoys like you two.
Sullivan, why don't you go sully your OWN blog? That's just not appropriate here.
We can be pretty certain that the pornographic troll is not the beagle guy. I heard he doesn't like girls.
The porno troll is far to normal to be Sullivan. Sullivan is obsessed with minstral fluid and OBGYN records. He would never do anything so normal as comment on a woman's sexuality. Sullivan is far too strange and perverse to put up such mainline profanity.
I don't understand why Yves Smith stated that it was a "paranoid" school of thought to suggest that the audited annual reports due in January will be more honest than the unaudited quarterly financial statements.
CPAs in general are greatly chastened by Volcker's public dismemberment of Arthur Andersen after the Enron scandal. All CPAs from name schools had friends who lost their jobs from that takedown of AA.
The auditors that descended on corporate America in the first part of this year were determined not to have a repeat of the Enron fiasco. Recall that under current US law, auditing firms are liable for ALL of a firm's misreported losses. Given the size of these corporate behemoths, that means one major mistake and another huge accounting firm could go under.
Additionally, we know that there was a sharp downdraft in January of this year closely coupled with earnings "surprises" revealed in these audited reports.
Therefore, I do not understand why Yves said it was a "paranoid" school of thought to think that January's audited statements will pose surprises for the unprepared.
It doesn't seem paranoid to me to have this view.
It seems rather rational.
Am I missing something? Can someone clue me in to her thinking here?
Thanks,
Matt Dubuque
mdubuque@yahoo.com
So t
"Because, the Peepul, bless their flabby black little hearts know that if something isn't done now, there will only be a repeat collapse later. The bills presented so far try as much as possible to keep on with business as usual.
So what happens in 2015? In 2023? In 2031? Are we just supposed to keep on providing taxpayer funded bailouts?"
First time ever I have agreed with SOV.
The main goal of this bill does not seem to be to avoid finacial calamity but to keep up business as usual on the lending front and kick the can of final reconing furthe down the road.
We borrowed too much on stupid things. Credit was too loose. Our growth was based on borrowing to build stuff (houses) that we didn't need (at least not at the price of construction). Getting the banks "back to lending" at same old low rates is stupid. Credit has rightly been repriced, those businesses and individuals who relied on cheap credit and high leverage need to realign thier activities. We don't need the government trying to get things "back to normal"
Eccdogg,
I agree completely. At some point we are going to have to face the reality that homes and real estate prices need to readjust and lending practices have to change. If we don't do that, I don't see how this bill does anything but put off the final recononing and make it worse when it finally comes.
And Mouse, I'm not sure smugly using statistics and lines in a bitchy way will woo your Queen, since she already has that ability.
Nope, that wasn't it. Guess again, and try not to fall out the sixth-floor window while focusing it.
Also, you're in no position to be lecturing people about the appropriate applications of alcohol. Just sayin'.
Check out this link to a 2002 article and see if you still have confidence in the bailout of Fannie and Freddy and our wonderful politicians.
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/8593.html
Forgive my lack of knowlege, but what rate would the gov have to pay if it issues T-Bills. I thought I read that they were bid up to the point that yields were under 1%. If the fed can borrow at 1%, I don't think I'd have much issue with the bailout.
What rate would we get if we borrow to do the bailout?
Mouse,
You seem to share Megan's ability to misread on purpose. Remember, opposites attract!
I said about statistics (female population) and then snide remark (about the camera). I might be a pervert, but I'm not stupid
I don't drink. If I stay teetotal, since our host is borderline alcoholic, my chances improve considerably.
I notice you didn't mention the large cock. Does your omission match a similar omission on your body? Perhaps your balls compensate?
I should have clarified that I thought perhaps your balls were fit to burst with frustration cum, held back only by your desperately prissy nature, which releases only in gushes of snide, snark and pointless data points.
When the moment comes - try not to use a slow exposure - and don't get upset you didn't laminate the Megan mouse mat.
I made a similar mistake, but with my Sarah Palin mug.
My coffee tasted awful afterwards.