So what exactly is the new Treasury plan to get toxic assets off bank books?
bidask
Posts: 14,017 ✭✭✭✭✭
BOTTOM LINE: The Treasury released more details on its programs to buy various forms of legacy assets. There are two separate parts to the program: (1) a “legacy loans” program that will buy loans off of bank balance sheets and (2) a “legacy securities” program that will finance purchases of securitized assets, through an expansion of TALF and a separate public-private investment fund. The government appears to be an equal partner in the equity components of both new programs (but not TALF).
KEY POINTS:
1. The program consists of two parts: a "legacy loans" program to provide financing and capital to purchase loans off of banks' books; and a securities program that features two separate sub-components: an expansion of the existing Term Asset Backed Securities Lending Facility (TALF) to purchase a broader set of assets, and a a public-private investment fund (PPIF) that would be managed by the private sector, with financing and some capital provided by the government.
2. The two programs use leverage to increase the purchase price of assets purchased from banks. The loan program would provide up to 6:1 leverage, and the PPIF would use up to 1:1 leverage. Loan program leverage would come in the form of FDIC backed debt, while securities program leverage would come from the Treasury. An alternative in the securities loan program involves using an expanded TALF; leverage in that expanded program presumably would be similar to the existing program, but haircuts have not yet been determined. There is also the potential for interaction between programs; for instance, PPIF funds may be eligible to participate in TALF, which implies that investors could receive leverage from Treasury through the PPIF program and then leverage that investment further under the TALF framework.
3. The two new programs have no direct implications for the Fed's balance sheet. While the expanded TALF program would likely be financed through additional balance sheet expansion, the new PPIF and FDIC programs would have no direct relationship to the Fed, though the PPIF would require additional Treasury issuance to provide leverage.
4. Treasury would coinvest with the private sector. The PPIF for securities and the FDIC loan program would provide Treasury capital in a 1:1 match against private capital, so that the Treasury participates in the upside. However, in both cases the investment would be managed by the private participant. A similar structure was used in certain trusts created by the Resolution Trust Corporation.
5. The TALF would be expanded in two ways: first, non-agency residential and commercial MBS would become eligible. The Fed has hinted at non-agency RMBS previously, and the Treasury had already signalled in last months announcement that CMBS would be allowed. The second change is that non-AAA securities would be allowed as TALF collateral, as long they were originally issued as AAA. This would apply only to non-agency RMBS collateral, and would add toxic asset disposal to the TALF's mission, rather than its current sole focus of restarting the securitization market.
6. Importantly, none of the programs announced this morning appears to require legislation. However, the issuance of Treasury securities to fund PPIF investments could eventually run up against the debt ceiling, which would require Congressional action. At least some parts of the program may be affected by the original requirements of TARP regarding issuance of warrants and potentially executive compensation. Moreover, the scale of these proposals appears limited by the availability of TARP funds, with only $75-$100bn of TARP money allocated. As the program gets underway and hopefully succeeds, the Treasury is likely to approach Congress for more funding, as suggested by the "placeholder" in the president's 2010 budget.
7. Implementation seems likely to be at least a few months off, given the time required to start other such programs (like the original TALF); the Treasury has requested applications for the legacy securities program by April 10, with a May 1 target date for notification of eligibility.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money .
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
0
Comments
///////////////////
It may be a bit of a challenge to get the "stronger" outfits
to sell their MBS.
MOST mortgages are still spitting out CASH everyday.
I would not sell the few that I have left, at today's prices.
They are cash machines.
<< <i>
I would not sell the few that I have left, at today's prices.
They are cash machines. >>
very true
If you have toxic investments (ie worthless stocks, bonds, notes, etc) how would you as J6P get them "off your books?" The answer should be the same for both situations. The Treasury is just peddling another story about how these formerly toxic assets can be our "friends" if we just take the time to "get to know them" (ie by plunking down our money to participate and allowing the banks to determine what should be worth). Maybe they'll even supply a USTreasury certificate of authenticity plus a 10 year expected profitability chart to hang on your wall. Rather than Toxic Assets why not call them Benign Opportunities (BO).
roadrunner
One analogy I heard is that it is like when car companies offer 0% financing. The Treasury is offering low interest loans to anyone willing to put up a little bit of their own money and also buy some of the assets at auction. The Treasury becomes a partner and gets a share of the profits and losses, as does the firm taking out the loan. By doing it with this sleight of hand, it doesn't add to the official government deficit figure, even though in reality it is a balance sheet item.
The stock market obviously did like the plan, or the appearance of the plan, at least for this one day. By loaning money and pricing the assets at auction, they get around any number of hurdles and pitfalls.
Mark-To-Market - for FDIC and reg purposes - requires
the banks to value the paper at almost nothing.
The notion that a fully performing note is worth ZERO
is nonsense.
The FACT is that most folks are paying the mortgages
that comprise the RMBS and CMBS.
If the banks become too eager to participate in the new
scheme, we will know that the paper is much worse
than I think it is.
I know how to value mortgages and mortgage pools,
from a buyer's and seller's perspective.
What I don't know is if the real-estate market is close
to a bottom. If it continues to fall - by say another 30% -
the taxpayers will likely be on the hook pretty bad; and, the
individual investors who "buy" the paper will lose most/all
of their investment.
The potential prime beneficiaries of the scheme:
1. The banks, if they sell the junk and hold the good stuff.
2. The outfits that sell the ETFs that will be built around the
new paper.
3. The taxpayers and private investors, if the real estate
market can at least go about flat from here.
/////////
I am still pretty sure there will be substantial resistance
from the banks to "fire sale" prices.
Sadly, that could mean that the first auctions will be priced
way too high. Maybe the smart play is to watch and only
buy into one of the ETFs after they have taken a hit or two.
OTOH, if RE stops tanking, the ETFs could be a good up trade.
roadrunner
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
/////////////
It is really only worth "nothing," if everybody stops paying.
A good clue was tossed at us last week, when BAC said,
"Thank God we bought CFC."
The "profit" that BAC is about to start reporting comes in
large part from the CFC paper.
People ARE paying their mortgages. Notwithstanding the
nonsense that the media continues to spout.
Failed lending institutions will be taken over by the FDIC or some other Receivership agency. It will be charged with liquidating assets of the failed lender. The "toxic" loans of the failed lender will be sold by the FDIC on the cheap to investors (people with money and connections will form investment groups to buy the loans at cents on the dollar). The investors who purchase the loans will then work to recover on the loans. Some will have to be written off. However many will pay off when a property is sold or refinanced. The loan may pay off at 50 cents on the dollar to an investor who paid 8 cents on the dollar to buy the loan. The investor makes a profit and life goes on.
To the extent a lender does not fail but has its "toxic" loans purchased from it by UNCLE SAM or an agency formed by the government for that purpose, the same thing will happen.
My 2 cents worth.
//////////////////////
If the current proposed scheme relied on "8-cent" prices,
there would be NO sellers.
Folks are going to be shocked at how high the prices are.
GREAT weight is going to be given to cash-flow elements,
and worst-case scenarios will NOT be used to set prices.
Those with money and connections will see opporutnity for "obscene profits" and will use their talents, connections and influence to "buy low" while either looking like a white night doing so; or staying in the background and out of the glare of the public spotlight.
Later on, with ownership of the toxic loans in hand (with a low acquistion cost) further sales or financing transactions for the properties encumbered by the toxic loans will happen (as part of getting our economy moving) and the loans will be paid off at far less than the amount owed. However even with a low payoff on the loans, the investor who purchases same on the cheap will still make "obscene profits" on the deal.
Eventually all of the toxic loans will be disposed of and paid off at discounted amount. Memories will fade. Losses will be taken and written off. Demand will increase for housing and mortgage money will become more available as lenders loosen up lending standards. Prices and home values will go up. The cycle will repeat itself as new persons enter the real estate market.
Life will go on and America will see the sun come up tomorrow.
abandoned salt mine at least 1000
feet deep.
Camelot
Just who can buy the as$ets? I would like to see a transparent transaction but that will happen when pigs fly.
Can the sellers of these as$ets also be the buyers of similar packages? Wouldn't that be cute--sell toxic A then buy toxic B from another seller.
If the leverage involved is reportedly 90%, where is the money coming from? Don't tell me, I already know.
via con dios, Mr. Ron Silver
Sadly, that's not the case.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>GAAP requires “mark-to-market” of bonds, notes, securities. This makes balance sheets very volatile. By removing the worst assets from banks, it permits them to stabilize asset and loan loss reserves with high grade assets. The extra funds become available for loans to businesses. It also provides speculators and high-risk investors a way to profit handsomely from recovery of the bad loans. >>
//////////////////////
M2M is great for assuring that investors know the
true market value of a note/asset held by a bank.
The problem came because the regulations that govern
capital requirements are too strict. M2M - when there is
NO market for a note - means that banks essentially
zero-out FULLY performing assets AND must replace
them with CASH to meet the regulators' demands.
IF the banks now were forced to sell the money-good
notes - just because there is no "market" for them - they
would take tremendous losses. A few years from now,
the market for the WRONGLY labeled "toxic paper" will
return to using normal/traditional discount formulas.
There is NOTHING "toxic" in the cash-flow analysis of
MOST of the paper.
Folks who expect the banks to go along with this scheme
in a big way are likely going to be VERY surprised.
...........
If one has a CD that pays X% as agreed for the term of
the obligation, the immediate "market value" of the CD
has NO bearing on the performance value of the CD;
unless the CD holder is FORCED to sell it.
The regulators are trying to force fire-sale liquidations
in the name of "maintaing adequate reserves." I see
absolutely NO chance that the banks will go for giving
their stuff away.
They should simply hunker down and tell the govt to
butt out. If the govt wants to be "a bank," they can
do so and lend all of the money they wish to loan. The
shareholders of banks should not - will NOT - be crucified
so that a FILTHY govt can say "we restored the ability of
scummy deadbeats to borrow money that will never be
repaid."
EVEN IF the banks are forced to dump their money-good
paper, they will NOT turn the proceeds over in the form
of loans to biznez and consumers. They will hoard it; just
like they have hoarded the first rounds of bailouts.
The above said, it is also true that real estate loans which go bad do not result in month checks being received by the lender. The lender's income goes down as a result. The expenses to the lender for a defaulted real estate loan do not stop, and in fact they go up (collection costs). Further, if the property is sold to the lender at a foreclosure sale, the loan ceases to exist and the lender becomes a property owner. As property owner it is required to pay the expenses of ownership, including taxes, insurance, maintenance and cost of repair/improvement. These expenses are not cheap. Again though, the property does have value. The value of the property goes up and down according to market conditions. The fact that the value is in the dumper today does not mean it will not double in value in 3 years. When a property is sold, the sales proceeds will them be paid to the lender (as a loan payoff if it is sold before a foreclosure sale of the property to the lender). If it has already been foreclosed upon and the lender resells the property, the sales proceeds will be paid to the lender as the owner/seller.
The "toxic" label conjures images of a loan never being paid back. That is not true in most cases where the loan is a first priority loan on the property. Value is there and the value can be recovered when the property is sold. In the mean time the defaulted loan is not performing, payments are not being received by the lender and the lender is under stress to liquidate the loan. This liquidation can take place without government intervention (the lender sells a block of loans for 50% of loan amount simply to raise money) or with government intervention (the lender fails, is placed into Receivership and the receiver sells the lender's loan portfolio to investors who "buy low" and then make a long term or short term profit when the property is resold later.
Whoever sells at a discount will take a "loss" on the loan, will write the loan loss off in a particular tax year and then will continue on with new business.
The borrower who does not pay the loan will move on and as a result of any foreclosure sale or "short sale" will no longer owe the monies due under the loan. The foreclosure sale or a short sale or a deed in lieu of foreclosure will, in most cases, have the effect of satisfiying and discharging the obligation of the borrower to repay the loan.
involves virtually NO defaulted loans. In fact, "legacy"
paper may end up NOT even being much of the mix.
Relatively recent paper will make up the majority of
the "products."
As time passes, some will go bad, MOST will not.
A simple relaxation of M2M on the "reserve requirement"
issue would obviate the need for the ENTIRE scheme.
<< <i>It is important to note that the contemplated scheme
involves virtually NO defaulted loans. In fact, "legacy"
paper may end up NOT even being much of the mix.
Relatively recent paper will make up the majority of
the "products."
As time passes, some will go bad, MOST will not.
A simple relaxation of M2M on the "reserve requirement"
issue would obviate the need for the ENTIRE scheme. >>
So where do the defaulted loans go? The banks just hold them and sell the good stuff? No way would any bank ever go for that.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
good stuff and sell the bad stuff.
Camelot
<< <i>You have it just reversed. The banks will hold the
good stuff and sell the bad stuff. >>
Yes, of course, but that isnt the way I read storm888's post.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
It is a giant circle jerk.
The new buyers are the same guys who sold the tranch of Mortgages once before for at $1.05 on the dollar to the chump banks now holding this crap.
In a couple of key strokes, the very same tranch of Mortgages are now re-sold at 25 cents on the dollar, back to the original bundlers who will now inturn, rebundle it all to re-sell it for 50 cents on the dollar to the chump banks. Only difference is instead of AIG being the counterparty insurer, you and I become AIG.
If this sounds confusing, *BINGO*, you understand the plan!
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>You have it just reversed. The banks will hold the
good stuff and sell the bad stuff. >>
Yes, of course, but that isnt the way I read storm888's post. >>
//////////////////////////
You all read the post CORRECTLY.
Having read many pages on the likely mechanics of the scheme,
and having spoken to a contemplated auction participant, I can
report as follows:
At the date of the first auction, NONE of the offered packages
will contain non-performing loans. NONE.
No investor - and NOT the govt - is buying dead paper with
the idea that they will become "debt collectors" and "foreclosure
vultures." The certs to be offered - and used to form the ETFs - all
represent performing paper, discounted based on rated risk.
The FDIC, as a primary guarantor, has some confidence that the
paper will be largely just fine, and will generate a profit for all of
the participants. (I have no idea if they are right/wrong, I only
know what paper WILL be in the first offerings and what will NOT.)
The CFC servicing platform - now owned by BAC - and other
servicers will collect/disburse payments, just like any servicer
does.
Pimco and other bond-underwriters/packagers will act as primary
aggregators in the first rounds of auctions. They will disburse the
certs to ETF-packagers (Barclays), and they will service some of
the underlying paper and/or contract for servicing.
The initial distribution of the certs will likely be via Dutch auction.
It is possible that some individuals - through a designated pool - will
be able to bid. Such paper would be subject to whatever servicing
protocols are prescribed.
At this moment, the mechanics of the entire scheme are being
formulated.
The ONE thing that is NOT being formulated is the inclusion of
dead paper in ANY initial auctions.
ALL simply FACTS that I know to be true.
.............
rr:
The thing that makes the paper "bad," is NOT its failure to
be currently serviced; it is NOW cranking cash as agreed.
The "bad" is a theotetical notion based on the likelihood that
certain categories of loans will default, SIMPLY because past
percentages of defaults on likekind/similar paper have been
unacceptably high.
Remember: The banks do NOT want to sell the paper. They
believe it is money good. The regulators are forcing the sale
to satisfy archaic reserve requirements.
Camelot
So in the end, the banks will own whatever is good and you will own the rest.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The thing that makes the paper "bad," is NOT its failure to
be currently serviced; it is NOW cranking cash as agreed.
The "bad" is a theotetical notion based on the likelihood that
certain categories of loans will default, SIMPLY because past
percentages of defaults on likekind/similar paper have been
unacceptably high.
Remember: The banks do NOT want to sell the paper. They
believe it is money good. The regulators are forcing the sale
to satisfy archaic reserve requirements.
Regardless of your confidence in this latest Treasury scheme, I will side with the opinion of Sinclair on this one since he has had an insider's front row seat to all these shenanigans for the past 10 years. His opinion is 100% different from what you have stated above. A different shade of lipstick on the pig doesn't change the fact that you still have a pig. No doubt there is some good paper in that $683 TRILLION trash heap. It could be that offering some honest assets to keep the crap hidden or improperly valued is the goal. I'm with Cohodk on this one. We're still at the mercy of the banksters, Treasury, FED and regulators who had their hands in the pie who still don't want to let us in on the full extent of the fraud. So when they tell us that the assets are mostly good, or only performing assets will be auctioned, I'm not convinced. It's time to go with their history of being honest and accurate. And unfortunately, it's not a very enviable track record.
The banks don't want to sell the stuff unless they can get it levered up once again with J6P holding most of the bag if it fails. If J6P is not there for a fall guy, then I can understand why the owners of this stuff want to bring it out into the open and assume all the risk of it's marked down to squat.
roadrunner
/////////////////////////////
No. It isn't.
If it was, I would say he has NO clue what he was talking about.
IF he says the banks may/will try to slip useless stuff into the pot,
he may be right.
IF he says the FDIC is going to knowingly package useless stuff in
the first rounds he is TOTALLY misinformed.
Such a fraud would be discovered in the first 30/90 days of the
transfer of the paper.
People are buying DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW.
Dead paper does NOT spit cash.
........
Sinclair may well have a different opinion as to if/when the paper
will become non-performing. His guesswork is no better than that
of the FDIC, me, or you.
The speculated/guessed risk of default is going to be factored into
the disount rate.
Today, the FDIC again made it clear that NONE of the paper being
packaged will be dead paper. If Sinclair "knows" different, he better
get his info to the media real quick.
Here's Reggie Middleton's breakdown of the PPIP and he has pointed out some situations where the taxpayers loses big time while the banks profit. While he concurs that SIV's shouldn't make it into these, he doesn't preclude it happening.
Reggie on the PPIP
roadrunner
Professor James Galbraith was interviewed early this morning on the Geithner plan for the purchase of toxic assets. This interview focused on the very subject that constitutes my most serious concerns. It was on Bloomberg TV, but I see no review of it on their website.
His analysis would confirm what I have been told concerning the condition of the paper held by many financial institutions.
His review confirms my belief that there is no alternative but to bail out every financial institution in amounts that can't now, due to the opaque nature of the miscreant paper, be evaluated. What you can be sure of is that the number is enormous. Yes, larger than anything we have seen yet.
This financial situation is totally out of control. Government financial leaders are flailing in the wind, trying every remedy ever heard of while inventing new measures, all of it in total futility.
Major Banks will be nationalized. Smaller institutions will be rolled into nationalized banks.
The Dollar does not have a future. Gold is your only refuge asset.
To allow yourself to be run out of anything gold by the COMEX manipulators is to sacrifice your financial lifeline. It is just that bad.
The price of gold will attain Alf Field's objectives. There is no question about this conclusion as this problem cannot remain hidden. The unavoidable financial consequences are already raising their ugly heads and the curtain is coming up on the degree of this total disaster.
New financial oversight regulations of hedge funds and the OTC derivative market are so late all they really will amount to are meaningless public relations. The damage is done and cannot be undone by spin.
Galbraith this morning voiced his concern that the paper held in the banking system is "permanently impaired." That means this paper is to a large degree the left over partial contracts of the creation of the securitized OTC derivative paper sold everywhere to everyone without offset and is therefore valueless. Galbraith alluded to a fractional reserve approach towards mortgage securitization by intent of error whereby the same mortgages were securitized more than one time.
Galbraith spoke of obscuration in terms of a planned cover-up of details of the asset's condition. He also discussed the need for clean audits that will only be available on the true valuation of that which is worthless and those with partial valuation. He indicated the conditions are so dire that only nationalization will permit clean audits.
Your future depends on gold as there is no piece of paper or SDR package of various paper that can protect you. Gold is no longer investment, it is your lifeline. It is that serious. About that there is no question.
roadrunner
<< <i> Geithner's latest bailout plan explained very clearly. >>
////////////////////
Very good stuff.
The FDIC claims there will be "safeguards" to prevent the self-dealing scenario.
The use of "Dutch Auctions" will also make such a ploy a little more difficult.
...........
FTR....... The guy is absolutely correct, in my view, the banks should have
been wiped out and reacapitalized/nationalized.
New and smaller banks would have sprung up and the cycle could have
been restarted.
"Dead paper does NOT spit cash."
Nice turn of a phrase.
Looks Pretty Grim
If the paper is much better than the professors speculate,
the taxpayers may be OK; otherwise only a few individuals
and possibly the credit-markets seem poised to benefit.
If M2M is relaxed today, the banks might as well just keep
the paper. But, it's starting to look like the banks will not get
to make the decision.
............
The pending BK-filing by Thornburg - widely believed to have
some of the "best" paper - does not bode well for the lifespan
of the prospective packages.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i> Geithner's latest bailout plan explained very clearly. >>
.........He makes Bernie Madoff look like his hero....
The proposals were rammed though giving the public only 14 days to comment.
This is unprecedented.
As a CPA, I did not have the time to comment. The worst part of my tax season. I am questioning whether the time element given by the FASB was proper or even permissable.
Now the toxic assets are suddenly no longer toxic!!!!!!!!
<< <i>The accounting rules for marked to market for losses has been revised by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
The proposals were rammed though giving the public only 14 days to comment.
This is unprecedented.
As a CPA, I did not have the time to comment. The worst part of my tax season. I am questioning whether the time element given by the FASB was proper or even permissable.
Now the toxic assets are suddenly no longer toxic!!!!!!!! >>
Ironic that the "solution" to the problems caused by "no-doc" mortgages, is "no-doc" lenders. The humor is cutting. How long will it be before abuse of these "make-up-any-price-you-want" provisions cause new unintended consequences? This seems like it is going to be world wide. Welcome to a "no-doc" world. And people wonder why I say that in the long, long run, all unbacked paper money approaches zero value.
You said:
<< <i>Ironic that the "solution" to the problems caused by "no-doc" mortgages, is "no-doc" lenders. The humor is cutting. How long will it be before abuse of these "make-up-any-price-you-want" provisions cause new unintended consequences? This seems like it is going to be world wide. Welcome to a "no-doc" world. And people wonder why I say that in the long, long run, all unbacked paper money approaches zero value. >>
That statement of yours needs to be published. It is awesome and worthy of inclusion in every newspaper and every blog on the internet.
I am telling all of my friends of your statement. They are sitting up and taking notice for the very first time.
It needs to be sent to every bank and every governmental official.
Good work.
What about "no-doc" corporations? How can one legitimately determine the value of a company's stock in order to buy or sell it on a major exchange? Isn't just another game of roulette? It would seem that businesses that have no history of participating in such shenanigans would fair the best.
roadrunner
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
involves a simple reversion to discounted cash flow valuations.
The marks have to be made at least monthly, and in some cases
weekly. Also, some categories of paper are NOT eligible to be
moved into the new scheme.
He says the regulators will now be off the backs of some banks,
but that lending is not likely to be substantially increased.
Hows this for an idea, lets have the treasury print money to buy T Bills. This will create inflation and then the housing values will exceed the mortgages. Then the deliquent ones can sell and payoff and move back into the apartments where they should have lived all along.
Is there an opening for me at Treasury? The drive might be a little far especially at $12 bucks a gallon. But Ill be able to afford the $26 happy meal at MickeyDs.
//////////
That is pretty much what happens, if they look at current cash flows
discounted by the same methods that have been used forever.
I expect the bankers to underplay this just as the Dr. Dooms of the world will overplay it. However to date, the banker's view has been the furthest off...and by a mile. Remember, these are the same bankers who felt derivatives were the best thing ever and reduced risk throughout the system for everyone. When the big banks or the FED/Treasury finally give us an answer that turns out to correctly state or even overstate the remaining problems, then maybe we can start having confidence in the words they say.
He says the regulators will now be off the backs of some banks,
but that lending is not likely to be substantially increased.
25 banks carry 99.78% of the derivative's problem. The top 5 carry
over 98%. Clearly, the problem is not with "the banks" but with the top 5-25 banks. The regulators should not stray far from these top 25 banks at any time in the near future. It's not Mortgage Backed Securities that has lead the financial system to near ruin, but to the mass quantities of credit default and interest rate swaps that make up 95-98% of all derivatives.
roadrunner
M2M
I like his summary which pretty much describes the whole deal in a nutshell:
Hey, if you catch HIV, and then call all of you political friends, and coerce, threaten or make love to the members of the Medical Boards to change the nomenclature of virus to that of a dermal rash, it does absolutely nothing to extend your lifespan or alter your medical condition. The most it will do is allow you to fool yourself or make it easier for you to pass the disease along to others as you tell them it's just a rash (while still remaining within the confines of technical veracity) as you infect them and put their lives in danger. Just keep that in mind when evaluating the financials under the M2M rules.
I knew it would happen.
It also mentions that US troops are dying as a result of the
actions of the same hedgies that created those derivatives.
video