another site
With no clear news driver, Bitcoin prices have dropped over 20% from their overnight highs – trading at around $715 now. Perhaps most notable is the relationship between Bitcoin and the precious metals today with the early Bitcoin weakness corresponding almost perfectly to gold and silver strength (and again mid-morning in the US).
     |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8cXyDVx7OpQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden
UPDATE: Herbalife is halted for the following news:
Which opens the doors for the substantial buyback they have planned. We suspect one can hear a pin drop in Pershing Square's headquarters.
Via Reuters,
Today, the Company filed an amended 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, following the completed re-audit of the Company's 2010, 2011 and 2012 financial statements. Additionally, the Company today filed amended 10-Q/As for each of these quarters of 2013 following the completion of SAS 100 reviews of those periods by PwC. With these amended filings, the Company is now up to date with its SEC periodic filings.
There were no material changes to the Company's audited 2010, 2011 or 2012 financial statements included in the amended 10-K/A or to the Company's first, second or third quarter 2013 financial statements included in the amended 10-Q/As as compared with the Company's previously filed financial statements for and as of each of such periods(1).
As previously announced, the change in the Company's independent auditors to PwC, and the corresponding need to perform re-audits, was the result of the resignation of Herbalife's former independent auditor, KPMG LLP ("KPMG") due to the impairment of KPMG's independence resulting from its now former partner's unlawful activities. As previously publicly stated by KPMG, their resignation was not related to Herbalife's financial statements, its accounting practices, the integrity of Herbalife's management, or any other reason.
Herbalife has re-opened up 9% over $75 on very heavy volume – It seems Ackman's "end of the earth" bet may take a little longer…
This week marks the one-year anniversary of Bill Ackman’s 342-page slide presentation at the Ira Sohn Conference in NYC. At that time he publicly disclosed his $1 billion short bet against Herbalife (HLF), accusing the company of being a pyramid scheme and claiming its stock was destined to fall to zero once regulators stepped in. As everyone knows, HLF shares plummeted, losing nearly half their value in the three days after the presentation. The market’s initial response did not last, and HLF is up about 160% since its 12/21/12 low of $26.06 (vs S&P 500 +24%). Pershing Square’s public campaign has taken many forms, as Barclays outlines below…
Via Barclays,
…including additional 300+ page conference presentations, the sending of a long letter to HLF’s new auditor PWC, and repeated lobbying efforts directed towards U.S. regulators, elected officials and community activists. Subsequent presentations by Ackman have had little impact on the stock price, and no formal regulatory action (or indication of such) has taken place.
More recently, press reports suggest that HLF decided to get more aggressive in late Sept. after shares topped $70, hiring a well-connected strategic advisor (which specializes in shareholder activism) to approach Pershing Square investors and highlight the risks associated with the fund’s outsized exposure to the HFL short, a position which has trended quite negatively since inflecting in April.
Numerous major investors, such as Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, George Soros, Kyle Bass and Stan Druckenmiller, have publically disagreed with Ackman and invested heavily in HLF. Bill Stiritz, a well-regarded private investor in consumer businesses, has also announced a substantial investment. We summarize their stakes below.
We also note that we have not identified further venues for Mr. Ackman to speak and that the next Ira Sohn Conference in NYC will not be held until May 2014.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8FWXPJj8JVs/story01.htm Tyler Durden
UPDATE: Herbalife is halted for the following news:
Which opens the doors for the substantial buyback they have planned. We suspect one can hear a pin drop in Pershing Square's headquarters.
Via Reuters,
Today, the Company filed an amended 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, following the completed re-audit of the Company's 2010, 2011 and 2012 financial statements. Additionally, the Company today filed amended 10-Q/As for each of these quarters of 2013 following the completion of SAS 100 reviews of those periods by PwC. With these amended filings, the Company is now up to date with its SEC periodic filings.
There were no material changes to the Company's audited 2010, 2011 or 2012 financial statements included in the amended 10-K/A or to the Company's first, second or third quarter 2013 financial statements included in the amended 10-Q/As as compared with the Company's previously filed financial statements for and as of each of such periods(1).
As previously announced, the change in the Company's independent auditors to PwC, and the corresponding need to perform re-audits, was the result of the resignation of Herbalife's former independent auditor, KPMG LLP ("KPMG") due to the impairment of KPMG's independence resulting from its now former partner's unlawful activities. As previously publicly stated by KPMG, their resignation was not related to Herbalife's financial statements, its accounting practices, the integrity of Herbalife's management, or any other reason.
Herbalife has re-opened up 9% over $75 on very heavy volume – It seems Ackman's "end of the earth" bet may take a little longer…
This week marks the one-year anniversary of Bill Ackman’s 342-page slide presentation at the Ira Sohn Conference in NYC. At that time he publicly disclosed his $1 billion short bet against Herbalife (HLF), accusing the company of being a pyramid scheme and claiming its stock was destined to fall to zero once regulators stepped in. As everyone knows, HLF shares plummeted, losing nearly half their value in the three days after the presentation. The market’s initial response did not last, and HLF is up about 160% since its 12/21/12 low of $26.06 (vs S&P 500 +24%). Pershing Square’s public campaign has taken many forms, as Barclays outlines below…
Via Barclays,
…including additional 300+ page conference presentations, the sending of a long letter to HLF’s new auditor PWC, and repeated lobbying efforts directed towards U.S. regulators, elected officials and community activists. Subsequent presentations by Ackman have had little impact on the stock price, and no formal regulatory action (or indication of such) has taken place.
More recently, press reports suggest that HLF decided to get more aggressive in late Sept. after shares topped $70, hiring a well-connected strategic advisor (which specializes in shareholder activism) to approach Pershing Square investors and highlight the risks associated with the fund’s outsized exposure to the HFL short, a position which has trended quite negatively since inflecting in April.
Numerous major investors, such as Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, George Soros, Kyle Bass and Stan Druckenmiller, have publically disagreed with Ackman and invested heavily in HLF. Bill Stiritz, a well-regarded private investor in consumer businesses, has also announced a substantial investment. We summarize their stakes below.
We also note that we have not identified further venues for Mr. Ackman to speak and that the next Ira Sohn Conference in NYC will not be held until May 2014.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/8FWXPJj8JVs/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
The perennial question of modern economics is simple: how are market downturns best combated? It’s a good question, if you are trying to deduce truth in matters. It also makes for good fodder to appease career-granting benefactors, i.e. the government. It was not always this way however. Economists, if true to their craft, do not make for barrels of optimism. They are supposed to be a splash of cold water on wishful thinkers.
The unholy alliance between the state and the economic profession would never last if dismal science practitioners were gadflies who swatted down every harebrained scheme that festered in the dreams of central planners. This was one of the problems encountered by classical economists. Being market-friendly, it was tough appealing to monarchs or government leaders who wanted a quick fix to economic doldrums. No head of the public wants to tell his citizens, “Sorry, I cannot help you today. You must help yourself.”
Eventually John Maynard Keynes would come along and give the economic vocation the crony justification it needed to become respectable in the eyes of the state. His The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was a how-to guide for pols looking to spend other people’s money. At last they had an excuse: to boost unemployment by paying laid-off workers to dig holes aimlessly.
Our friend Paul Krugman is Keynes’s most vocal disciple, and never tires of reinvoking his intellectual master’s teachings of mo’ money, mo’ debt, and no mo’ problems. In a recent interview with the forever exhausted-looking Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider, Kruggy is perplexed by the Federal Reserve’s inability to inflate out of the ongoing economic slowdown. He snakes out a position between naysayer Larry Summers, who thinks the economy can only grow with artificial bubbles, and someone who is more optimistic about the future. On necessary bubbles, Krugman tells us:
“If we look at the evidence…and it kind of looks like…we need bubbles to grow. We’ve had one bubble after another. Long-term rise in debt, with no inflation…the economy is looking like it’s just barely managing to keep its above water with all those bubbles so…that’s the observation.”
Krugman blames the news status quo on slowing technological innovation and lower population growth. As for the United States, the Nobel Laureate is convinced the trade deficit is largely at fault. Lastly, he concedes that no one really knows why the economy must be goosed by a shot of exuberance.
That’s all true, if you forget the fact that some folks do actually understand why Krugman and his like-minded colleagues are scratching their heads over bubbles.
That the past few decades have witnessed financial bubble after financial bubble is not proof positive of a great need for them. Krugman’s assumption is that had the Fed not interfered in the marketplace to boost particular assets, the whole economy would have imploded. It’s a false assumption, but totally in line with Keynesian theory.
From the stagflation in the late 1970s to the stock market crash of 1987, forward to the failure of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, the popping of the dot-com bubble years later, and finally culminating in the housing crisis of 2007-2008, Krugman and Summers appear to have a point. All of these cases of faux prosperity were caused by the Fed’s meddling with the money supply, pushing interest rates down below their natural level. The headache after each instance was cured with the hair of the dog – meaning more inflation, more stimulus, and more central bank liquidity. The roller coaster ride of money printing has left the economy distorted and unable to find true balance again.
For the life of him, Krugman can’t seem to find any evidence of market stability without the animal spirits being thrown a liquidity bone. And yet, his go-to example of angelic prosperity – the 1950s – has all the markings of a relatively calm period of prosperity absent of central bank interference. As former Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman points out, the heads of the Federal Reserve following World War II were less-than-enthusiastic about ginning up growth via the printing press. This was when William McChesney Martin was at the helm and President Eisenhower was reluctant to keep up the hog wild spending of his predecessor. In an interview with the American Mises Institute, Stockman comments:
Although central banking does cause moral hazards and lends itself to abuses, there have been periods in which monetary and fiscal discipline have been employed. Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin, for example, really did take the punch bowl away when the party got started because he took monetary discipline seriously. Fiscal discipline under Eisenhower and the gold standard behind Bretton Woods helped put off the day of reckoning for quite a long time.
After wartime price controls were relaxed in the late 1940s, capitalists and private investors were freed of government burden and began investing in the country yet again. Washington’s budget was cut significantly, including hundreds of billions removed from the Pentagon’s death machine expenditures. Stockman brings attention to the data: “Between 1954 and 1963, real GDP growth averaged 3.4 percent while annual CPI inflation remained subdued at 1.4 percent.”
So yes, this was the non-bubble prosperity Krugman is looking for. As Justin Raimondo writes, “[E]ight years of relative fiscal sanity under the Eisenhower presidency ushered in the greatest economic expansion in modern times.” What’s funny is that Krugman is one of the biggest cheerleaders of post-war prosperity and continually advocates going back to the Ike-era. But he wrongly attributes the golden times to pro-union labor policies and high rates of taxation.
Regardless, the takeaway from the decade of General Motors, Elvis, decent manners, and the Red threat is bubbles are not necessary for economic growth. By trying to stimulate demand, the Fed only mucks up economic calculation and capital accumulation.
Krugman’s solutions for the bubble-addicted economy are no better than his own understanding of economic theory. Widespread unemployment can be cured, in his opinion, by weaker purchasing power, a stronger welfare state, and continual government spending. In other words, by top-down central planning that attempts to tweak society “just so.” All these efforts are nothing but a shell game that take money from some and give it to another. Basically, Krugman is King
Solomon with a sword, cutting everyone into parts he sees most fit.
Saying we need continuous financial bubbles to keep full employment is such a flawed conception of economics, it belongs on an island of misfit philosophies. Krugman’s incessant promotion of statism is doing more harm to the economy than good. As an opinion-molder, he is perpetuating the economic malaise of the last few years. More bubbles won’t help the recovery, just harm it more. In the middle of a grease fire, Krugman calls for more pig fat. And the rest of us are the ones left burnt.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/TLi56PTVgyE/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com
It is well-documented that the claim that nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy is mere propaganda.
The archaic nuclear reactor design used at Fukushima and in most reactors in the United States and throughout the world was chosen solely because it helps to make nuclear bombs.
Our health has been sacrificed – and the dangers of radiation covered up – for 68 years … for the sake of nuclear weapons.
The mainstream media – and gatekeeper “alternative” media – are pro-war. They may occasionally criticize one tiny aspect of the war-fighting machinery, but never the overall war effort.
As such, it should not be entirely surprising that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists CNN and Huffington Post as “external stakeholders” in the NRC.
As EneNews reports:
Independent Evaluation of NRC’s Use and Security of Social Media, Office of the Inspector General, Jan. 2013:
Social Media Evaluation Interview List [Appendix VI, pg. 82]
- Internal Stakeholders (NRC staff) […]
- External Stakeholders (Press) Energy Editor, AOL, Huffington Post — Nuclear Writer, Huffington Post — Producer, CNN News
- External Stakeholders (Digital Influencers) Blogger, Atomic Power Review — Blogger, Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes — Blogger, Yes Vermont Yankee
- External Stakeholders (Nuclear Industry) […] Senior Manager for Social — Media, Nuclear Energy Institute […]
- External Stakeholders (US Government and US Senate Staff) US-CERT Representative, United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team — Policy Director, US Senate ….
Excerpts from the evaluation:
- As part of the press, I have to be able to quickly communicate a lot of technical information into something our readers will grasp. But it helps if NRC had strong info graphics or a section that provided a breakdown of technical info so I can understand the translation from its source. — Huffington Post
- NRC‘s materials are very basic and not very viral. Other agencies do a better job of including information graphics, photos, even clickable links. There‘s no extra. It‘s not influential. — Managing Editor, Huffington Post
- One producer from Cable News Network (CNN) suggested that what was currently offered on Flickr does not compel him to return and urged NRC to provide more content that did not involve people in a conference room or of the chairperson speaking from a podium.
See also: Paper: CNN’s nuclear propaganda film “is dishonest to its core” — It’s “actually an infomercial”
Remember, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a pro-industry group which is largely funded by the nuclear companies. (This is true of all nuclear agencies).
The nuclear industry in Japan – and elsewhere – spends more on pr than on safety measures. Indeed, nuclear power is a form of crony capitalism, where taxpayers fund a market which would not even exist in a free market.
The presstitute media once again shills for the powers-that-be.
Bonus:
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Uh8m4RMjo6g/story01.htm George Washington
Much has been said about the key aspect of the Ponzi scheme behind America’s welfare state (if not enough where it matters as the three living Fed Chairmen currently joke around during the Fed’s shindig on the central bank’s 100th anniversary), namely that all those who have paid in money to entitlements, are entitled to benefit from entitlement distributions in the future. On paper this is absolutely correct, and in an efficient market, without capital allocation distortions this would work (ignoring that a Ponzi scheme, is, by definition, a Ponzi scheme and is reliant on ever greater inflows of money and participants or, as some may call them, suckers). More importantly, this is also fair. Sadly, as recent experiments within the Obama administration and elsewhere, most notably France, when the entire developed world has hit “peak debt” levels, the fairness doctrine no longer works, especially if and when it is enforced upon a destitute population.
Since we don’t live in a paper world, one should be able to quantify the disparity between the “haves” and the “have nots” when it comes to entitlements. This is precisely what Larry Kotlikoff did in August 2013 in “How the millennial generation will pay the price of Washington’s paralysis.” The results, charted, show what JPM’s Michael Cembalest has dubbed, accurately, “generational theft”, or the difference between how much excess some Americans will have received in government benefits (the older ones), compared to how great the funding deficit is for others – mostly young Americans, those who are about to graduated from college with record amounts of student loans (on average) and those yet unborn.
Cembalest’s summary:
After you graduate, the US will be in the thick of the “generational theft” issue; here’s a heads-up on what this is all about. Generational accounting is an estimate of who benefits from and who pays for government programs. As shown in the first chart, the average person in the generation that turned 65 this year received $327 thousand dollars more in lifetime government benefits than they paid in Federal taxes. On the other hand, children born in the future (e.g., yours) will have a lifetime deficit on this basis of -$421 thousand dollars. If it sounds unfair, it is.
It seems that these days few things are fair. Which is perhaps why the rulers are desperate to do everything in their power to “enforce” their idea of fairness on everyone.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Py5kDOp_wRI/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Much has been said about the key aspect of the Ponzi scheme behind America’s welfare state (if not enough where it matters as the three living Fed Chairmen currently joke around during the Fed’s shindig on the central bank’s 100th anniversary), namely that all those who have paid in money to entitlements, are entitled to benefit from entitlement distributions in the future. On paper this is absolutely correct, and in an efficient market, without capital allocation distortions this would work (ignoring that a Ponzi scheme, is, by definition, a Ponzi scheme and is reliant on ever greater inflows of money and participants or, as some may call them, suckers). More importantly, this is also fair. Sadly, as recent experiments within the Obama administration and elsewhere, most notably France, when the entire developed world has hit “peak debt” levels, the fairness doctrine no longer works, especially if and when it is enforced upon a destitute population.
Since we don’t live in a paper world, one should be able to quantify the disparity between the “haves” and the “have nots” when it comes to entitlements. This is precisely what Larry Kotlikoff did in August 2013 in “How the millennial generation will pay the price of Washington’s paralysis.” The results, charted, show what JPM’s Michael Cembalest has dubbed, accurately, “generational theft”, or the difference between how much excess some Americans will have received in government benefits (the older ones), compared to how great the funding deficit is for others – mostly young Americans, those who are about to graduated from college with record amounts of student loans (on average) and those yet unborn.
Cembalest’s summary:
After you graduate, the US will be in the thick of the “generational theft” issue; here’s a heads-up on what this is all about. Generational accounting is an estimate of who benefits from and who pays for government programs. As shown in the first chart, the average person in the generation that turned 65 this year received $327 thousand dollars more in lifetime government benefits than they paid in Federal taxes. On the other hand, children born in the future (e.g., yours) will have a lifetime deficit on this basis of -$421 thousand dollars. If it sounds unfair, it is.
It seems that these days few things are fair. Which is perhaps why the rulers are desperate to do everything in their power to “enforce” their idea of fairness on everyone.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Py5kDOp_wRI/story01.htm Tyler Durden
A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely to be unconstitutional. As Politico reports, Judge Richard Leon blasted, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval.” This is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since Edward Snowden exposed it.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the so-called metadata had helped to head off terrorist attacks.
…
“Plaintiffs have a very significant expectation of privacy in an aggregated collection of their telephone metadata covering the last five years, and the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program significantly intrudes on that expectation,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “I have significant doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.”
…
Leon’s ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and at least one judge sitting in a criminal case.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Z643IioP_rY/story01.htm Tyler Durden
A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely to be unconstitutional. As Politico reports, Judge Richard Leon blasted, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval.” This is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since Edward Snowden exposed it.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the so-called metadata had helped to head off terrorist attacks.
…
“Plaintiffs have a very significant expectation of privacy in an aggregated collection of their telephone metadata covering the last five years, and the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program significantly intrudes on that expectation,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “I have significant doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.”
…
Leon’s ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and at least one judge sitting in a criminal case.
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Z643IioP_rY/story01.htm Tyler Durden
The Federal Reserve System was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. Today, the Fed has decided to commemorate the event today with all three living Fed chairman delivering remarks. We are sure it will be very exciting but in the interests of 'balance' we offer a few alternative views of the "success" of the venerable monopoly including its cost: since 1913, the dollar has lost nearly 90% of its purchasing power.
The day it all changed…
The Birthday Celebrations – live feed
Live streaming video by Ustream
An Alternative view of the 100 Years of Boom and Bust
"If we evaluate an organization's performance by what it promised when it was created, the Federal Reserve has clearly failed the American people… the revolution of 1913 shifted power from individuals, communities and states to the federal government and its powerful allies in the private sector."
The Fed's 100-Year War Against Gold (and economic common sense)
Instead of providing protection, the Fed has robbed the public through the hidden tax of inflation brought about by currency devaluation.
The American people like to think that we have a "democratic system", but there is nothing "democratic" about the Federal Reserve. Unelected, unaccountable central planners from a private central bank run our financial system and manage our economy. There is a reason why financial markets respond with a yawn when Barack Obama says something about the economy, but they swing wildly whenever Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke opens his mouth.
The Federal Reserve has far more power over the U.S. economy than anyone else does by a huge margin.
Art Cashin On 100 Years of Fed Trial and error and error and error…
the Fed was supposed to extend credit only for “productive” and not for “speculative” purposes." Ironically, less than a year later, the Fed noticed that some loans were being diverted to "securities purchases"
A century with and a century without The Fed…
And last but not least…
The Fed's Dismal Track Record:
According to the popular lie, the Federal Reserve was supposed to have been established to smooth out the economic cycle, thus preventing booms, busts, recessions, and depressions.
It hasn’t really worked out that way.
In the 100 years prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there were 18 distinct recessions or depressions:
1815, 1822, 1825, 1828, 1833, 1836, 1839, 1845, 1847, 1853, 1860, 1865, 1869, 1873, 1887, 1890, 1899, and 1902.
Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there have been 18 recessions or depressions:
1918, 1920, 1923, 1926, 1929, 1937, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001, 2008.
So in other words, the economy experienced just as many recessions with the ‘expert’ management of the Federal Reserve as without it.
And this doesn’t even begin to capture all the absurd panics (the S&L scare), bailouts (Long-Term Capital Management), and ridiculous asset bubbles that they’ve created.
Hardly an impressive enough track record to justify conjuring trillions of dollars out of thin air, and awarding nearly totalitarian control of the money supply and economy to a tiny banking elite… wouldn’t you say?
| |
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/5eAb-aP7VF8/story01.htm Tyler Durden