QuoteJPMorgan discloses $2B in losses in 'flawed' hedging strategy
By Martin Wolk
JPMorgan Chase, the nation's largest bank, said Thursday it has lost $2 billion in a complex hedging strategy over the past six weeks and could lose more.
In a conference call to analysts and investors, CEO Jamie Dimon said the 'flawed' hedging strategy was "poorly constructed, poorly reviewed, poorly executed, and poorly monitored."
As a result, the bank expects to lose $800 million in its corporate segment this quarter, compared with previous estimates that the segment would post $200 million in profit. Some of the hedging losses were offset by taking $1 billion in previously unrealized gains from the bank's portfolio.
"The portfolio has proved to be riskier, more volatile and less effective as an economic hedge than we thought," Dimon said in the call, which was monitored by msnbc.com. "There were many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment."
The company's shares plunged more than 6 percent in late electronic trading after the loss was announced. Other bank stocks, including Citigroup and Bank of America suffered heavy losses as well.
Dimon said the bank suffered losses as a result of a strategy to hedge against global credit risk. He declined to specify further.
He said the bank is working through the problems but expects continued volatility, and losses could grow.
"Hopefully this will not be an issue by the end of the year," he said.
He said some of the losses were a result of the volatile market environment. Markets have been roiled recently by concerns over Europe, which has slipped back into recession.
The losses are still a relatively small amount compared to the approximately $200 billion portfolio managed by the company's chief investment office, where the hedging strategy was executed.
Eh it was not like there was any reason to think hedging on derivatives was a risky strategy.
Why is this allowed, who does it benefit?
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:39:17 AM
Eh it was not like there was any reason to think hedging on derivatives was a risky strategy.
It's all about the "Value-at-Risk" profile. Which is a fundamentally flawed method of proving to the SEC that you're safe. The problem is that all securities are risky, and ones that you think are offsetting each other can in fact both go down at the same time.
It's not like they won't be bailed out, so why shouldn't they risk 2 billion in 6 weeks?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:39:17 AM
Eh it was not like there was any reason to think hedging on derivatives was a risky strategy.
It's all about the "Value-at-Risk" profile. Which is a fundamentally flawed method of proving to the SEC that you're safe. The problem is that all securities are risky, and ones that you think are offsetting each other can in fact both go down at the same time.
ain't that the truth
At least the industry self-regulates itself to the extent that they're going to fire the trader in London that did it. :lol:
Not this shit again. I just took an exam on this very topic, and one of the many items were case studies of various derivative disasters.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 11, 2012, 11:40:34 AM
Why is this allowed, who does it benefit?
it is allowed because no one, especially those using it, understand how it works precisely.
In school, all they teach you is how to do the math. But no one except the math genius who created the derivative properly understand his own model.
And then it replicates down the chain as you have derivatives on derivatives on derivatives. On simply weird products like ones paying on weather. 7 days of sunshine, it doesn't pay, 6 days or rains, it pays. It looks like a nice way to provide insurance for your portfolio wich contains derivatives on rice and wheat, but then you made a simple mistake calculating the true costs of your position. And since you don't want to lose your job, you try to cover your tracks with more exotic derivatives that no one really understands. But then things don't go according to plans, and you lose 2 billions.
Sometimes, you make your bank crash. See the Barrings case. The guy used derivatives to offset his position. 2 more weeks and he would have been back in the money, recovered all his losses. But alas, there was an earthquake in Kobe. Stock market crashed. Deeply. Bankruptcy.
And you look at the recent cases of bank failures, it's very similar.
Yet, if you regulate it, you can make things worst than they are. You could regulate against fast food because it's bad for your health. But then, you lose a lot of job opportunities for teenagers and a convenient way for people to eat when they are short on time.
Same goes for derivatives. Most of these are actually pretty useful for big financial instutions.
the problem seems to lie in a basic misunderstanding of the products themselves. Many bank managers, who have never studied finance, seem to believe they can eliminate the risk by carefully using derivatives while in fact all you do is shift the risk around. Eventually, someone, somewhere has to pay for this. There's no free lauch on the market.
Tax dollars are cheap. Blow is expensive.
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
the problem seems to lie in a basic misunderstanding of the products themselves. Many bank managers, who have never studied finance, seem to believe they can eliminate the risk by carefully using derivatives while in fact all you do is shift the risk around. Eventually, someone, somewhere has to pay for this. There's no free lauch on the market.
You have to be careful with free lunch arguments. Let's say every day, you take the trash out before leaving the house to go to work. One day you realize that all those brown bags you were throwing out every day actually contained lunch that your wife prepared for you. Not throwing away the brown bag does literally give you free lunch now.
Derivatives can in fact reduce effective risk, by transfering it from entities who can't handle it for various reasons to entities that can. Insurance contracts are a very crude form of a derivative, and insurance contracts can in fact greatly minimize the risk that matters. Of course total fire losses are going to be the same (ignoring moral hazard), but these losses would cause far less disruption due to capitalization and diversification of those whose outcomes are uncertain.
Plus the regulators don't know shit about it. The bank just pulls up their portfolio's VaR numbers to show they're super-hedged and everything evens out and the SEC dude goes "durrrr ok". They don't question the math behind the VaR and the bank can do what it wants.
Quote from: DGuller on May 11, 2012, 01:41:10 PM
Derivatives can in fact reduce effective risk, by transfering it from entities who can't handle it for various reasons to entities that can. Insurance contracts are a very crude form of a derivative, and insurance contracts can in fact greatly minimize the risk that matters. Of course total fire losses are going to be the same (ignoring moral hazard), but these losses would cause far less disruption due to capitalization and diversification of those whose outcomes are uncertain.
the insurance contract shifts the risk from you to your insurer. In return, the insurer shifts the risk to re-insurer, wich will shift the risks to the market by using all kind of investments and derivatives accross the world to avoid getting hit too hard by a natural disaster in one place.
While covered for a huge single event, the insurer is still exposed to a ton of smaller event. If the insurance company decides to ignore this because it has shifted most of its risk away to the re-insurer, they are in fact even more exposed to risk.
Wich is what happens with financial institutions. Eventually, they tend to forget they are still exposed to risk, they don't make it disapear.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Plus the regulators don't know shit about it.
wich is why making rules based on these people's advice is the worst possible scenario.
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2012, 03:11:20 PM
the insurance contract shifts the risk from you to your insurer. In return, the insurer shifts the risk to re-insurer, wich will shift the risks to the market by using all kind of investments and derivatives accross the world to avoid getting hit too hard by a natural disaster in one place.
While covered for a huge single event, the insurer is still exposed to a ton of smaller event. If the insurance company decides to ignore this because it has shifted most of its risk away to the re-insurer, they are in fact even more exposed to risk.
Wich is what happens with financial institutions. Eventually, they tend to forget they are still exposed to risk, they don't make it disapear.
You're ignoring the diversification effect. It takes a lot less capital to cover 1 million houses against a peril of fire, compared to 1 million times the amount of capital need to cover one house.
Catastrophes are slightly different in that regard, because then risks are correlated, so there is a systemic risk component that you can't diversify away just by law of large numbers. That's what reinsurance is for, mainly. However, rare catastrophes are generally not a big part of insured losses. It's everyday occurences likes fires and car accidents that form the bulk of them, and those are easily diversifiable.
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2012, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Plus the regulators don't know shit about it.
wich is why making rules based on these people's advice is the worst possible scenario.
Which is why the SEC needs to be swept under the Department of Justice as an interdepartmental branch of the FBI.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 03:41:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2012, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Plus the regulators don't know shit about it.
wich is why making rules based on these people's advice is the worst possible scenario.
Which is why the SEC needs to be swept under the Department of Justice as an interdepartmental branch of the FBI.
You can sweep it whereever you want, but it will never be effective at anything with its current budget. The last I saw it was a bit under $1 billion, and a lot of its work is coming up with and revising regulations. There is no way it can police US markets worth $10s of trillions with its current size.
S&P put JP Morgan on downgrade watch.
New nickname for the JPM CIO department in the financial news biz: Fail Whale :lol:
Another idiot firm, too fail to be so big! I wonder how these massive firms get past the monopoly rules? I guess there are many firms as big so it's not a monopoly? So many still to fail.... ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 03:41:13 PM
Which is why the SEC needs to be swept under the Department of Justice as an interdepartmental branch of the FBI.
I hate those steroid-abusing, recruiting-cheating bastards as much as anybody, but what does the FBI know about college football?
Quote from: KRonn on May 11, 2012, 07:48:11 PM
Another idiot firm, too fail to be so big! I wonder how these massive firms get past the monopoly rules? I guess there are many firms as big so it's not a monopoly? So many still to fail.... ;)
If a company is worth 200 billion, but the financial market is worth a hundred times that, they're probably not a monopoly.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2012, 06:05:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 03:41:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2012, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Plus the regulators don't know shit about it.
wich is why making rules based on these people's advice is the worst possible scenario.
Which is why the SEC needs to be swept under the Department of Justice as an interdepartmental branch of the FBI.
You can sweep it whereever you want, but it will never be effective at anything with its current budget. The last I saw it was a bit under $1 billion, and a lot of its work is coming up with and revising regulations. There is no way it can police US markets worth $10s of trillions with its current size.
No, it has no budget, and staffing smaller than the EEOC. It needs to be yuuuge.
I've gotten myself assfucked.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:18:54 PM
I've gotten myself assfucked.
And we know it didn't cost that much, either. You whore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:18:54 PM
I've gotten myself assfucked.
And we know it didn't cost that much, either. You whore.
It wasn't too big for me to learn a lesson. ^_^
:lol: :glare:
Quote from: Neil on May 11, 2012, 08:09:45 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 11, 2012, 07:48:11 PM
Another idiot firm, too fail to be so big! I wonder how these massive firms get past the monopoly rules? I guess there are many firms as big so it's not a monopoly? So many still to fail.... ;)
If a company is worth 200 billion, but the financial market is worth a hundred times that, they're probably not a monopoly.
Well, they're still too big given the hit they make on other banks, people and the economy when they crap themselves. Too big to fail indeed. Too fail to be so big is more like it.
Still, the losses on this if they happen will be nowhere big enough to cause JPM to fail. It's like 1/35 of their annual revenue.
As if to make matters worse for them, I closed my account at Chase bank today.
Quote from: Jaron on May 11, 2012, 09:23:09 PM
As if to make matters worse for them, I closed my account at Chase bank today.
That was probably the straw that broke the JPM camel's back!!
Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2012, 12:15:25 PM
It's not like they won't be bailed out, so why shouldn't they risk 2 billion in 6 weeks?
Except when they finally have it under control it may be as high as 5 billion.
Quote from: Habsburg on May 11, 2012, 10:23:45 PM
Quote from: Tamas on May 11, 2012, 12:15:25 PM
It's not like they won't be bailed out, so why shouldn't they risk 2 billion in 6 weeks?
Except when they finally have it under control it may be as high as 5 billion.
So what? They'll just withhold 10% of the planned bonus payments, and they're even.
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on May 11, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
Sometimes, you make your bank crash. See the Barrings case. The guy used derivatives to offset his position. 2 more weeks and he would have been back in the money, recovered all his losses. But alas, there was an earthquake in Kobe. Stock market crashed. Deeply. Bankruptcy.
Where are you getting this from? The movie made it out that derivatives, Nikei futures to be exact, were his entire position. And that was what Barings sent him to Singapore to do, trade in Nikei futures.
The problem was he concealed the size of his bets from London.
Let's say you got a $32,000 stock portfolio in an IRA account,
Let's say that over a few weeks you lose $200 on a couple trades. Would that cause you to panic?
Your loss in proportion to your total portfolio is equal to JP Morgan estimated loss on these derivative positions.
A couple of billion here, a couple of billion there - eventually it is gonna be real money.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2012, 07:04:59 PM
Let's say you got a $32,000 stock portfolio in an IRA account,
Let's say that over a few weeks you lose $200 on a couple trades. Would that cause you to panic?
Your loss in proportion to your total portfolio is equal to JP Morgan estimated loss on these derivative positions.
... so what you're trying to say is that they have too much money? Iagree. Lets tear down the machine! :menace: :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2012, 07:04:59 PM
Let's say you got a $32,000 stock portfolio in an IRA account,
Let's say that over a few weeks you lose $200 on a couple trades. Would that cause you to panic?
Your loss in proportion to your total portfolio is equal to JP Morgan estimated loss on these derivative positions.
CdM is the only one with an IRA account here.
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2012, 12:20:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2012, 07:04:59 PM
Let's say you got a $32,000 stock portfolio in an IRA account,
Let's say that over a few weeks you lose $200 on a couple trades. Would that cause you to panic?
Your loss in proportion to your total portfolio is equal to JP Morgan estimated loss on these derivative positions.
CdM is the only one with an IRA account here.
:lol:
QuoteJP Morgan Assfucks Itself
Finally, a topic that CdM can talk about with authority.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2012, 07:04:59 PM
Let's say you got a $32,000 stock portfolio in an IRA account,
Let's say that over a few weeks you lose $200 on a couple trades. Would that cause you to panic?
Your loss in proportion to your total portfolio is equal to JP Morgan estimated loss on these derivative positions.
Isn't it different because your IRA is all equity, whereas JP Morgan is highly leveraged?
I did my own calculation based on an FT article that said the loss dropped JP Morgan's capital from 8.4% to 8.2% and came up with $791 loss on 32K.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2012, 07:04:59 PM
Let's say you got a $32,000 stock portfolio in an IRA account,
Let's say that over a few weeks you lose $200 on a couple trades. Would that cause you to panic?
Your loss in proportion to your total portfolio is equal to JP Morgan estimated loss on these derivative positions.
Say it was a joint IRA with my wife, and we had agreed that we weren't going to speculate with our retirement money. If she then announced a $200 speculative loss, I would be concerned.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2012, 09:19:42 AM
Say it was a joint IRA with my wife, and we had agreed that we weren't going to speculate with our retirement money. If she then announced a $200 speculative loss, I would be concerned.
That's why women should stay in the kitchen.
Quote from: PDH on May 13, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2012, 09:19:42 AM
Say it was a joint IRA with my wife, and we had agreed that we weren't going to speculate with our retirement money. If she then announced a $200 speculative loss, I would be concerned.
That's why women should stay in the kitchen.
With a smart phone, and an etrade app?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2012, 09:47:42 AM
With a smart phone, and an etrade app?
She ain't baking if she is texting.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2012, 09:19:42 AM
Say it was a joint IRA with my wife, and we had agreed that we weren't going to speculate with our retirement money.
Umm. Then get it out of the IRA, because it's all speculation. :P
Even holding a 100% cash position is speculative.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2012, 02:48:05 PM
Even holding a 100% cash position is speculative.
Racist.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2012, 02:48:05 PM
Umm. Then get it out of the IRA, because it's all speculation. :P
:rolleyes: Even I know his argument was about women and their being unfit to invest.
Jamie Dimon was on Meet The Press yesterday, bitching about the "criticism" Wall Street's been getting from the left the last couple years. I thought it was adorable.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:29:37 AM
Jamie Dimon was on Meet The Press yesterday, bitching about the "criticism" Wall Street's been getting from the left the last couple years. I thought it was adorable.
Amen. Very apt quotation marks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2012, 07:34:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:29:37 AM
Jamie Dimon was on Meet The Press yesterday, bitching about the "criticism" Wall Street's been getting from the left the last couple years. I thought it was adorable.
Amen. Very apt quotation marks.
Of course you think it is. After all, Wall Street has your interests at heart, Yi. Yes, you specifically.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:43:14 AM
Of course you think it is. After all, Wall Street has your interests at heart, Yi. Yes, you specifically.
The difference between you and Raz is that after about six lines of identical diatribe you admit you're just making shit up whereas Raz ragesulks because I won't respond to his ossum question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2012, 07:46:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:43:14 AM
Of course you think it is. After all, Wall Street has your interests at heart, Yi. Yes, you specifically.
The difference between you and Raz is that after about six lines of identical diatribe you admit you're just making shit up whereas Raz ragesulks because I won't respond to his ossum question.
I pay no attention to Raz. We may be in the same school, but he's in the class that eats lunch by itself and the short bus picks him up an hour earlier.
I care not for his safety scissors and circles of paper.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:50:40 AM
I pay no attention to Raz. We may be in the same school, but he's in the class that eats lunch by itself and the short bus picks him up an hour earlier.
I care not for his safety scissors and circles of paper.
OK, three differences.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2012, 07:34:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:29:37 AM
Jamie Dimon was on Meet The Press yesterday, bitching about the "criticism" Wall Street's been getting from the left the last couple years. I thought it was adorable.
Amen. Very apt quotation marks.
I remember a couple of years ago, at the depths of the financial crisis, you seemed to do adopt a far more reasonable tone. When did you revert to being a WSJ tool?
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2012, 08:14:54 AM
I remember a couple of years ago, at the depths of the financial crisis, you seemed to do adopt a far more reasonable tone. When did you revert to being a WSJ tool?
Don't know what you've been smoking; Yi has always cast his lot with the Daddy Warbucks Free Market crowd.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2012, 06:41:54 AM
I did my own calculation based on an FT article that said the loss dropped JP Morgan's capital from 8.4% to 8.2% and came up with $791 loss on 32K.
The calc is based on the publicly revealed size of the portfolio which is $360 billion (so it really should have been a 36K IRA).
It's very difficult to try to back in through the capital % because of all the weirdness involved in risk-weighted captial measures.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2012, 09:19:42 AM
Say it was a joint IRA with my wife, and we had agreed that we weren't going to speculate with our retirement money. If she then announced a $200 speculative loss, I would be concerned.
And your wife responds - but I wasn't really doing speculative trading, and when I told you what I was doing 2 months ago, you didn't complain out about it then.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2012, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2012, 09:19:42 AM
Say it was a joint IRA with my wife, and we had agreed that we weren't going to speculate with our retirement money. If she then announced a $200 speculative loss, I would be concerned.
And your wife responds - but I wasn't really doing speculative trading, and when I told you what I was doing 2 months ago, you didn't complain out about it then.
sounds just like a woman :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:50:40 AM
I pay no attention to Raz. We may be in the same school, but he's in the class that eats lunch by itself and the short bus picks him up an hour earlier.
I care not for his safety scissors and circles of paper.
:pinch:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2012, 07:46:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:43:14 AM
Of course you think it is. After all, Wall Street has your interests at heart, Yi. Yes, you specifically.
The difference between you and Raz is that after about six lines of identical diatribe you admit you're just making shit up whereas Raz ragesulks because I won't respond to his ossum question.
No need to project. I don't "rage" on this forum.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2012, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 13, 2012, 09:19:42 AM
Say it was a joint IRA with my wife, and we had agreed that we weren't going to speculate with our retirement money. If she then announced a $200 speculative loss, I would be concerned.
And your wife responds - but I wasn't really doing speculative trading, and when I told you what I was doing 2 months ago, you didn't complain out about it then.
Maybe two months ago I didn't understand what the risks were in what we were doing. Perhaps we talk through exactly what we are doing, how much we have been risking, and whether it is appropriate given our risk profile.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2012, 12:48:02 PM
No need to project. I don't "rage" on this forum.
Not "rage", "ragesulk".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2012, 12:48:02 PM
No need to project. I don't "rage" on this forum.
Not "rage", "ragesulk".
I certainly don't turn into the Hulk, either.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2012, 02:25:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2012, 12:48:02 PM
No need to project. I don't "rage" on this forum.
Not "rage", "ragesulk".
I certainly don't turn into the Hulk, either.
Give me back those scissors, dammit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 02:26:34 PM
Give me back those scissors, dammit.
It's ok, they are lefty scissors - cant cut anything with them.
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2012, 08:14:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2012, 07:34:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:29:37 AM
Jamie Dimon was on Meet The Press yesterday, bitching about the "criticism" Wall Street's been getting from the left the last couple years. I thought it was adorable.
Amen. Very apt quotation marks.
I remember a couple of years ago, at the depths of the financial crisis, you seemed to do adopt a far more reasonable tone. When did you revert to being a WSJ tool?
I think the left have been blithering idiots about Wall Street. If you want to call that being a WSJ tool, so be it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2012, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:50:40 AM
I pay no attention to Raz. We may be in the same school, but he's in the class that eats lunch by itself and the short bus picks him up an hour earlier.
I care not for his safety scissors and circles of paper.
:pinch:
And yet from my short bus throne I have disproven statements you made, corrected you, humbled you. I have humiliated you to the point you not only refuse to respond to me out of fear that I may "get you", but you plead other members to ignore me so I can't ruin your trolls or derail your arguments. You lower yourself to the level of Marty and scurry about passively aggressively reminding everyone that you are ignoring me. Me, the second dumbest person on the this board! Mart at least has an excuse. I can cut you apart with my safety scissors any time I want. And you just can't live with that, can you? Not only that, you can't even respond to me. :lol: All you can do is continue to ignore and hope others will console you by saying you have the non-exist ant high ground.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2012, 09:12:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2012, 12:42:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 07:50:40 AM
I pay no attention to Raz. We may be in the same school, but he's in the class that eats lunch by itself and the short bus picks him up an hour earlier.
I care not for his safety scissors and circles of paper.
:pinch:
And yet from my short bus throne I have disproven statements you made, corrected you, humbled you. I have humiliated you to the point you not only refuse to respond to me out of fear that I may "get you", but you plead other members to ignore me so I can't ruin your trolls or derail your arguments. You lower yourself to the level of Marty and scurry about passively aggressively reminding everyone that you are ignoring me. Me, the second dumbest person on the this board! Mart at least has an excuse. I can cut you apart with my safety scissors any time I want. And you just can't live with that, can you? Not only that, you can't even respond to me. :lol: All you can do is continue to ignore and hope others will console you by saying you have the non-exist ant high ground.
:D
:lol: