Goldman Creates a Facebook Hedge Fund for HNW Clients Historically Ripped Off By Such Vehicles, Spits In Face Of SEC...

I have been hinting that
I plan on taking on partners to build BoomBustBlog into a larger, more
prominent media concern. 2011 will be the year that I make this happen,
for I see significant opportunity in the media and mobile space as
traditional media companies continue to make colossal blunders, all the
while destroying brand, equity and shareholder value. At the same time,
younger, nimbler, more agile companies are running circles around their
more extant brethren due primarily to a superior grasp of the new media
model and a dearth of legacy costs and mindset to drag them down.  On
that note, let’s look at one of the more interesting mainstream media
stories of the day…

According to the NY TImes, Goldman Invests in Facebook at $50 Billion Valuation.
This investment (along with a reinvestment of $50 million by Digital
Sky Technologies (the Russian investment firm that previously invested
half a billion dollars) offers Facebook the financial firepower to
compete with public companies in hiring, acquisitions, etc., while
having the benefit of thinking long term in it investment strategy (like Google has),
without suffering the short term-itis that is prevalent in the
expectations of the “show me the money, now”, quarterly demands of Wall
Street analysts.

That is not the most interesting part of the story though. The
Facebook stock has more liquidity than some public company stocks, and 
the post money valuation of Facebook is now greater than much more
established public companies such as eBay, Yahoo and even Time Warner.
Hey, it gets a lot more interesting than that. This is where the snarky,
smart ass, yet highly analytical nature of BoomBustBlog parts with the
reporting of those big MSM rags. I am not going to comment on Facebook’s
prospects, at least in this particular missive, although I do believe
that the young Zuckenberg is a capable and visionary CEO and his company
has a lot of potential, there is a waft of bubbliciousness in the air
reminiscent of the year 2000. Why do I say this? Well, the capital
injection that so duly empowers Facebook is basically an uncapitalized
bonus pool for Goldman Sachs. You see, it is highly unlikely that
Goldman is actually materially investing in Facebook, particularly at
these valuations (is facebook really worth more than Time Warner and
eBay, after the private market liquidity discount?). What Goldman is
doing is employing its financial engineers to allow its HNW investors to
sidestep and circumvent the laws of the land as feebly enforced by the
SEC. Its not as if this is a secret, it was published in the NY Times!!!
Basically, Goldman has created a spit in the face of the SEC, Facebook
hedge fund. See below…

Now, this begs the question as to just how lucky those potentially
thousands of Goldman HNW clients are who are investing in the Goldman
Facebook Special Purpose Hedge Fund. After all, this wasn’t the first
time that Goldman employed its financial engineers to make available
certain illiquid and/or arcane investments for the benefit of their
clients. Let’s reminisce, shall we as I take you back to the
BoomBustBlog post, When the Patina Fades… The Rise and Fall of Goldman Sachs???

In April of 2006, a Goldman Sachs formed
“Goldman Sachs Alternative Mortgage Products”, an entity that pushed
residential mortgage backed securities to its victims
clients through GSAMP Trust 2006-S3 in a similar fashion to the sales
and marketing of  the CRE CMBS that is being pushed to its victimsclients
as described in the links above. The residential real estate market
faced very dire fundamental and macro headwinds back then, just as the
commercial real estate market does now. I don’t think that is the end of
the similarities, either.

Less then a year and a half after this
particular issue was floated, a sixth of the borrowers defaulted on the
loans behind this product, according to CNN/Fortune, where the graphic below was sourced from.

Here’s an excerpt from the article of October 2007 (less
than a year after the issue was sold to Goldman clients, clients who
probably didn’t know that Goldman was short RMBS even as Goldman peddled
this bonus bulging trash to them):

By February 2007, Moody’s and S&P began
downgrading the issue. Both agencies dropped the top-rated tranches all
the way to BBB from their original AAA, depressing the securities’
market price substantially. In March, less than a year after the issue
was sold, GSAMP began  defaulting on its obligations. By the end of
September, 18% of the loans had defaulted, according to Deutsche Bank.
As a result, the X tranche, both B tranches, and the four bottom M
tranches have been wiped out, and M-3 is being chewed up like a frame
house with termites. At this point, there’s no way to know whether any
of the A tranches will ultimately be impaired…

,,, Goldman said it made money in the third quarter by shorting an index of mortgage-backed securities. That prompted Fortune
to ask the firm to explain to us how it had managed to come out ahead
while so many of its mortgage-backed customers were getting stomped.

Just one month later from Bloomberg:

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg)

Representative Darrell
Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page
document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought
$62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG…

The public can now see for the first time how poorly the securities performed, with losses exceeding 75 percent of their notional value in some cases. Compounding this, the document and Bloomberg data demonstrate that the banks that bought the swaps from AIG are mostly the same firms that underwrote the CDOs in the first place.

The banks should
have to explain how they managed to buy protection from AIG primarily on
securities that fell so sharply in value, says Daniel Calacci, a former swaps trader and marketer who’s now a structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases,banks
also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain
whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans
bundled into the CDOs, he says. [Let's not play games here. The banks knew what trash was hidden where!]

‘Too Uncanny’

“It’s almost too uncanny,” Calacci says. “If these banks had
insight into the underlying loans because they had relationships with
banks, originators or servicers, that’s at the least unethical.”[At the very least. I think it's called ILLEGAL!]

The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A, and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured — more than any other investment bank.
Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created
$13.2 billion of the CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion.

These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so much under wraps, Professor James Cox of Duke University School of Law says: “They may have been trying to shield Goldman – for Goldman’s sake or out of macro concerns that another investment bank would be at risk.”

And from “No One Can Say I Didn’t Warn Them About Goldman Sachs, Several Times…“:

Goldman customers power the bonus pool
through the losses they accumulate both by doing business with Goldman
and following Goldman’s investment advice as Goldman takes the other
side of the trade. This is now only starting to come out in the
mainstream media, although I harped on this topic throughout 2008, see Blog vs. Broker, whom do you trust!.

And in Bloomberg: Goldman Sachs Hands Clients Losses as Seven of Nine `Top’ Trade Ideas Flop.
Now there’s a big surprise! Listen, everybody makes mistakes, and no
one is perfect (except for Goldman’s prop desk, but we’ll get to that
point shortly). I will never criticize anyone for having a bad month,
quarter or year. The thing is this is not about Goldman having a bad
month, day or year, it is about their taking advantage of their clients.
Excerpts from the afore-linked article:

May 19 (Bloomberg) — Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. racked up trading profits for itself every day last
quarter. Clients who followed the firm’s investment advice fared far
worse.

Seven of the investment bank’s nine
“recommended top trades for 2010” have been money losers for investors
who adopted the New York-based firm’s advice, according to data compiled
by Bloomberg from a Goldman Sachs research note sent yesterday.
Clients who used the tips lost 14 percent buying the Polish zloty
versus the Japanese yen, 9.4 percent buying Chinese stocks in Hong Kong
and 9.8 percent trading the British pound against the New Zealand
dollar.

…“This says that Goldman’s guys are only human,” said Axel Merk,
who oversees $500 million as president and chief investment officer of
Merk Investments LLC in Palo Alto, California. “No one is always
right. There are a lot of cross currents in this market.”

This my dear friend, is what we in the industry refer to in technical parlance as BULLSHIT!!!! Goldman literally had a perfect trading quarter recently, with not one day losing money. Yes, the guys at Goldman are only human, but they are front running humans!

Gia Moron, a spokeswoman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment.

Of course!

Of course, you know I have much more. Reference The
Conundrum of Commercial Real Estate Stocks: In a CRE “Near
Depression”, Why Are REIT Shares Still So High and Which Ones to Short?
where not only supplied the mechanics of the shenanigans, step by step,
with downloadbable models, but I also illustrated the following:

Not to be outdone by those “lesser”
brands on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs lost nearly 100% of their clients
money in a similar CRE fund. Reference this FT article: Goldman real estate fund down to $30m (they lost $1.76 billion, yes, that’s a very big percentage loss).

These funds did very well during the
boom, but when the obvious bust came (and I blogged about it in full
detail, so no one could say they didn’t see it coming), these funds
crashed. Professional asset managers should know better. They are
simply delivering leveraged market beta, not alpha. Investors are
paying a fortune in fees to ride the mortgaged ups and downs of the
real estate market.

Here’s another tidbit of
information. Some of the banks that sponsored these investment funds
also helped arrange the financing of the buildings that the funds
bought. Without discussing the wide implications of this potential and
actual conflict of interest, it remains to be said that if the building
goes underwater, the lenders (which were often the banks) were
underwater on the deals as well. The banks that were underwater
obviously need to get out from under these securities. What’s the
easiest way to do that? Upgrade the sector and sell them to suckers,
that’s how…

As stated Reggie Middleton vs Goldman Sachs, part 1, For Those Who Chose Not To Heed My Warning About Buying Products From Name Brand Wall Street Banks, and “Blog vs. Broker, whom do you trust!”,
Goldman’s peddling of products often spells doom for the consumer
(client) and bonus for the producer (Goldman). Goldman is now
underwriting CMBS under a broad fund our $19 billion bonus pool “buy”
recommendation in the CRE REIT space  reference Reggie Middleton Personally Contragulates Goldman, but Questions How Much More Can Be Pulled Off .
Now, after all of the evidence that I have presented against the CRE
space, who do you think would be better for clients net worth, Reggie’s
BoomBustBlog or Goldman?

You see, the moral to this story is that Even With Clawbacks, the House Always Wins in Private Equity Funds.

The huge difference between the
returns of GP and LPs and the factors behind this disconnect
reinforces the conflict of interest between the fund managers and the
investors in the fund.

Under the base case assumptions, the
cumulated return of the fund and LPs is -6.75% and -55.86,
respectively while the GP manages a positive return of 17.64%. Clicking here to download this illustrative model in Excel: Real estate fund illustration.

Okay, I’m going to leave those doing “God’s work” alone for now… Uh…
Wait a minute. I just realized that these guys are considered to be the
best on the Street! Did you know that Goldman came in number one for
financial company analysis on the Street during the financial turmoil of
2007/8 and the government engineered recovery of 2009/10? They bested
all of Wall Streeet with… drum roll then silence,,,, with a hint of
hysterical laughter in the background…. A 38% accuracy rate! With
friends like those brokers and analysts, who really needs enemies? As a
matter of fact, the only one that I know of that bested those doing
God’s work and the rest of the street was this handsome, charismatic,
and rather articulate blogger from Brooklyn… See Did Reggie Middleton, a Blogger at BoomBustBlog, Best Wall Streets Best of the Best?

As you can see, and as has been hinted to in the introduction of this
missive, BoomBustBlog is not your typical mainstream media concern. If
there is a strong opinion backed by facts, or some truth to be told
(even if – or especially if -mired in the arcana of finance, economics,
or investment jargon), I truly believe entities such as this are the
places to go for it – sensitive feelings and political correctness be
damned. As of right now, there are not a lot of places to go for the
skinny on things such as this Facebook investment, at least in my not so
humble opinion. Anyone interested in discussing partnering to build a
new style media concern that focuses on hard content that both
understands and leverages the mobile computing space and the new media
model should definitely contact me. Click here to find out more about Reggie Middleton and the BoomBustBlog.

More BoomBustBlog on new media:

1. The Face Of Media In 2011 Is Not What What Is Being Marketed, But What You Actually Use Thursday, December 30th, 2010
2. Why Traditional Media Still Doesn’t Get It Regarding Google, And Why Not Getting It May Marginalize Them! Wednesday, December 8th, 2010
3. The Mobile Computing and Content Wars: Part 2, the Google Response to the Paradigm Shift Friday, July 9th, 2010
4. Are Blogs Truly Competitive With the Mainstream Media in Terms of Quality of Content? Tuesday, April 20th, 2010
5. Do Blogs Compete at a Level that Threatens Mainstream Media? Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Comments

[velobabe]

i would like to ask want value would this ETF out of sucks company, create? i can't stand people, let along invest in what these mindless folks do, virtually.

[moneymutt]

Reggie:

Either this is a good deal for GSacs customers or not, but either way its WRONG. The investors are to be limited to 499 due to the lack of disclosure and market regulations such a private market provides. If GSacs is getting its customers a great deal they would not if GS didn't chea the rules, then it is just another case of high worth people getting special deals and ruining markets for regular people.

But much more likely, as you say, it is like GSacs steering people to Webvan ten years ago, having no skin in the game but reaping huge bonuses for nothing other than having a special monopolistic position. What millionaire or billionaire would trust their money with these parasites.

And Reggie, I think the idea of a new media concern actually covering financial stuff well, thoroughly would be great, of course we all love ZH and we could use a whole bunch more. Mostly it would be great help to our country and the world for these guys to be exposed. Best of Luck.

[SlorgGamma]

Reggie, you nailed it. As a full-time media scholar who studies digital culture and its business models, it's painfully obvious that Facebook is becoming Facebubble.

Social network media just isn't monopolizable or even oligopolizable. The beast is going to evolve too fast for that -- especially in the mobile space, where it's the Wild, Wild East (literally and figuratively). This isn't to say Facebook won't be successful or generate reasonable returns in the future -- they'll do fine. But Wall Street's neo-Victorian fantasy of a platform-based data-oligopoly, bristling with useless DRM like 19th century genteel homes bristled with useless ironwork, is as broken as the CDO market.

[Browncoat79]

If the CIA browsing Facebook profiles actually occurs, aside from the outrage that someone is reading my mail that I don't know or haven't "friended", do I really need to get too bothered? I mean, I am friends on Facebook with just about all my friends, most of my family, parents included, younger siblings and cousins, and with work colleagues.

Ergo, I don't put anything up there that I wouldn't say in front of those people anyway, it's the same as being in public. So if the CIA are really that bored, and they decide they're going to profile me based on Facebook, then they're going to find out that I like shoes, shopping, post too many pictures of my cat up there, and some of my favourite quotes and maybe, the juiciest of all, my political views. None of which are a crime, noe of which are illegal, and even if they don't agree with my political views, I'm entitled to have them. So do I really care if information that I am essentially putting into the public sphere of knowledge gets looked at? Not at all.

My point is, not that I'm a sheeple, but if you have embarrassing, shameful, or criminal secrets, then you are probably not going to post them up on Facebook. If you do, then whatever happens next is a form of Darwinism. I buy my physical silver and gold in cash. I don't put it up on Facebook (although I have just done so here, duuuhhhhh). Even though this activity is completely legal, it is just no-one's damn business but my own how I choose to hedge against inflation. Ditto with lots of other things.

Lesson: Don't put anything incriminating in writing, if you're smart. If you're not, well, then, you'll learn.

[Dr. Sandi]

More to the point, never open a full wallet in plain view in a bad neighborhood.

But better, still, stay out of the bad neighborhood completely and avoid the risk.

[King_of_simpletons]

The "clients" can use Facebook to extract behavoral patterns of the subject and then go to Pipl (www.pipl.com) and extract all the other personal information. A marriage made in heaven. 

[tamboo]

Thiel - "the real face behind Facebook" - is a Zionist

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/media/internet/news.php?q=126202...

So by his own admission, Thiel is trying to destroy the real world, which he also calls "nature", and install a virtual world in its place, and it is in this context that we must view the rise of Facebook. Facebook is a deliberate experiment in global manipulation, and Thiel is a bright young thing in the neoconservative pantheon, with a penchant for far-out techno-utopian fantasies. Not someone I want to help get any richer.

http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2008/01/behind-faces-at-facebook.html

Mossad Has Added You as a Friend

Facebook has long been a window for parents, teachers, and employers to peer into their juniors' lives, but this is getting creepy: The Jewish Journal reports that the Israeli Army recently visited the Facebook profile of a teenage girl who had claimed a draft exemption on religious grounds. The Army found photographs of the girl partying on Shabbat; a further inspection revealed she wasn’t dressing (in the Journal’s deadpan description) “in a style acceptable to the religious community.” The consequence? Conscription. No word on whether she has changed her status.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/mossad-has-added-you-as-a-...

Facebook, however, does what Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler could not have dreamt of - it has a half billion people willingly doing a form of spy work on all their friends, family, neighbors, etc.—while enthusiastically revealing information on themselves. The huge database on these half a billion members (and non-members who are written about) is too much power for any private entity—but what if it is part of, or is accessed by, the military-industrial-national security-police state complex?

We all know that “he who pays the check, calls the shots,” therefore; whoever controls the purse strings controls the whole project. When it had less than a million or so participants, Facebook demonstrated the potential to do even more than IAO, TIA and TIPS combined. Facebook really exploded after its second round of funding—$12.7 million from the venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager, James Breyer, was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital front established by the CIA in 1999. In-Q-Tel is the same outfit that funds Google and other technological powerhouses. One of its specialties is “data mining technologies.”

Dr. Anita Jones, who joined the firm, also came from Gilman Louie and served on In-Q-Tel’s board. She had been director of Defense Research and Engineering for the U.S. Department of Defense. This link goes full circle because she was also an adviser to the secretary of defense, overseeing DARPA, which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development.

But as bad as the beginning of Facebook is, the parallels between the CIA’s backing of Google’s dream of becoming “the mind of God,” and the CIA’s funding of Facebook’s goal of knowing everything about everybody is anything but benign.

Furthermore, the CIA uses a Facebook group to recruit staff for its National Clandestine Service. Check it out if you dare.

Do not become a victim of this full frontal assault on your personal information. Think twice about putting your entire life on Facebook or by that matter on any social media site. None of it is ever private. Everything you put online stays online forever in a server farm somewhere for anyone to analyze you and the people you love. They do not care about your privacy at all and put great value on uncovering all they can about you. They have an agenda that will become more and more apparent to people as time goes by. Believe it or not there is a great change coming in our culture that many choose to be blind too. The mass loss of liberty and freedom we are experiencing is just a signal to the direction this is all going.

http://www.examiner.com/canada-internet-in-canada/facebook-conspiracy-da...

[Mr Lennon Hendrix]

Facebook will be bought by a Tech Giant I saw a headline that Facebook had more hits than google this year.  That is outrageous.  Facebook is total isolation/narcissism.  What is happening is going to be people's most epic failure.  Constant window dressing will never get rid of the truth that life is pain, and life is suffering.

I am not against enjoying oneself, staying in contact with friends, taking pictures, sharing time, but if anyone spends longer than half an hour around the water cooler something is up.  It is hard to judge the collective, but, it is obvious that the 1st World is rather laking in this sense.

Unless our mettle is sincerely tested by an outside force I doubt we will recognize our surroundings.  While the dollar holds its thin grasp on people's reality, I think there will be a bid on facebook by a Tech Major.  I think Google, Apple, and Microsoft all could provide the support to make facebook the biggest thing since sliced bread for years to come.  Acompany flushed in cash, like GE, could also make an attempt to buy it.  Take your pick as to which company would buy facebook if given the chance.

Then again, facebook may stay private or go public.  There are going to be variables.  But if facebook is bought out, the new company would be a monster. Posted by Mr Lennon Hendrix at 10:15 AM

[Atomizer]

Old Macfacebook had a farm, E-I-E-I-O

[Flounder]

yeah, the whole thing does smell rather AOLish

[Bartanist]

So, is Goldman dumping its current holding of overinflated Facebook shares into the trust because that is the only place it can dump them without causing the house of cards to fall?

If that is the case then we can expect to see special purpose Apple and Netflix coming soon, especially if its HNW clients remain clueless that they are once again being tagged as the Goldman bagholders... probably mostly clueless Saudies, trusting pension fund managers and criminal elements that would not dare sue Goldman when their money is lost.

[oddjob]

Anybody investing in FB or GS deserves to lose all their money.

[CulturalEngineer]

There are certain 'inventions' that will inevitably arise in some form or another given the development of the 'landscape' that makes that possible. They can almost be considered forgone conclusions... they are emergent properties of the technologies that make hem possible.

And some of them (especially in NEW landscapes) have a tendency towards concentration (a natural total or near monopoly).

The peer-to-peer networking offered by Facebook is one such form.

Like with search before... Google wasn't the first to enter the field... but once a certain tipover point is reached... dominance becomes self-reinforcing.

So it is with Facebook... there were (and are) others... but a tipover point may have been reached. Though I wouldn't count on it... (and believe its not the case, at least without some missing needed capabilities and broader focus than data collection for advertisers and governments and as a marketing tool).

Because while Facebook has many wonderful features... (Yes, I do have a Facebook account)...

I don't think it gets to the heart of the requirements for peer-to-peer association and empowerment in an absolutely critical new landscape. Sometimes missed potentials are not regained.

Examples from the past:

The telephone and television... and reaching even farther back... the creation of money and the mechanisms of 'credit creation'... (which many of us here see as a very troubled technology.)

Because of cultural inertia and a natural need for stability... patterns laid down by the first players to gain dominance in such new landscapes become extremely difficult to dislodge.

Sometimes this can be for the best... usually not.

Many of televisions initial potentials for civic engagement and localization of political participation were lost... and in fact turned upside down... by its solidification in community unfriendly ways (in this country at least). The INERTIA of certain technology implementations becomes extremely difficult to dislodge even when obviously faulty.

(I'm 61 and for my whole life people have been pointing out... and its scarcely disputable... that the public airwaves could make campaigning a whole lot cheaper... and candidacy available to more than just the 'pre-approved' candidates. Yet media costs and the money quest continues to be a thorn in the side of honest politics and good governance... hmmm... I wonder who's interest THAT serves?)

In a way, Facebook and other such sites are trying to address... and/or even bridge a very difficult gap mankind has to address as ICT quickly goes global. In evolutionary terms its essentially instantaneous.

THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL SCALING ISSUE IN HUMAN SOCIETIES ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL HUMAN COMMUNITY SIZE (Dunbar’s Number), THE ALTRUISM PROBLEM (there’s an unavoidable discontinuity between biological and intellectual altruism) AND COGNITIVE LIMITS (the “attention economy”).

In short... our personal networks are smaller than the social organism of which we are a part. This is both unavoidable and problematic.

Social Networks & The Social Organism: Healing the Breach

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEB IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN PEER-TO-PEER RELATIONSHIP SINCE THE MOVE TO SETTLED EXISTENCE!

The Internet landscape is being rapidly carved up into private fiefdoms.

I strongly, even urgently (at considerable personal sacrifice; I’m without support or connections) have been pointing out that at least one corner (a critical corner in my opinion) should be reserved to the Commons… to ALL of humanity.

The Commons-dedicated Account* System:

*A self-supporting , Commons-owned neutral network of accounts for both political and charitable monetary contribution… which for fundamental reasons of scale must allow a viable micro-transaction. Such a network ideally should maintain its own cloud and bank. Accounts may be created and/or maintained with zero balances and/or only momentary balances during a pass-through transfer (I believe the monetization model requires no burden on the actual transaction.)

Gov 2.0 and New Economies - Designing the Social Contract

Political Fundraising: Act Blue, Facebook and the Missing Network Imperative

[JW n FL]

Reggie... everything that you do is Great! (Tony the Tiger, GreatttttTTT!!!!) Please dont ever stop, Please keep it going... and God Bless You and Yours!

[TideFighter]

Honest to God, why are high netties chasing anything Goldman anymore when they could be chasing muni's or T's? We can stop this crap without finding new regulators (just don't buy the product)!

[topcallingtroll]

There was bubbliciousness all throughout the late nineties. Bubblicious conditions can maintain themselves longer than you can stay solvent. However now that I have achieved the distinction of a "qualified" investor I find that I am no longer interested in the crap they have to offer. The club looked better on the outside than on the inside.

[Reggie Middleton]

the club looks the same, you just have better educated eyes!

[ldotf]

a FarmVille bubble! 

Moody's soon to rate wall messages and pics... 

[covert]

this is what trailing stops are for. have a drink and relax at the trendy new bar conveniently located near wall st.

http://covert2.wordpress.com