This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

There Is No Longer A Market: Citigroup Confirms What Zero Hedge Has Said Since 2009

Tyler Durden's picture




 

"Zero Hedge long ago gave up discussing corporate fundamentals due to our long-held tenet that currently the only relevant pieces of financial information are contained in the Fed's H.4.1, H.3 statements... macro economic data now is essentially one big joke."

      - Zero Hedge, January 2010

 

"we have been saying since day one [...] that when it comes to securities price formation in a centrally-planned regime, it is flow not stock that matters."

     - Zero Hedge, June 2012

 

Those were the rantings of a "tinfoil hat-wearing", "conspiracy theory-heavy" website, which dared to speak up time and again against widely-accepted economic and financial dogma, which has been the foundation of the Fed's flawed experiment now in its 8th year.

And they were right.

Here is what the global head of credit strategy at Citigroup just said this last Friday.

If there were any lingering doubt, this week’s gyrations demonstrate neatly that it is central bank liquidity, not  fundamentals, driving markets. It is the flow, not the anticipated stock, of QE which counts.

 

... Central bank policy pronouncements are almost the exclusive driver of market movements at the moment, not fundamentals. Almost all the fixed income investors we meet bought into this idea some time ago – perhaps unsurprising, given the extent to which credit spreads have been diverging from corporate leverage, and seem likely to continue to do so even as leverage rises further (Figure 4). In equities, there are still a few holdouts – but the longer that downward revisions to earnings revisions are met with record highs in markets (Figure 5), the more widely accepted the idea becomes.

 


 

... In govies, it has been slightly harder to fathom what is going on – but what remains clear is that it doesn’t have much to do with fundamentals. No wonder the backup in US yields is now fading when it occurs against the most protracted period of negative economic surprises since 2011 (Figure 6). Each successive month’s disappointment on retail sales adds to the likelihood that consumers’ appetite for spending vs saving has fundamentally altered – not just that the benefits from the oil price drop are a little slow to feed through (Figure 7).

 

 

... with central bank liquidity the ultimate source of all market movements, investors [are] forced to shun fundamentals and instead hang on the central banks’ every word. At some point, of course, the risk is that the taps are turned off: recent speeches from Yellen, Draghi and others do demonstrate an increasing unease with market behaviour, and an increased emphasis on financial stability and the need for structural reforms. But with the underlying economy still weak, and vulnerable to a sharp sell-off in markets, we fear they will find that mangling, once started, is hard to stop. Particularly when they remain at least partly in denial as to the extent of it.

And since the market no longer exists, and soon, courtesy of double seasonally adjusted "data" economic reporting and analysis will be just as meaningless, soon the Fed, having destroyed trading as we know it not to mention the US middle class, will also succeed in ending financial reporting once and for all.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:23 | 6130596 negative rates
negative rates's picture

The hedge started because the word got out that the mkt didn't exist, it's been gravy from there.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:08 | 6130703 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Chris Powell: There are no markets anymore, just interventions. Submitted by cpowell on Sat, 2008-04-19

http://www.gata.org/node/6242

 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 21:53 | 6131365 MonetaryApostate
MonetaryApostate's picture

I believe we are all living in a system that is 100% controlled & manipulated by the OLD MONEY (As in mega wealthy) who, for many years now, have raped, pillaged, legislated, taxized, and extorted us beyond ANY FUCKING DOUBT WHAT SO EVER, the only question you really need to ask yourself is.... Do you like it PUNK?  Well do you?

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:25 | 6130604 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

citi, lulz. if it weren't for tbtf policies they'd be pushing up daisies.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:25 | 6130606 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

"Aww shit, they caught us." - overheard at Citigroup's annual Memorial Day Barbeque and Chuck Prince Drunken Barn Dance.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:26 | 6130607 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

I'm going to have to find a new hangout, conventional wisdom bores the fuck out me...

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:29 | 6130614 B2u
Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:39 | 6130625 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Fuck you Citigroup. You have been sleeping on our keyboard since 2008. Rehashing a 1979 campaign is hilarious. 

Citibank Ad - Citi never sleeps

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2s_lVOCfUXQ

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:38 | 6130643 Amish Hacker
Amish Hacker's picture

On a long enough timeline, even Citi reads ZH.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:41 | 6130650 migra
migra's picture

Its bad when a TBTF bank makes statements like this in the open.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:40 | 6130647 eroc66
eroc66's picture

First rule of Fight Club.... Second Rule.... we all know and now are we considered omfg "mainstream"? I am shocked to find gambling going on.... Rock Rock Rock

 

Eroc

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:46 | 6130656 sTls7
sTls7's picture

Zh right again.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:46 | 6130659 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

How bad is your stress test number's Citi? Don't count on a TARP bailout. You can become the next National City Bank (Cleveland,OH) taken over by PNC. Start checking the audit reports. Look for skewed data. NCB was not insolvent, it was a take over on a crisis. 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 17:58 | 6130686 polo007
polo007's picture

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2013-09-22/who-should-run-fed

Five years later, however, the power of the Federal Reserve is greater than ever before. Congressional dysfunction and partisan warfare have made the possibility of economic recovery through fiscal measures or other legislative initiatives remote; monetary policy and the Federal Reserve have become the last hope. The Fed has responded energetically with initiatives such as quantitative easing (buying bonds in large amounts to push down long-term interest rates), which was an unprecedented and massive exercise in policy innovation. As the financier Mohamed El-Erian observed in 2012, the Fed and other major central banks were "neck deep in extreme policy experimentation mode."

As a result, the two salient features of the economic crisis have been political gridlock and technocratic entrepreneurship. Compare this to the nation's response to last major economic crisis, the Great Depression. In those days, it was the political class that took the initiative, while the Federal Reserve took a secondary role. President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself set the government’s tone, working with Congress to pass a battery of legislative initiatives aimed at restoring confidence. "The country needs bold, persistent experimentation,” Roosevelt said. “Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Today, the same mantra applies -- but it applies to central bankers, not to politicians.

In that sense, the last few years have upended our understanding of the role of central bankers and the reason for central bank independence. Before the crisis, during the years when countries were beginning to take the idea of central bank autonomy more seriously, many people asked how it could be justified in a democratic society. The response from some advocates of central bank independence was straightforward. Banks had a simple goal -- price stability -- and well-established techniques for achieving that goal. They did not engage in much policy innovation and, above all, they were not in the business of picking winners and losers in the economy. In other words, the power that was being given to central banks was limited, so the threat to democratic principles was not substantial.

But the game has changed. The objectives of central bank policymaking are no longer so simple: for example, there is an active debate among central bankers about the relative importance of job creation and inflation control. At the same time, the techniques for achieving those goals are less certain. Finally, the Federal Reserve and other major central banks are now unambiguously in the business of picking economic winners and losers. Recent studies have highlighted the extent to which such central bank policies as quantitative easing have conferred big rewards on some groups while penalizing others. A 2012 study by the Bank of England conceded that the benefits of its quantitative easing program "have not been shared equally," with wealthy households benefiting disproportionately.

But the critical point is this: although the premises on which U.S. politicians and the public initially accepted the delegation of authority to independent central banks have been blown apart, that delegation persists. In practice, central bankers’ power has broadened, while legislative power has atrophied. And this is true in other countries as well. This is a troubling shift, and it has not gotten the attention it deserves. The people who advocated for central bank independence in the 1980s and 1990s had to make their case explicitly, since, in many countries, they were calling for legislative change. But the current shift has happened in an ad hoc way, under the pressure of the moment, without a compelling explanation of how it can be squared with democratic principles.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:38 | 6130802 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"the current shift has happened in an ad hoc way"--  what garbage.  Money creation no longer requires any sort of real collateral!!!!!!

Please nigga, wake up...

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

  "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

 

Such "let the majority eat cake" monetary experiments have been done before.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 22:37 | 6131479 TomGa
TomGa's picture

Excellent history lesson:

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:03 | 6130699 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

CNBC queing up the "Nobody saw this coming!" and "The FED has to do something!" lines for Joe LaBologna and Steve LIESman...

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:05 | 6130704 schadenfreude
schadenfreude's picture

Citi and all others knew right from the beginning of QE that flow matters, not fundamentals. Now that the end of QE is near they state the obvious.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:10 | 6130716 two hoots
two hoots's picture

In the modern day if would be hard to tell what came first Citi or the Fed? 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:11 | 6130720 MASTER OF UNIVERSE
MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

Yeah, screw the faux news reporting on the fake data sets and just get the money honey to show us her tits instead, eh. What the Hell, we may as well be amused rather than annoyed sifting through the subterfuge, and propaganda, I always say. There is much truth in this story.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:16 | 6130721 polo007
polo007's picture

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014-08-11/print-less-transfer-more

Today, most economists agree that like Japan in the late 1990s, the global economy is suffering from insufficient spending, a problem that stems from a larger failure of governance. Central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, have taken aggressive action, consistently lowering interest rates such that today they hover near zero. They have also pumped trillions of dollars’ worth of new money into the financial system. Yet such policies have only fed a damaging cycle of booms and busts, warping incentives and distorting asset prices, and now economic growth is stagnating while inequality gets worse. It’s well past time, then, for U.S. policymakers -- as well as their counterparts in other developed countries -- to consider a version of Friedman’s helicopter drops. In the short term, such cash transfers could jump-start the economy. Over the long term, they could reduce dependence on the banking system for growth and reverse the trend of rising inequality. The transfers wouldn’t cause damaging inflation, and few doubt that they would work. The only real question is why no government has tried them.

In theory, governments can boost spending in two ways: through fiscal policies (such as lowering taxes or increasing government spending) or through monetary policies (such as reducing interest rates or increasing the money supply). But over the past few decades, policymakers in many countries have come to rely almost exclusively on the latter. The shift has occurred for a number of reasons. Particularly in the United States, partisan divides over fiscal policy have grown too wide to bridge, as the left and the right have waged bitter fights over whether to increase government spending or cut tax rates. More generally, tax rebates and stimulus packages tend to face greater political hurdles than monetary policy shifts. Presidents and prime ministers need approval from their legislatures to pass a budget; that takes time, and the resulting tax breaks and government investments often benefit powerful constituencies rather than the economy as a whole. Many central banks, by contrast, are politically independent and can cut interest rates with a single conference call. Moreover, there is simply no real consensus about how to use taxes or spending to efficiently stimulate the economy.

Steady growth from the late 1980s to the early years of this century seemed to vindicate this emphasis on monetary policy. The approach presented major drawbacks, however. Unlike fiscal policy, which directly affects spending, monetary policy operates in an indirect fashion. Low interest rates reduce the cost of borrowing and drive up the prices of stocks, bonds, and homes. But stimulating the economy in this way is expensive and inefficient, and can create dangerous bubbles -- in real estate, for example -- and encourage companies and households to take on dangerous levels of debt.

That is precisely what happened during Alan Greenspan’s tenure as Fed chair, from 1997 to 2006: Washington relied too heavily on monetary policy to increase spending. Commentators often blame Greenspan for sowing the seeds of the 2008 financial crisis by keeping interest rates too low during the early years of this century. But Greenspan’s approach was merely a reaction to Congress’ unwillingness to use its fiscal tools. Moreover, Greenspan was completely honest about what he was doing. In testimony to Congress in 2002, he explained how Fed policy was affecting ordinary Americans:

"Particularly important in buoying spending [are] the very low levels of mortgage interest rates, which [encourage] households to purchase homes, refinance debt and lower debt service burdens, and extract equity from homes to finance expenditures. Fixed mortgage rates remain at historically low levels and thus should continue to fuel reasonably strong housing demand and, through equity extraction, to support consumer spending as well."

Of course, Greenspan’s model crashed and burned spectacularly when the housing market imploded in 2008. Yet nothing has really changed since then. The United States merely patched its financial sector back together and resumed the same policies that created 30 years of financial bubbles. Consider what Bernanke, who came out of the academy to serve as Greenspan’s successor, did with his policy of “quantitative easing,” through which the Fed increased the money supply by purchasing billions of dollars’ worth of mortgage-backed securities and government bonds. Bernanke aimed to boost stock and bond prices in the same way that Greenspan had lifted home values. Their ends were ultimately the same: to increase consumer spending.

The overall effects of Bernanke’s policies have also been similar to those of Greenspan’s. Higher asset prices have encouraged a modest recovery in spending, but at great risk to the financial system and at a huge cost to taxpayers. Yet other governments have still followed Bernanke’s lead. Japan’s central bank, for example, has tried to use its own policy of quantitative easing to lift its stock market. So far, however, Tokyo’s efforts have failed to counteract the country’s chronic underconsumption. In the eurozone, the European Central Bank has attempted to increase incentives for spending by making its interest rates negative, charging commercial banks 0.1 percent to deposit cash. But there is little evidence that this policy has increased spending.

................

The broader global economy, meanwhile, may have already entered a bond bubble and could soon witness a stock bubble. Housing markets around the world, from Tel Aviv to Toronto, have overheated. Many in the private sector don’t want to take out any more loans; they believe their debt levels are already too high. That’s especially bad news for central bankers: when households and businesses refuse to rapidly increase their borrowing, monetary policy can’t do much to increase their spending. Over the past 15 years, the world’s major central banks have expanded their balance sheets by around $6 trillion, primarily through quantitative easing and other so-called liquidity operations. Yet in much of the developed world, inflation has barely budged.

To some extent, low inflation reflects intense competition in an increasingly globalized economy. But it also occurs when people and businesses are too hesitant to spend their money, which keeps unemployment high and wage growth low. In the eurozone, inflation has recently dropped perilously close to zero. And some countries, such as Portugal and Spain, may already be experiencing deflation. At best, the current policies are not working; at worst, they will lead to further instability and prolonged stagnation.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:34 | 6130790 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Low inflation is a lie.  For anything that is required for a high standard of living, there is plenty of inflation.  What garbage is this?

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:24 | 6130952 foghorn leghorn
foghorn leghorn's picture

Food inflation is up 500%. I've had to reduce my caloric food intake from 30,000 calories to a mere 3000 calories. I've eleminated cable tv and pretty much any kind of spending that I don't really need.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 22:35 | 6131472 TomGa
TomGa's picture

$30 for a digital broadcast TV antenna at Costco. Plugs right in. More channels than I want or need.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:28 | 6130778 farmboy
farmboy's picture

If you do not have the brains or background to appreciate real financial insight start reading cooking blogs. The link to the origin of ZH has no meaning it is about the content that makes ZH outstanding.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 18:54 | 6130833 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Yes and there was a commentor on ZH named Q99X2 that said at the end of 2011 the FED jacked their software directly into the markets so that never again does anyone have to worry about markets going down unless the FED decides to do so. Dude also said that they had taken over the markets and were paying disability, EBT and college tuitions to keep a revolution from happening until the DHS, FEMA, NSA, CIA and the military, and militarized police were prepared to kill any American uprising against the banksters that took down the World Trade Centers and turned Washington D.C. into a bunch of bankster contractors. And now Academia and soon to be pensioners everywhere are shitting their pants because we are all F'n doomed. DOOMED bitchez. Somebody call the police. The FED's printing money to kill us.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:22 | 6130941 foghorn leghorn
foghorn leghorn's picture

Oh yes they are and I do believe that I am on their list lol.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:00 | 6130857 essence
essence's picture

Granted now days  that CB's (and entities such as the U.S. Exchange Stabilization Fund?, & the BIS?) ostensibly sit at the top of the financial food chain.

Question: to Tylers and ZH community

Why is the default bias of High Frequency Trading to ramp markets up (as opposed to down or churning?)

If the bulk of HFT profits come from front running orders, why would it matter to them where the market level sat?  It's apparent the algos are programmed to ramp upwards. Why is that so?

Unfettered HFT wouldn't exist without government acquiesce. Are the HFT firms simply hand maidens attending to the wishes of their sponsors?

Is it merely the misguided belief to  "arouse animal spirits", "wealth effect" etc. ... or is something else afoot?

Opinions?

 

 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:20 | 6130936 foghorn leghorn
foghorn leghorn's picture

Oh those HFT algos move in the opposite direction too. Just do what you can to piss off the Fed and its banksters and you'll find out. I've been using those algos to do what I want them to do and like clockwork those algos always follow through.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:36 | 6130988 essence
essence's picture

At least your response wasn't along the lines of "my sister makes $89 an hour working from home on the Internet".

 

Yes, algos approximate a herd of cattle, ... still, there is ample empirical evidence that their implicit direction is up.

WHY?

 

Tylers are savvy guys. Perhaps they can answer that.

 

 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 20:20 | 6131082 Robert3620
Robert3620's picture

No one gets pisssed when it goes up, they do tho when it goes down. If you were to use them and cause the market to go down, the legal system would be all over you. Plus all along this whole process they have really wanted the retail investor to get into it so they could sheer them. Retail isn't jumping into a market going down.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:45 | 6131015 Baldrick
Baldrick's picture

in 2010 greenspan commented that higher markets give j6p the feeling of wealth, but more importantly it is ALL of the zombie pensions that are being kept alive. it's not the ebt folks that will show up outside a gubberment persons home, they only loot stores. ; )

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 20:04 | 6131056 Catullus
Catullus's picture

IMO, it's because for an actual trade to take place, there must a buyer. You can create as many sell orders as you want. The bid clearing is still what moves the market in otherwise liquid scenario. It's when that liquidity disappears that we see the Market drop.

It doesn't matter what the thing is. There's always an offer for everything. Meaning everything has a price. But not everything has a buyer.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 20:29 | 6131109 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture

This sounds about right. The principle you are describing applies to all of economics. It is the primacy of demand. Supply is only secondary. 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 21:01 | 6131183 essence
essence's picture

But Zerohedge keeps driving home the point that liquidity is already an issue (in just about everything),
that Joe 6 pack isn't in this stock market to any significant degree.

Pensions (i.e. 401k's) supposedly can fall back to corporate bonds even if they have dabbled in stocks .... (albeit at lower yields in bonds than a HFT ramped stock market).  Does HFT exist solely as an avenue to keep pension returns above water? That's the answer? To keep the remnants of the middle class onboard just the same as EBT and other bennies do the lower class.

The question stands: Why is HFT allowed to continue?
Whom amoung the PowersThatBe does it serve a purpose?
Again, I'll state, HFT wouldn't exist without government acquiesce. And not just U.S markets either, although, of course, it's the most egregious example.  We know governments are bought. Ergo, HFT serves the purpose of the ultra-wealthy who lie behind CBs & governments.

Why?  One would think they would prefer to herd the masses into govie bonds and drive stocks lower so that they could hoover them up at bargain basement prices.

 

 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 21:40 | 6131315 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

I woke up this morning with the idea that consumers are saving for big toys or big items... versus spending on everything advertised as they have in the past.

"Each successive month’s disappointment on retail sales adds to the likelihood that consumers’ appetite for spending vs saving has fundamentally altered..."

The Dream is for big items, but used cars are good, used boats, used ATVs,... US may have had a paradigm shift.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 20:36 | 6131134 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

As long as the market goes up those tax sheltered annuities and IRAs can boast a profit.  That keeps the money parked in those funds.   Down trends would cause an exit that would feed on itself crashing the market.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:02 | 6130864 Niall Of The Ni...
Niall Of The Nine Hostages's picture

You'd think the jackass from Citi would be more grateful. It's a fair bet the Fed is the only reason he's still alive and wasting perfectly good air.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:26 | 6130961 foghorn leghorn
foghorn leghorn's picture

Thanks zerohedge for saying it like it is. It must not be easy being an institution and all. The Feds come after me and I am a nobody so I could only imagine what they do to you.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 19:58 | 6131043 Catullus
Catullus's picture

There's understanding and foresight. And there's "waiting for the data to come in."

Guess which one intelligent people fall into

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 20:11 | 6131062 Fun Facts
Fun Facts's picture

The "markets" today consist of fraud, central bank open market operations, and faked data.

Good Luck.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 20:33 | 6131121 gregga777
gregga777's picture

Hang them all and let God sort them out.

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 21:28 | 6131276 Chippewa Partners
Chippewa Partners's picture

Dam, I thought it was only West Pointers that are HFTers......... 

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 21:35 | 6131297 TeethVillage88s
TeethVillage88s's picture

According to Robert Mitchem in the Movie "Anzio" we go to war and kill each other because we like to and that is why we will do it all over again. There is a thrill in war and winning. Banks must feel the same thing in making big deals, controlling the data, controlling information, controlling Employees who would pass on data.

Banks play like a game. A game of war. And as history shows we never gain anything from war and never learn anything. It is only a Waste of peoples money and a transfer of wealth to those positioned to benefit.

Citigroup is all over this.

What is the next Frontier for Wall Street Asymmetric Warfare??

Gambling is part of Banking & Politics & Lobbying.

Risk Taking is part of the Bullshitting of Congress and lying in their Faces. It is war. And you are supporting your team, your Network, Your Career.

If Big Time Bankers and Wealthy people get immunity and Sovereign Immunity type protection... why worry about telling the 'truth'?

"Hey, yeah we kept saying those things to you congress since we were just joking, we were waiting for your to call us on it. But you never said anything."

Mon, 05/25/2015 - 23:24 | 6131573 TomGa
TomGa's picture

The timing of Citi's "revelation" seems somewhat suspicious amidst everything that's going on in the world right now....  

Tue, 05/26/2015 - 01:02 | 6131733 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

the shit is going to fly the same way it has been - but it does seem like the fan is starting to rotate...

Tue, 05/26/2015 - 03:11 | 6131850 Magooo
Magooo's picture

Where's the ZH Pulitzer?

Tue, 05/26/2015 - 07:13 | 6131994 fremannx
fremannx's picture

The distortion of the markets that exist today has happened because we are in the largest credit bubble in history. This Anatomy of a Bubble explains why...

http://www.globaldeflationnews.com/anatomy-of-a-bubble-how-the-federal-r...

Tue, 05/26/2015 - 07:33 | 6132018 Billy Bob101
Billy Bob101's picture

An interesting article that media executives are the highest paid in America.  I wonder why?

http://www.barchart.com/headlines/story/8248708/media-ceos-are-the-highe...

The relevance here is that they sell the story that there are markets, the economy is doing well, real estate is recovering, things are AWESOME.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!