This is why our markets are getting destroyed

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
To all the 'free market' pumpers here... here is your free market at work:

Darth Wall Street Destroying Debtors With Credit-Default Swaps 2009-03-05 05:01:00.33 GMT


By Caroline Salas and Shannon D. Harrington
March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Amusement-park operator Six Flags Inc. and automaker Ford Motor Co. may be pushed toward bankruptcy by bondholders trying to profit from credit-default swaps that protect against losses on their high-yield debt.
By employing a so-called negative-basis trade, investors could buy Six Flags bonds at 20.5 cents on the dollar and credit-default swaps at 71 cents. If the New York-based chain defaults, the creditors would receive the face value of the debt, minus costs. In a Feb. 27 note, Citigroup Inc.?s high- yield strategists put that profit at 6 percentage points, or $600,000 on a $10 million purchase.
Investors who bet on the collapse of a company are pitting themselves against traditional debt holders at a time when Moody?s Investors Service projects defaults will more than triple this year and exceed the level during the Great Depression. The clash may stall restructuring efforts to prevent bankruptcies, as basis traders may be less inclined to participate in distressed debt exchanges, said Matthew Eagan, an investment manager at Boston-based Loomis Sayles & Co., with $7 billion in high-yield assets.
?Before, you really had to worry mostly about where you were in the? company?s capital structure, he said. ?Now, you have to consider the possibility that you might have this large holder of CDS incentivized to see it go into bankruptcy. It?s something that?s going to come up more and more.?

Six Flags Debt

Six Flags debt is rated Caa3 by Moody?s and CCC+ by Standard & Poor?s, three and five levels above default. Both rankings were put on ?negative outlook? last year. Sandra Daniels, a spokeswoman for the New York-based company, didn?t return a phone call seeking comment.
Ford, the only one of the so-called Big Three U.S. automakers to avoid taking federal bailout funds, may run up against basis traders as it seeks to restructure its debt. The Dearborn, Michigan-based car company plans to offer cash and shares to retire as much as $10.4 billion in debt, according to a U.S. regulatory filing yesterday.
It may be ?difficult? for Ford to do an exchange, in part because of investors with basis trades, said Rod Lache, an analyst at Deutsche Bank in New York, commenting before the restructuring was announced.
The parent and its Ford Motor Credit finance arm had a net $8.1 billion credit-default swaps outstanding, versus about $54 billion in bonds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., which runs a central credit derivatives registry. Bill Collins, spokesman for Ford, didn?t return calls seeking comment.

Profit Either Way

?Say you?ve lent $100 million to a company and you had bought $100 million in credit-default swaps,? said Henry Hu, a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin. ?In that circumstance, the creditor really doesn?t care whether or not the company goes under.?
Following a meltdown last year in the relationship between prices on bonds and credit swaps after the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bankruptcy, basis traders often stand to make the most money if companies default. They can also profit by holding the trade until the debt matures or unwinding the position after the market value gap between the bonds and derivatives closes.
Hedge-fund manager Citadel Investment Group LLC in Chicago and Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG were among firms that piled into trades based on the spread between debt and swaps prices. Buying before the Lehman failure and the subsequent seizing up of the corporate bond market, many suffered losses and retreated.

Deutsche Bank Trades

Deutsche Bank was among those who held onto trades, forecasting the gap would close and the losses disappear, according to a person familiar with the lender?s trades.
The German bank made money by owning the debt and credit swaps of Lyondell Chemical Co., a Houston-based oil refiner and chemical producer that went bankrupt in January, the person said.
Lyondell sought and won a 60-day injunction in New York on Feb. 26 against creditors in an attempt to prevent basis traders from going after its Rotterdam-based parent, LyondellBasell Industries AF SCA, and other solvent units, documents filed in U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan show.
Bondholders with swaps filed objections to the ban, according to the documents. Jonathan Guy, a lawyer with San Francisco-based Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe who represents Deutsche Bank, said in court last month that his client owned Lyondell debt and credit derivatives.
Michele Allison, a spokeswoman in New York for Deutsche Bank, declined to comment, as did Lyondell spokesman David Harpole.

?Empty Creditors?

?You?re given these control rights under loan agreements or bond indentures on the general assumption that if you?re a creditor, you have an interest in the borrower surviving,? said Hu, who?s written about so-called empty creditors. ?Because of things like credit-default swaps, that assumption no longer holds.?
While basis traders may stymie efforts by companies to stay out of bankruptcy, they?re not Darth Vader-style destroyers, according to Brian Yelvington, a strategist at CreditSights Inc. in New York. The derivatives are bringing a measure of efficiency to the market that didn?t exist during earlier recessions, he said.
?You?ve got more information from a side of the market that didn?t exist before,? he said. ?People point at CDS causing all of this volatility. To me, it?s always been there. People haven?t been able to place the bets they would have liked.?

Creditor Resistance

Residential Capital LLC faced bondholder resistance to a debt-exchange proposal in December, in part because the investors also held derivatives, said Bradley Rogoff, a strategist at Barclays Capital, in a report that month.
With more than $2 billion in credit swaps and about $9.3 billion of bonds at the time, according to Moody?s, the Minneapolis-based company enlisted the support of only 39 percent of its creditors, falling far short of its goal of 75 percent.
During negotiations with creditors, ResCap?s Detroit-based parent, GMAC LLC, threatened creditors to initiate an asset exchange that may have left them with losses on the swaps, according to a written statement released at the time.
GMAC accepted a taxpayer bailout in late December. Beth Coggins, a spokeswoman for GMAC, declined to comment.

$47 Trillion

Credit swaps were created by JPMorgan Chase & Co. more than a decade ago to hedge against losses from bank loans. As dealers made the contracts more standardized, hedge funds, insurance companies and asset managers began using them to speculate on the creditworthiness of companies, sending trading in the swaps up to $47 trillion in 2008, according to the latest data from the New York-based International Swaps and Derivatives Association.
Richard Fuld, Lehman Brothers? chief executive officer, blamed his firm?s collapse on ?destabilizing factors? including credit-derivatives trading in Oct. 6 congressional testimony.
?People are having a hard time trusting anyone,? said Timothy Coleman, co-head of the restructuring group at Blackstone Group LP in New York. ?The motivations on the other side of the table are different.?
The combined average price on high-yield bonds and swaps dipped to as low as 85.06 percent of face value on Dec. 8, after Lehman?s failure Sept. 15, according to Barclays Capital. Two weeks before the bankruptcy, the cost was 92.13 percent, and rose to 94.12 percent as of yesterday. Investors who had done trades around the bottom would make as much as 15 percent with a default.

Distressed Debt

Idearc Inc., a Dallas-based publisher of phone directories, may come up against bondholders hedged with credit swaps, said people familiar with basis trading. The company may be forced into a distressed debt exchange or pre-packaged bankruptcy after hiring Merrill Lynch & Co. and Moelis & Co. to advise on its capital structure, Moody?s wrote in a Feb. 9 note.
Credit-default swaps protected a net $1.15 billion of Idearc debt from default as of Feb. 20, according to the Depository Trust. Idearc has $2.85 billion of bonds outstanding.
At the start of November, investors could buy the company?s 8 percent notes due in 2016 at 15.5 percent of face value. They could also purchase credit swaps protecting the bonds from default for seven years for 68 percent of face value, in addition to a 5 percent annual premium.

Gross Payout

The gross payout would be 16.5 percentage points if the company were to default. That gap has since narrowed to 5.75 percentage points, according to data from CMA DataVision and Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
?We intend to look closely at all available opportunities to strengthen our balance sheet and improve our risk profile,? said Andrew Shane, an Idearc spokesman who declined to discuss specific options for the company.
In 2008, companies got investors to exchange $29.7 billion of bonds in a record 13 trades, according to Edward Altman, a professor at New York University?s Leonard N. Stern School of Business. Altman created the Z-score mathematical formula that measures a company?s bankruptcy risk.
Debt exchanged last year was more than three times the total amount from 1984 through 2007, said Altman. ?Firms appear to be scrambling to avoid bankruptcy like never before,? he wrote in his annual report on defaults, published last month.
?Defaults are one of several ways that basis holders can benefit, so it would not surprise me if names with high concentrations of basis holders encounter resistance in their efforts to restructure,? said Michael Anderson, a high-yield debt strategist at Barclays Capital in New York.


It makes me sick that healthy companies are subject to this crap as well. We need to get these CDSs on an EXCHANGE and have companies who buy them / sell them post MARGIN.

This is not capitalism, this is greed and mutual destruction for the sake of profit. Free market at work here.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Do you have a link? It is an interesting read and I wonder where they got all the data from and the internal note.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Go ahead, point the finger at the big evil market. A year from now will it still be doing poorly? It'll be Obama's market then, and people will still be trying to shift the blame.
The market is clearly not happy with Obama's stimulus plan. Studies have shown most are concerned that it's not fixing the core problem-- people want more quality regulation. Funny that such a study would come from a "conservative" source such as WSJ, and that Obama would be running around NOT regulating.

I can tell you this for sure, a lot of previously Obama supporters are seeing that he apparently has no clue what he's doing.
I knew this was coming; and I'm sorry for them, but if they would have listened to his speeches a little more closely they would have figured out the same.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
It's going short instead of long, but I don't really see how taking out all these CDS "incentivizes" the holder to see the company die in a way that they can actually act toward seeing it happen. If I take out insurance on your life, does that make you any more likely to die? I could push you off a bridge, but if I didn't do that how does it directly affect you, despite me being awarded by it happening?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's going short instead of long, but I don't really see how taking out all these CDS "incentivizes" the holder to see the company die in a way that they can actually act toward seeing it happen. If I take out insurance on your life, does that make you any more likely to die? I could push you off a bridge, but if I didn't do that how does it directly affect you, despite me being awarded by it happening?

Yes, but if you have lung cancer they won't pay for your treatment! :)

-Robert
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Go ahead, point the finger at the big evil market. A year from now will it still be doing poorly? It'll be Obama's market then, and people will still be trying to shift the blame.
The market is clearly not happy with Obama's stimulus plan. Studies have shown most are concerned that it's not fixing the core problem-- people want more quality regulation. Funny that such a study would come from a "conservative" source such as WSJ, and that Obama would be running around NOT regulating.

I can tell you this for sure, a lot of previously Obama supporters are seeing that he apparently has no clue what he's doing.
I knew this was coming; and I'm sorry for them, but if they would have listened to his speeches a little more closely they would have figured out the same.

You don't even know what you are talking about. I bet you don't even know how CDS works, or what a naked CDS is and how they can manipulate share prices.

The market is a great thing, my argument is that you can't let it do just 'whatever' because you end up with garbage like this.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Commodity traders have been doing this sort of thing for a long time, so it's nothing new. What IS new is the extent of the CDS and the amount of money poured into them. It suggests a cynical attitude about the future of modern capitalism, and a willingness to see companies that employ people die so a few men can make money. Perhaps they should be illegal? It's very diifferent with a few gold contracts. The damage is limited usually. The same with grain contracts which are the classic hedge used by big farmers and grain users.

-Robert
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Go ahead, point the finger at the big evil market. A year from now will it still be doing poorly? It'll be Obama's market then, and people will still be trying to shift the blame.
The market is clearly not happy with Obama's stimulus plan. Studies have shown most are concerned that it's not fixing the core problem-- people want more quality regulation. Funny that such a study would come from a "conservative" source such as WSJ, and that Obama would be running around NOT regulating.

I can tell you this for sure, a lot of previously Obama supporters are seeing that he apparently has no clue what he's doing.
I knew this was coming; and I'm sorry for them, but if they would have listened to his speeches a little more closely they would have figured out the same.

You don't even know what you are talking about. I bet you don't even know how CDS works, or what a naked CDS is and how they can manipulate share prices.

The market is a great thing, my argument is that you can't let it do just 'whatever' because you end up with garbage like this.

He is so busy blaming Obama for things that he doesn't even understand this market.

The commodities and futures modernization act a few years ago screwed the pooch on CDS. It is a market that should have been regulated just as insurance is and it IS driving stuff down unrealistically.

 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Originally posted by: chess9
Commodity traders have been doing this sort of thing for a long time, so it's nothing new. What IS new is the extent of the CDS and the amount of money poured into them. It suggests a cynical attitude about the future of modern capitalism, and a willingness to see companies that employ people die so a few men can make money. Perhaps they should be illegal? It's very diifferent with a few gold contracts. The damage is limited usually. The same with grain contracts which are the classic hedge used by big farmers and grain users.

-Robert


Thats what capitalism has always been about. It's just more common now to be able to make money by tanking a company, in the past its sometimes been more profitable to make money by building companies, sometimes more profitable to push a country into a war, sometimes more profitable to start a new company, sometimes more profitable to build weapons, sometimes more profitable to make medicine.

It's about profit and nothing else.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's going short instead of long, but I don't really see how taking out all these CDS "incentivizes" the holder to see the company die in a way that they can actually act toward seeing it happen. If I take out insurance on your life, does that make you any more likely to die? I could push you off a bridge, but if I didn't do that how does it directly affect you, despite me being awarded by it happening?

Well the more CDSs you take out against a company, the more expensive it gets to insure their debt and the more expensive it is for the company to issue new debt. The problem is that you can take out a GAZILLION CDSs without having to post margin! Margin requirements are NON EXISTENT essentially in this unregulated market.

I think your insurance example you are not dependent on me living, that is the difference.

Is Deutche bank dependent on AIG surviving? Absolutely. If AIG goes down here is what happens.

INSTANTLY the bonds you are carrying that are 'insured' and are marked at PAR need to be marked to whatever they are, maybe its 50 cents on the dollar, whatever. You instantly realize a LOSS. 250 billion dollars of potential losses is a lot of money even spread around the worlds financial insitutions.

Now those 50 cent losses can propegate to pension funds, money market funds, who knows, and that can trigger bank runs etc.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's going short instead of long, but I don't really see how taking out all these CDS "incentivizes" the holder to see the company die in a way that they can actually act toward seeing it happen. If I take out insurance on your life, does that make you any more likely to die? I could push you off a bridge, but if I didn't do that how does it directly affect you, despite me being awarded by it happening?

Well the more CDSs you take out against a company, the more expensive it gets to insure their debt and the more expensive it is for the company to issue new debt. The problem is that you can take out a GAZILLION CDSs without having to post margin! Margin requirements are NON EXISTENT essentially in this unregulated market.

I think your insurance example you are not dependent on me living, that is the difference.

Is Deutche bank dependent on AIG surviving? Absolutely. If AIG goes down here is what happens.

INSTANTLY the bonds you are carrying that are 'insured' and are marked at PAR need to be marked to whatever they are, maybe its 50 cents on the dollar, whatever. You instantly realize a LOSS. 250 billion dollars of potential losses is a lot of money even spread around the worlds financial insitutions.

Now those 50 cent losses can propegate to pension funds, money market funds, who knows, and that can trigger bank runs etc.
It is kind of a strange thing to take out insurance on something that doesn't otherwise impact you, just to make a buck. I guess that's akin to sports betting. Except in this case by taking it out you can directly impact the likelihood of a particular team winning, to some extent.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Turin39789
Originally posted by: chess9
Commodity traders have been doing this sort of thing for a long time, so it's nothing new. What IS new is the extent of the CDS and the amount of money poured into them. It suggests a cynical attitude about the future of modern capitalism, and a willingness to see companies that employ people die so a few men can make money. Perhaps they should be illegal? It's very diifferent with a few gold contracts. The damage is limited usually. The same with grain contracts which are the classic hedge used by big farmers and grain users.

-Robert


Thats what capitalism has always been about. It's just more common now to be able to make money by tanking a company, in the past its sometimes been more profitable to make money by building companies, sometimes more profitable to push a country into a war, sometimes more profitable to start a new company, sometimes more profitable to build weapons, sometimes more profitable to make medicine.

It's about profit and nothing else.

Good points, but when you go to war you free a nation and install democracy, right? ;)

Anyway, the idea that you can have such a large hedge position betting a company will fail that you won't work to save the company, and all the employees and the products they make, is, at first blush, a serious moral and ethical quandary. Certainly no less a one than going to war. When did we have the debate about CDS that we have about going to war? :) We need to ask if this is good for humans, the way we asked if invading Iraq was the thing to do. I just hope we reach a different conclusion!

-Robert
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's going short instead of long, but I don't really see how taking out all these CDS "incentivizes" the holder to see the company die in a way that they can actually act toward seeing it happen. If I take out insurance on your life, does that make you any more likely to die? I could push you off a bridge, but if I didn't do that how does it directly affect you, despite me being awarded by it happening?

Well the more CDSs you take out against a company, the more expensive it gets to insure their debt and the more expensive it is for the company to issue new debt. The problem is that you can take out a GAZILLION CDSs without having to post margin! Margin requirements are NON EXISTENT essentially in this unregulated market.

I think your insurance example you are not dependent on me living, that is the difference.

Is Deutche bank dependent on AIG surviving? Absolutely. If AIG goes down here is what happens.

INSTANTLY the bonds you are carrying that are 'insured' and are marked at PAR need to be marked to whatever they are, maybe its 50 cents on the dollar, whatever. You instantly realize a LOSS. 250 billion dollars of potential losses is a lot of money even spread around the worlds financial insitutions.

Now those 50 cent losses can propegate to pension funds, money market funds, who knows, and that can trigger bank runs etc.
It is kind of a strange thing to take out insurance on something that doesn't otherwise impact you, just to make a buck. I guess that's akin to sports betting. Except in this case by taking it out you can directly impact the likelihood of a particular team winning, to some extent.

Exactly, you wouldnt believe how many puts were put on Bear Sterns right before they went under. JPM, GS etc. all helped to end that firm faster. They didn't care that they went down, JPM got a STEAL at 2 bucks a share (10 whatever). JPM is going to suffer now some too, but Bear was JPMs bailout.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Commodity traders have been doing this sort of thing for a long time, so it's nothing new. What IS new is the extent of the CDS and the amount of money poured into them. It suggests a cynical attitude about the future of modern capitalism, and a willingness to see companies that employ people die so a few men can make money. Perhaps they should be illegal? It's very diifferent with a few gold contracts. The damage is limited usually. The same with grain contracts which are the classic hedge used by big farmers and grain users.

-Robert

This.

And the biggest insurer?


(drum roll, please ...)


Gimme an "A"
Gimme an "I"
Gimmie a "G"
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Sounds like some kind of insurance to hedge against your investment if it tanks? It is unregulated which in my books sounds more like anarchy, not free market.

Here is some info if you trust Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit-default_swaps

Pretty interesting stuff if you ask me. But it sounds like it should be regulated in some fashion? But I really cant pass much of a legitimate judgement on it as I dont know that much about them.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

It is absolutely true that CDS are THE biggest threat to democracy today. They create virtually UNLIMITED risk for the major financial institutions which -- if they failed -- would bring the U.S. to its knees.

The problem is that CDS *ARE* INSURANCE. CDS = INSURANCE. But, with insurance, you can only insure things that you have a relationship with, like your father, or your house..

With a CDS, you can "insure" the FAILURE of a bank. Or you can "insure" the success of a farming company. You can "insure" almost ANYTHING, even if you have zero relationship to it.

So these big I-banks and hedge funds are buying CDS on all sorts of things, and YES, they have an incentive to drive them of them into the ground.

Naked CDS (those you have no personal stake in) should be illegal.

The threat they introduce is systemic.

Would a single motherfucker on this forum claim that nuclear weapons should be unregulated and available to anyone? If not, then no one should support the current CDS system either


Hedge funds were (are?) borrowing billions of dollars with only a few 100 million "backing" that borrowing. Then they were buying CDS betting on the failure of all sorts major, backbone companies.

The level of risk magnification ballooned and is literally in the tens of trillions or higher.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Would a single motherfucker on this forum claim that nuclear weapons should be unregulated and available to anyone? If not, then no one should support the current CDS system either
I would. I will. I'll be the first. Deregulate them. Ebay the nukes, doggone it.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Sounds like some kind of insurance to hedge against your investment if it tanks? It is unregulated which in my books sounds more like anarchy, not free market.

Here is some info if you trust Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit-default_swaps

Pretty interesting stuff if you ask me. But it sounds like it should be regulated in some fashion? But I really cant pass much of a legitimate judgement on it as I dont know that much about them.

Genx, this is THE item that will bring the world down to its knees. Not only is this market TOTALLY UNREGULATED you do not need to post margin requirements to write CDSs! Look at AIG, they wrote 250-500 billion dollars of CDSs.... do they HAVE 250 billion? No! Not even the smallest fraction of that! A lot of their CDSs were 'naked' because they thought X and Y would NEVER EVER happen.

Essentially financial companies have become insurance companies that HAVE NO CAPITAL in case they need to pay out! This is the whole problem with the whole f-ing system right now. If the market crashes you will see 30% unemployement before the end of the year and all your 401ks and IRAs seized by the gov't in order to prevent a T-Bill break down.

Things are getting scary at the moment.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
I am astounded that regulators allowed the CDS market to be OTC thus far - the whole strategy mentioned above wouldn't be possible in an efficient market, as demand for it would drive up the cost of the CDs and drive down the yields on the corporate bonds (aka it wouldn't be profitable).
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Oh I agree it should be regulated. A free market isnt free if it is defacto anarchy imo. I only added the pause in there because of my ignorance on the subject.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Yea, I think the attack on Genx87 was a bit much.

.. but I want to know if Skoorb is serious about the nukes..
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
That's not free market, it's fraud. A free market depends on a level playing field which includes the prosecution under criminal statutes of those using fraud to attempt to tip the field in their favor.

Too bad the government in all their wisdom decided that corporations were people who could not be prosecuted and their the officers were well protected from any personal risk.

So do we have a free market problem or a government problem?
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
I am astounded that regulators allowed the CDS market to be OTC thus far - the whole strategy mentioned above wouldn't be possible in an efficient market, as demand for it would drive up the cost of the CDs and drive down the yields on the corporate bonds (aka it wouldn't be profitable).

I don't get it either. Either the Treasury is being paid off or I don't know what. All Geitner has to do is announce that all Future CDSs and all existing ones need to be put on a regulated exchange. INSTANT 500+ point rally in the markets.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh I agree it should be regulated. A free market isnt free if it is defacto anarchy imo. I only added the pause in there because of my ignorance on the subject.

I wasn't attacking you, its just my personal level of frustration watching the country go down in financial flames and no one doing anything about it. I have written my Senators and my Reps repeatedly to DO SOMETHING about this. But it all falls on deaf ears.