Venezuelan inflation rate nearing 100%.

[OverVolt]

A compelling and graceful argument, filled with facts as always.

You got called out for being full of shit, just accept it and move on.

No really, you are the type of person that will lose half their 401k right before you need it. Not many people understand the markets. Its very foolish to convince yourself that you do, when you really don't.

You can't even have an appropriate conversation about where the market may be headed because there is something wrong with your ability to reason. You are completely useless for bouncing around ideas. Everything you say is a red flag that you have no clue what you are talking about. The ability to tell the wheat from the chaff so to speak on investment advice is probably the most important investment skill. There are many different strategies that work and many that don't. I'm fairly open to any reasonable ideas. Its just that you have no clue what you are doing. But you think you do. Thats the worst position you could possibly be in. To put it nicely.

 

[fskimospy]

No really, you are the type of person that will lose half their 401k right before you need it. Not many people understand the markets. Its very foolish to convince yourself that you do, when you really don't.

It is abundantly clear that you do not understand the markets.

You can't even have an appropriate conversation about where the market may be headed because there is something wrong with your ability to reason. You are completely useless for bouncing around ideas. Everything you say is a red flag that you have no clue what you are talking about. The ability to tell the wheat from the chaff so to speak on investment advice is probably the most important investment skill. There are many different strategies that work and many that don't. I'm fairly open to any reasonable ideas. Its just that you have no clue what you are doing. But you think you do. Thats the worst position you could possibly be in. To put it nicely.

That's the thing though, you aren't open to reasonable ideas. You have not provided a single shred of evidence for your position, have dismissed actual evidence with hand waving, and discounted expert opinion because...well... because you said so.

Those are not the actions of someone rationally considering the evidence.

Considering that lower rates increase affordability and autos are already down to 0.9% APR it would be reasonable to conclude that car prices can't go much higher over the medium-short term. And AFAIK auto sales peaked in Feb 2015. Those kinds of discussions are interesting and going somewhere. Nothing you say really makes any sense. Everytime QE has ended it always took 6-8months before rates increased so that would be your baseline scenario. You are like "rates didn't increase 4-5 months after QE look at this chart I'm totally correct" and thats not even what happened the last two times QE ended. Red flag that you are clueless.

You'd expect rates to begin rising sometime between April and June 2015. It would take awhile for the inflection point to be obvious in the charts. It'll be obvious by December 2015 or so.

Great! Thanks for the concrete statement. The Fed ended QE for a bit at the end of June 2011. Here's what rates did from the time they ended it in June 2011 until they started QE3 in September 2012:

You'll notice that rates didn't rise 4-5 months after it ended, they actually went down further during your given time period.

This should be cause to reexamine your position. Somehow I am quite confident it will not be. But yeah, tell me some more about your deep understanding of the markets.

Like bro... its not even the right time to analyze the data like that, lol. Its way too premature to claim that ending QE didn't raise rates.

These are the types of red flags you give off in literally every other sentence. You have no idea what you are doing.

It's both funny and sad that you didn't realize that the exact conditions you just specified for the right time to analyze QE's effects have already happened in the past... and what you said would happen didn't happen. It's even funnier that you would make such a basic error and then try to claim that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's doing.

I'm quite comfortable with my retirement plan, but I worry for yours, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

Hmm, it seems you may have attempted to edit your post to cut out your embarrassing lack of understanding, haha.

Too late!

 

[OverVolt]

The 10Y specifically fell like that in Sept-2011 thanks to operation twist :/

And I took out any market related brainstorming because of the aforementioned uselessness of brainstorming with you. See first sentence.

Also there was a stock crash/correction in August 2011. Mostly thanks to the credit downgrade and debt ceiling brinkmanship. But it should serve as a warning that the stock market is much more fragile when they aren't running QE.

 

[fskimospy]

The 10Y specifically fell like that in Sept-2011 thanks to operation twist :/

And I took out any market related brainstorming because of the aforementioned uselessness of brainstorming with you. See first sentence.

Ah yes, clearly.

I can understand why you're upset: your worldview is being threatened. It's not my fault that you keep saying things that can be easily empirically shown to be false.

What's sad is that as Bernanke said, this whole idea of 'artificially low rates' is a nonsensical argument that comes from people who don't understand how the markets work. I'm basically reduced to showing you why even within the boundaries of your crazy idea, what you're saying still doesn't work. You provide no empirical evidence, just grand pronouncements about your deep understanding of how the market works (in the face of several wrong statements)

QE undoubtedly has some impact on interest rates. That's the whole point, after all. The impact it has however, is small compared to the macroeconomic factors that are holding interest rates low. We will see interest rates rise significantly sometime, hopefully soon, but it will come with increased expectations for US growth and US inflation. Even when it does though, it won't be the result of the chickens coming home to roost or whatever, it will be a GOOD result from a recovering economy.

This is all silliness. Just stop for your own good.

 

[LegendKiller]

Ah yes, clearly.

I can understand why you're upset: your worldview is being threatened. It's not my fault that you keep saying things that can be easily empirically shown to be false.

What's sad is that as Bernanke said, this whole idea of 'artificially low rates' is a nonsensical argument that comes from people who don't understand how the markets work. I'm basically reduced to showing you why even within the boundaries of your crazy idea, what you're saying still doesn't work. You provide no empirical evidence, just grand pronouncements about your deep understanding of how the market works (in the face of several wrong statements)

QE undoubtedly has some impact on interest rates. That's the whole point, after all. The impact it has however, is small compared to the macroeconomic factors that are holding interest rates low. We will see interest rates rise significantly sometime, hopefully soon, but it will come with increased expectations for US growth and US inflation. Even when it does though, it won't be the result of the chickens coming home to roost or whatever, it will be a GOOD result from a recovering economy.

This is all silliness. Just stop for your own good.

I understand how the interest rate markets work. In fact, I probably understand far better than anybody on this board, as I work in the interest rate markets. I can tell you, 100%, that they are effected by QE. To the extent that anybody says otherwise they are either lying to cover themselves, or have no idea what they are talking about.

As far as rates not going up after QE ended, that's mainly because there is so much money still floating around that investors clamor for anything they can find with yield. Anything.

I see it every single day in the structured finance market. The only asset class that hasn't seen huge tightening is the CLO market. Agency mortgages, tight. Non-agency NPL/RPL mortgages, tight. CMBS, very tight. ABS prime auto, subprime auto, student loans, dealer floorplan, credit cards and all other "benchmark" on the run assets, very tight. Esoteric assets have become much tighter. Look at bonds like the consumer loans. They went from +200 over swaps to +140-150 since QE ended. Why? Because everybody is looking for yield. Why can't they find yield? Because all other usual pockets of yield have been bought out to unrealistic relative value.

I saw a deal in the ABS market this week that was insane. First time asset class. First time issuer. No data. No Offering Memorandum. No rating agency presale. 2yr WAL ended up being talked well under +200 over swaps AND it was fully subscribed. It will find interest rates close to perennial issuers with known asset classes. Why? Because people need yield.

Look at auto loan residuals. A year ago an on the run loan issuer could only get 5-7.5% yld for a residual. Now those are 3-6%. I saw a first time issuer print one at 7.5%. Nobody even knows how the assets will perform, nobody. Yet, somehow, they were able to sell cheap. Why? Because people need yield.



There isn't a single fucking person who actually *WORKS* in the bond market that thinks QE didn't crush rates.

Have you even looked at what has happened to "High Yield"?

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

 

[OverVolt]

Ah yes, clearly.

I can understand why you're upset: your worldview is being threatened. It's not my fault that you keep saying things that can be easily empirically shown to be false.

What's sad is that as Bernanke said, this whole idea of 'artificially low rates' is a nonsensical argument that comes from people who don't understand how the markets work. I'm basically reduced to showing you why even within the boundaries of your crazy idea, what you're saying still doesn't work. You provide no empirical evidence, just grand pronouncements about your deep understanding of how the market works (in the face of several wrong statements)

QE undoubtedly has some impact on interest rates. That's the whole point, after all. The impact it has however, is small compared to the macroeconomic factors that are holding interest rates low. We will see interest rates rise significantly sometime, hopefully soon, but it will come with increased expectations for US growth and US inflation. Even when it does though, it won't be the result of the chickens coming home to roost or whatever, it will be a GOOD result from a recovering economy.

This is all silliness. Just stop for your own good.

They've been focusing on lowering rates to increase the demand for loans for some time now. Yes... its an artificially low rate. I don't care what Ben had to say to save face as the Fed Chairman. There is nothing normal about 0.9% APR 7 year auto loans or student loans with an interest rate that is half the default rate etc.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand how the interest rate markets work. In fact, I probably understand far better than anybody on this board, as I work in the interest rate markets. I can tell you, 100%, that they are effected by QE. To the extent that anybody says otherwise they are either lying to cover themselves, or have no idea what they are talking about.

As far as rates not going up after QE ended, that's mainly because there is so much money still floating around that investors clamor for anything they can find with yield. Anything.

I see it every single day in the structured finance market. The only asset class that hasn't seen huge tightening is the CLO market. Agency mortgages, tight. Non-agency NPL/RPL mortgages, tight. CMBS, very tight. ABS prime auto, subprime auto, student loans, dealer floorplan, credit cards and all other "benchmark" on the run assets, very tight. Esoteric assets have become much tighter. Look at bonds like the consumer loans. They went from +200 over swaps to +140-150 since QE ended. Why? Because everybody is looking for yield. Why can't they find yield? Because all other usual pockets of yield have been bought out to unrealistic relative value.

I saw a deal in the ABS market this week that was insane. First time asset class. First time issuer. No data. No Offering Memorandum. No rating agency presale. 2yr WAL ended up being talked well under +200 over swaps AND it was fully subscribed. It will find interest rates close to perennial issuers with known asset classes. Why? Because people need yield.

Look at auto loan residuals. A year ago an on the run loan issuer could only get 5-7.5% yld for a residual. Now those are 3-6%. I saw a first time issuer print one at 7.5%. Nobody even knows how the assets will perform, nobody. Yet, somehow, they were able to sell cheap. Why? Because people need yield.

There isn't a single fucking person who actually *WORKS* in the bond market that thinks QE didn't crush rates.

Have you even looked at what has happened to "High Yield"?

Holy. Fucking. Shit.

There are actually lots and lots of people who think QE didn't crush rates. EDIT: Although I guess it would depend on how you defined 'crushed rates'. They were one thing that acted to lower rates, as again, that was the whole point.

What I said was that QE was not landing us at an artificially low rate (which is a nonsensical term anyway), and that the withdrawing of QE would not lead to major upward movements in bond rates. EDIT: and absent other improvements in the economy. It hasn't.

If you want to offer some predictions about where bond rates will be going forward now that QE has ended, let's hear them. Concrete, testable predictions.

 

[fskimospy]

They've been focusing on lowering rates to increase the demand for loans for some time now. Yes... its an artificially low rate. I don't care what Ben had to say to save face as the Fed Chairman. There is nothing normal about 0.9% APR 7 year auto loans or student loans with an interest rate that is half the default rate etc.

Ben Bernanke did not say that 'artificially low rates' were nonsense just when he was the chairman, that link I sent you was what he says AFTER having been the chairman.

He still thinks you're clueless. Does that make you reconsider your opinion at all?

 

[OverVolt]

There are actually lots and lots of people who think QE didn't crush rates. They were one thing that acted to lower rates, as again, that was the whole point.

What I said was that QE was not landing us at an artificially low rate (which is a nonsensical term anyway), and that the withdrawing of QE would not lead to major upward movements in bond rates. It hasn't.

If you want to offer some predictions about where bond rates will be going forward now that QE has ended, let's hear them. Concrete, testable predictions.

Pretty sure thats like asking him to work for free :awe:.

Ben Bernanke did not say that 'artificially low rates' were nonsense just when he was the chairman, that link I sent you was what he says AFTER having been the chairman.

He still thinks you're clueless. Does that make you reconsider your opinion at all?

No it does not, not at all. To be fair I think Ben Bernanke is clueless 🙂. I think he performed well and did what was expected of him and its someone else's problem now and if I were in his shoes I would have done the same thing.

Its like blaming Obama for the clusterfuck deficit he inherited under Bush. Anyone with two brain cells knows Bush is the one who blew the budget. Same with Bernanke. Whatever problems are going to result from this down the line are going to be Ben's fault but whoever is currently the chairman will get blamed. By stupid people anyway.

 

[LegendKiller]

They've been focusing on lowering rates to increase the demand for loans for some time now. Yes... its an artificially low rate. I don't care what Ben had to say to save face as the Fed Chairman. There is nothing normal about 0.9% APR 7 year auto loans or student loans with an interest rate that is half the default rate etc.

I have to disagree with you here. .9% APR 7yr auto loans have been around for a long while, although most top out at 6yrs. Overall 7yr loans are not very common at captive or even most indirect tier1 lenders. It's called subvention. They don't finance those loans in the ABS market at .9%. The front tranche of a prime tier 1 issuer has a .3yr WAL and goes out at .30-.4%, probably about 20% of the capital structure. A 1yr tranche will go out at edsf + 20. A 2yr at swaps + 30 and a 3yr at swaps + 40. They will mostly retain the subordinate or equity tranches. However, there WA cost of funds is usually 1.5-2%. However, they have to not only provide regular overcollateralization but are also required to put in additional receivables as Yield Supplement Over Collateralization which then all receivables are discounted at a 3-4% rate to provide excess spread enhancement.

Student loan rates are not horrible and are more due to tax payer subsidy than low rates. I would say the gov't is breaking even to losing a little money over the long run since the interest collected is decent.

Looking at Sallie Mae or Navient private deals you see that private loans perform much better (mostly due to co-signers) and their spreads are decently wider, although not wide enough IMHO. I don't really think you get paid enough in longer tranches to account for the risk that somebody like Elizabeth Warren becomes Pres and Ds get Congress and loans become dischargable.

 

[fskimospy]

No it does not, not at all. To be fair I think Ben Bernanke is clueless 🙂. I think he performed well and did what was expected of him and its someone else's problem now and if I were in his shoes I would have done the same thing.

Its like blaming Obama for the clusterfuck deficit he inherited under Bush. Anyone with two brain cells knows Bush is the one who blew the budget. Same with Bernanke. Whatever problems are going to result from this down the line are going to be Ben's fault but whoever is currently the chairman will get blamed. By stupid people anyway.

What evidence would cause you to consider changing your mind?

 

[LegendKiller]

There are actually lots and lots of people who think QE didn't crush rates. EDIT: Although I guess it would depend on how you defined 'crushed rates'. They were one thing that acted to lower rates, as again, that was the whole point.

What I said was that QE was not landing us at an artificially low rate (which is a nonsensical term anyway), and that the withdrawing of QE would not lead to major upward movements in bond rates. EDIT: and absent other improvements in the economy. It hasn't.

If you want to offer some predictions about where bond rates will be going forward now that QE has ended, let's hear them. Concrete, testable predictions.

You will never find a single bond investor that thinks that. Never. I know *A LOT* of top fund managers, from Blackrock and Pimpco to Schwab and Pru. Investment Grade corps, high yield corps, international, emerging markets, structured. Morningstar 5-stars, schwab preferred, guys on the front of Forbes and other mags. Not a single one would say that.

QE did two things, it crushed the risk-free rate but more importantly it crushed the risk premium. This is why high-yield bonds are no longer high yield. It's why all structured finance spreads are way down. Why deals are multiple oversubscribed (if you sell $100mm in bonds you get $700mm in orders).

As far as your challenge - nobody knows. Ever see the Taper Tantrum for yields? How about Taper Tantrum 2? What about the massive inflows in to Short and Ultrashort duration funds? What about most long-duration funds going short duration?

All we know is that rates WILL go up sometime. When is anybody's guess given economic info. There are far too many variables, but the Fed must increase rates and when it does there will be a large rebalancing because all-in yields in even benign asset classes will go up and the risk premiums for riskier stuff will have to widen out, otherwise they won't sell bonds.

The problem with this cycle is that since risk spreads are so narrow there are landmines everywhere and you can't tell on spread.

It's funny, I'm asked time and again what my thoughts are on rates. My common answer is "Who fucking knows". The most reasonable prediction I have seen is that bonds have historically reacted to rate tightening cycles by about 110bps. The current pre-tightening widening has been about 50bps. So we have another 60 to go by eoy. Now that can be moderated by several factors, including ecb qe, China qe, and Japanese qe all pushing capital into the us as us rates raise and theirs fall. Furthermore, economic data may worsen, in fact, we have seen the largest amount of negative economy data, relative to original expectations, that we have seen since just before the crisis. That will push down rate increase expectations and thus sympathetic widening.

Does that work for you?

 

[fskimospy]

Are these the same Pimco top bond investors that had to apologize in 2011 for not understanding the relationship between bond yields and QE, where they bet big on yields spiking after QE2 ended and were shocked to find that they didn't? (Despite economics showing quite clearly this wouldn't happen) It seems that they might not be the best source for understanding the relationship between QE and rates.

As for your prediction, it doesn't seem outlandish. It also seems to reinforce my point that QE is not the major driver of lower rates, the economy is.

 

[LegendKiller]

Are these the same Pimco top bond investors that had to apologize in 2011 for not understanding the relationship between bond yields and QE, where they bet big on yields spiking after QE2 ended and were shocked to find that they didn't? (Despite economics showing quite clearly this wouldn't happen) It seems that they might not be the best source for understanding the relationship between QE and rates.

As for your prediction, it doesn't seem outlandish. It also seems to reinforce my point that QE is not the major driver of lower rates, the economy is.

Ahh, so you ignore everything else and focus on one thing to poke a hole in - laughable. This just proves that you're nothing but a parrot.

Yields didn't increase after the end of QE2 because Fed rates were still low, Twist was hinted, and QE3 was expected.

Anybody can be wrong in bonds at any time, just like stocks. To believe that nobody will be wrong, or somebody will be right 100% of the time and use that against them all of the time is sheer idiocy.

What did you expect? A 50bps increase in FFR leading to a multi-point increase in yields? The economy isn't the driver of increasing rates, less demand for assets is. Considering that a *huge* amount of assets is still off the table, because the Fed isn't selling and is still buying to keep the portfolio the same size, you get a situation where a huge amount continues to be unavailable.

Furthermore, you cannot discount the fact that the ECB, JCB, and CCB engaging in QE greatly effects our asset prices as well.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not saying they have to be right 100% of the time, I'm saying they made a very specific prediction about EXACTLY what we are talking about, and were very publicly wrong. Considering that, they seem like a poor choice of citation for a discussion about QE.

You have to remember, I'm not the one saying the end of QE would result in dramatically higher rates, in fact I've said the opposite. Until the economy improves and raises inflation expectations we will see continued low bond rates. Pimco didn't understand that and got burned.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm not saying they have to be right 100% of the time, I'm saying they made a very specific prediction about EXACTLY what we are talking about, and were very publicly wrong. Considering that, they seem like a poor choice of citation for a discussion about QE.

You have to remember, I'm not the one saying the end of QE would result in dramatically higher rates, in fact I've said the opposite. Until the economy improves and raises inflation expectations we will see continued low bond rates. Pimco didn't understand that and got burned.

what's hilarious about your position is that you have taken qe and put it into a vacuum and claim anybody who doesn't get it right outside of the vacuum was so wrong.

Your position is idiotic.

 

[fskimospy]

what's hilarious about your position is that you have taken qe and put it into a vacuum and claim anybody who doesn't get it right outside of the vacuum was so wrong.

Your position is idiotic.

I've most certainly not put QE into a vacuum.

 

[LegendKiller]

I've most certainly not put QE into a vacuum.

Sure you have. You use the fact that rates haven't gone up as evidence that it did not crush rates down below where they should be. There isn't a single fixed income manager that agrees with that. In fact, I doubt there is a single asset manager, fixed income or equity, that believes that. You point to one paper, written by an apologist.

Then, when rates do not raise, you exclaim that it must prove that QE did not cause rates to drop. Meanwhile, you ignore the thousands of other variables that have caused rates to not raise.

Yet they have risen, but not as much as you would want, because of the aforementioned variables.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure you have. You use the fact that rates haven't gone up as evidence that it did not crush rates down below where they should be. There isn't a single fixed income manager that agrees with that. In fact, I doubt there is a single asset manager, fixed income or equity, that believes that. You point to one paper, written by an apologist.

No, I cited it as evidence that QE was not the primary cause for the low rates we have seen, which it wasn't. And again, the idea that rates should naturally be a certain level is nonsensical, unless you're talking about what rates should be relative to a desired level of inflation.

Then, when rates do not raise, you exclaim that it must prove that QE did not cause rates to drop. Meanwhile, you ignore the thousands of other variables that have caused rates to not raise.

Yet they have risen, but not as much as you would want, because of the aforementioned variables.

I feel like you may not understand the argument. It is not that QE had no effect on rates (why bother doing it then?) it's that QE has not exerted the hugely negative influence on rates that some people claim. Not only do we have the U.S. experience, but the experience of other developed countries who experienced very low rates despite not engaging in QE at all.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, I cited it as evidence that QE was not the primary cause for the low rates we have seen, which it wasn't. And again, the idea that rates should naturally be a certain level is nonsensical, unless you're talking about what rates should be relative to a desired level of inflation.



I feel like you may not understand the argument. It is not that QE had no effect on rates (why bother doing it then?) it's that QE has not exerted the hugely negative influence on rates that some people claim. Not only do we have the U.S. experience, but the experience of other developed countries who experienced very low rates despite not engaging in QE at all.

And I am telling you that undeniably that QE is the prime reason for historically low risk spreads. If you live/work in the bond market you know this for fact. Sure, you can point to USTs or agency RMBS as not having increased that much, but the difference in most "risky" asset classes is striking. The Taper Tantrum is prime evidence that QE has held rates artificially low.

This is the opposite of the Crowding Out effect. When one asset class issues too much it crowds out other assets. In this case we have the Crowding In effect where one asset class is gone and a ton of money has to chase into other pockets of assets. Thus, risk spreads have collapsed.

As I have said repeatedly, there isn't a single bond manager who would claim QE hasn't effected rates tremendously.

Your ignorance is astounding. Other countries that haven't engaged in QE have experienced very low rates because of QE actions of countries.

Look at European risk spreads. As soon as the ECB engaged in QE UK risk spreads collapsed despite the ECB not buying Sterling assets. Why is that? Because investors looking for yield then went into UK assets because the ECB had crushed Euro asset yields.

You should see how much China money comes into the US every time the CCB engages in QE, or how much Japanese cash has flooded into the US as a result of the JCB doing QE. They need yield somewhere so they go to other countries.

I have explained this repeatedly. This leads me to believe you either lack the mental horsepower to figure this out or you are just trolling. Which is it?

 

[fskimospy]

And I am telling you that undeniably that QE is the prime reason for historically low risk spreads. If you live/work in the bond market you know this for fact. Sure, you can point to USTs or agency RMBS as not having increased that much, but the difference in most "risky" asset classes is striking. The Taper Tantrum is prime evidence that QE has held rates artificially low.

This is the opposite of the Crowding Out effect. When one asset class issues too much it crowds out other assets. In this case we have the Crowding In effect where one asset class is gone and a ton of money has to chase into other pockets of assets. Thus, risk spreads have collapsed.

As I have said repeatedly, there isn't a single bond manager who would claim QE hasn't effected rates tremendously.

Your ignorance is astounding. Other countries that haven't engaged in QE have experienced very low rates because of QE actions of countries.

Look at European risk spreads. As soon as the ECB engaged in QE UK risk spreads collapsed despite the ECB not buying Sterling assets. Why is that? Because investors looking for yield then went into UK assets because the ECB had crushed Euro asset yields.

You should see how much China money comes into the US every time the CCB engages in QE, or how much Japanese cash has flooded into the US as a result of the JCB doing QE. They need yield somewhere so they go to other countries.

I have explained this repeatedly. This leads me to believe you either lack the mental horsepower to figure this out or you are just trolling. Which is it?

Again, "artificially low" is a nonsensical statement.

What 'everyone' knows I'm bond markets sure made Pimco lose an awful lot of money. Your description of the effects of QE on other countries also seems to wax and wane depending on how convenient it is for your argument.

The good news is that time will tell. I bet that bond rates for the U.S. will increase modestly, but will remain historically low until inflation expectations increase. This is because QE is not the primary reason for the low bond rates. That's the nature of a liquidity trap, which most of the world has been in pretty obviously for a long time now.

I guess we will see who is ignorant and who isn't, huh. I trust economics, not what bond traders say who already got burned by their lack of understanding of the liquidity trap.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[Nebor]

I love when people try to argue banking with LegendKiller. I've been watching him smack people down for over a decade now!

 

[Zorkorist]

Is he supporting Venezuela?

Venezuela is FUCKED UP.

-John