Kudos to Zero Hedge for posting this commentary written by hedge fund manager, Clifford S. Asness. Major kudos to Mr. Asness for having the heart and courage to stand up for capitalism and free market principles. Asness addresses the implications of President Obama’s browbeating hedge funds’ representation and management of client interests involved in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

Our country was founded on the principles of free speech, fair and equitable trade, property rights, and the ability to operate without intimidation. In writing and publishing this post, Mr. Asness has done our country a great service. I commend him!! I strongly encourage people to share this message with friends and colleagues. Please share your sentiments here as well!! ~LD

Unafraid In Greenwich Connecticut
Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

I run an approximately twenty billion dollar money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments (of course these are my own views not those of my company). Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called “Not Afraid Enough” as I am indeed fearful writing this… It’s really a bad idea to speak out. Angering the President is a mistake and, my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally “sacrifice” their money without their permission.

Here’s a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders’ contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times.

The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process. But, as his quotes above show, the President thought they were being unpatriotic or worse.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

Let’s quickly review a few side issues.

The President’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to “sacrifice” some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

Let’s also mention only in passing the irony of this same President begging hedge funds to borrow more to purchase other troubled securities. That he expects them to do so when he has already shown what happens if they ask for their money to be repaid fairly would be amusing if not so dangerous. That hedge funds might not participate in these programs because of fear of getting sucked into some toxic demagoguery that ends in arbitrary punishment for trying to work with the Treasury is distressing. Some useful programs, like those designed to help finance consumer loans, won’t work because of this irresponsible hectoring.

Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people’s money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protestors soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.

This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

This past Sunday evening on NQR’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle, I spoke extensively about the massive financial shortfall within the insurance industry. In addition, relatively early on I warned that the hedge fund industry had likely been severely mismarking many investments. From a piece I wrote on November 12, 2008:

Give it time, because hedge funds do not have to report to anybody as to what their positions are and where they have them marked. There is no doubt they have positions that are grossly mismarked and have many positions that are totally illiquid. For many investors in these funds, these are truly “roach motels.” Hedge funds will sell what is most liquid when they can to meet redemption requests. We should expect a significant number of hedge fund liquidations, consolidations, and out and out disasters.

The same can be said for a number of private equity shops. Consumer finance companies with large holdings of a variety of consumer assets are fighting for their lives as delinquencies and defaults on these assets ratchet higher.

With massive debt obligations along with capital redemptions coming due, a number of companies within these industries will be unable to refinance that debt or replace that capital.

State guarantee funds to support insolvent insurance companies total a mere $8 billion. Who would step in to support some of these other entities as they approach financial armageddon? Are banks in a position to take over these entities and liquidate assets in a quick and orderly fashion? The markets are in no position to provide the necessary liquidity without massive discounts in price.

Enter Turbo-man, Tim Geithner. U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms is not a mere power grab by our government, but an indication that a number of companies are on the precipice of default. The manpower shortage at Treasury to handle these upcoming situations is a very real concern.

A disorderly collapse of a number of these companies could quickly throw our markets and economy into a further tailspin. The cost of the government assuming and exercising this power, though, is not fully known and should not be underestimated.

How are contracts and outstanding liabilities handled? How are assets liquidated? Who has access to purchasing assets? The transferral of assets and wealth presents enormous challenges and opportunities. Will our government promote financial protectionism in this process? Will certain financial entities be accorded preferable treatment?

So many questions to be asked and answered in the weeks and months ahead. Make no mistake, though, this move by Treasury is an indication that a number of companies are close to going down.

LD

A precursor to the turmoil roiling our economy and markets today occurred on a smaller, but certainly very dramatic, scale in 1998. The meltdown of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management brought the market to its knees at the time. LTCM was effectively taken over by a consortium of Wall Street banks at the behest of New York Federal Reserve Chairman, William McDonough. The firms injected approximately $3 billion dollars in order to stabilize LTCM and then unwound it in an orderly fashion.

The lessons learned in the LTCM crisis were obviously not learned well enough because we are experiencing them again a multiple hundred fold. The centerpiece of our current fiasco is AIG (known at Sense on Cents as “Ain’t It Great”).

The dramatic story of Long Term Capital Management is captured in a book I strongly recommend for anybody interested in the history of the financial markets. When Genius Failed, by Roger Lowenstein, is a great read and truly captures the intrigue, egos, and tension of that period. As the current turmoil unwinds I look forward to the books published on this period, as well.

While books can be entertaining, they are not the vehicle for learning real lessons. Personal experience is always the best teacher.

I dealt personally with the partners of LTCM during the development of their firm, throughout its 4 year duration, and its downfall. LTCM operated in a totally quantitative style where the models embedded in black boxes dictated transactions. AIG did the same.

LTCM thought they had a diversified book of exposures across foreign and domestic sectors of both the credit and equity markets. AIG did the same, although their greatest exposure centered on the sub-prime mortgage space.

LTCM viewed themselves as both bigger and smarter than the market itself. AIG did the same.

LTCM totally mispriced liquidity risk, that is the risk that another human being needed to provide liquidity for the unwinding of a trade. AIG did the same.

LTCM was not officially bailed out. Although the principals and investors in that fund were largely wiped out, the firm did not outright fail as the consortium of banks injected capital. Did the moral hazard of that experience play into the AIG debacle? This point will be debated in the months and years ahead.

One angle of the LTCM meltdown that has received very little public attention over the years was the manner in which Wall Street banks managed their own books and capital during that period. In short, the senior executives of the consortium of banks involved in saving the system during the LTCM meltdown became totally aware of LTCM’s positions. That confidential information was tremendously valuable because those positions obviously needed to be unwound. In layman’s terms, if I know you are in a position of having to sell something, I can drive the market lower in your face so you are forced to sell at an ever lower price. It is widely speculated that Goldman Sachs effectively front ran the unwinding of LTCM’s positions and made hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

Fast forward to today’s situation with AIG. The Wall Street banks certainly know what AIG’s positions are along with the fact that the government is trying to unwind these positions. Do you think Wall Street traders are sitting idly by as AIG tries to unwind this mess? Why has AIG needed an ever increasing amount of government money? Very simply, the markets that AIG has exposure to are continuing to weaken as they try to exit positions. Why are they weakening? It would be naive to think that other Wall Street traders are not once again front running AIG much as Goldman Sachs’ traders supposedly front ran LTCM in 1998.

How can the government prevent any front running on behalf of Wall Street banks? Regulators should be scouring the trading records of every AIG counterparty on a regular basis. Are the regulators doing this? The government and regulators are certainly stretched very thin. Are Wall Street traders taking advantage of the situation? It would be naive to think they are not.

Trust but verify!! Actually, why should we trust a crowd that has provided no basis for trust to this point? Let’s just verify!!

LD

I have previously stated that firms that were truly bailed out by the government should be subject to strict government compensation controls. A number of firms – such as Northern Trust, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs – were compelled to take government funds. If employees of these firms are subject to this tax, it will be a travesty and injustice of unprecedented proportions. I believe that Congress is unknowingly escalating class warfare amidst a facade and charade of protecting the public. I believe we will see public outrage from employees at these firms (JP Morgan, Northern Trust, Goldman, Wells Fargo) that can only be rivaled by our forefathers back in the 1770s. This tax is another means of promoting the income redistribution upon which Obama ran his campaign. Taxation without representation is tyranny!!!

Amidst the smoke and mirrors emanating from Washington, make no mistake this legislation passed today is an attempt to cover the incompetence and ineptitude of these legislators. This smokescreen is further displayed as Nancy Pelosi Blames Bernanke Over AIG Bonus Fiasco.

In my opinion, public outrage would be mollified to a much larger extent by payments from our politicians in addition to the AIG employees and others. I am referring to the grotesque sums paid by Wall Street firms (banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, accounting firms) in the form of campaign contributions and lobbyist dollars to curry favor with Washington.

I called on the return of these payments from politicians on March 9th in How Wall Street Bought Washington. Well, the WSJ has picked up on this theme and is making the same point in highlighting Critics Got Donations from Insurer. If the government plans to take employee bonuses, let’s have the political crowd exposed for their greed and incompetence as well. At that point, perhaps we may really start to make some progress.

Yesterday, as President Obama informed the press that the buck stops at his desk, a reporter asked him whether he would return the $104k his campaign received from AIG in 2008.

He ducked the question.

Change? Sounds like more of the same to me!!

LD

***Cross-posted from my blog, Sense on Cents. Come by and visit!

Let’s review my specific projections from the January 2009 Recap:

For those who track the markets, there is a 75-80% correlation in the annual moves in equity markets with the performance in January. Without parsing words, this performance in January portends a very challenging year for our equity markets. All eyes and ears remain focused on Washington for a comprehensive financial rescue package (Bank Transition, insurance for other assets, aid to stem foreclosures, et al). Trade the range for now with a very wide band. Buy the S&P as it approaches 750 and sell it as it moves above 900. Otherwise….be patient!!

In the bond space, I did believe and continue to believe that despite the Fed and Treasury promoting the concept of quantitative easing (using the Fed’s balance sheet to buy Treasury, agency, and mortgage related assets), these rates will work their way higher simply due to the MASSIVE financing needs of our government and global governments.

The corporate bond space, led by high yield bonds, had very solid returns this month. As we mentioned, we thought these sectors had already priced in the economic turmoil to a much greater extent than the stock markets. High yield bonds were up almost 10% on the month. I would not add to that sector after that performance.

The dollar inched lower versus the Japanese yen. I believe the dollar will continue to weaken versus the yen, as well as the Canadian dollar. The U.S. dollar dramatically outperformed the Euro and the British pound. The economic situation in Europe is just as bad, if not worse, than in U.S. In fact, a number of European countries are being seriosuly challenged to raise funds. Sovereign credit risks (the risk that a government defaults) have risen considerably.

In the world of commodities, gold outperformed due to the global government credit risk, the threat of longer term inflation, and weakness in currencies. Oil remains very volatile but ended the month down 2.5%. Metals remain weak with anemic demand.

Add it all up and what is one to do? In my estimation, an investor is being paid to WAIT before making any major capital commitments. For those who are significantly underweighted stocks, a dollar cost averaging (add a fixed dollar amount on a regular basis versus one lump sum at one point in time) approach is always recommended. I am not going out on a limb to say that we will retest the lows (down another 7-9%) seen on November 20th.

Well, we have retested those November 20th lows and on the last two days of the month took them out by 2-3%. We are now down anywhere from 12-19% across the board for most stock indices on a year to date basis.

In a normal market environment, if stocks gave ground by 2-4%, one would expect government bonds to rally in a “flight to quality” move. The fact that equities are down 11% for the month and government rates have moved HIGHER is a clear indication that the overwhelming supply of government bonds to finance our deficit will continue to be a major issue going forward. The market absorbed well more than $150 billion in government supply (bills to 30 year bonds) this month. In the face of that, it is no surprise that rates moved higher. The question for investors is where does one go.

The enormous government supply along with the weakness in stocks did put a dent in the credit sensitive sectors of the bond market this month. The “crowding out” effect (government financing needs crowd out the availability of capital to flow to private enterprise) will continue to be a major problem.

In very volatile trading, the U.S. dollar did improve primarily versus the Japanese yen while only marginally versus the Euro (although it is significantly stronger vs the Euro on a year to date basis). As I mentioned to a reader, the yen seems to have weakned as many hedge funds have finished unwinding trades in which they had borrowed the yen. I missed this call and thus I was clearly wrong that the dollar would still weaken vs the yen.

Gold is up solidly on the year but actually had gotten higher than $1,000/oz during the month. I do not invest in gold simply due to a highly speculative contingent that plays in this commodity. I think many funds and managers have purchased this commodity as a safe haven move but are willing to sell those positions out for short term profits.

The BIG question is where do we go from here. Should I buy stocks here? Should I sell? Should I hold? Obviously, those are questions that can only be answered based on one’s personal situation. All I can offer is my assessment of the markets, the economy, Washington, Wall Street and hope it helps you navigate your own financial and economic landscape.

While the markets have retraced back to those November 20th lows and even moved lower by 2-3%, I still can not make a case for buying the market. Why? Very simply because overall market valuations do NOT clearly and distinctly display themselves as cheap. You may ask how is it that markets that are now down 50+% are not cheap. Remember that stock prices are a measure of forward earnings and the multiple paid for those earnings. A fair multiple is typically between 12-18% but in bear markets that multiple can get decidedly cheaper than 12. Let’s take a multiple of 15 times. At yesterday’s close of 735, that equates to an earnings projection on the S&P 500 of $49/share. That is overly optimistic and hopeful and thus the risk remains too high relative to the reward.

I always traded and invested based on the premise that “hope is a lousy hedge” meaning that one needs to fully review the risks prior to investing and not “close your eyes, buy in because it is down a lot, and HOPE it works.” I do think we are approaching a stage where the market may still move lower but then start more of a sideways price action. Why? Very simply because the volumes are declining on a lot of exchanges which indicate the selling pressure is abating. That said, I think investors are in NO rush to buy.

I actually have somewhat greater concerns about bonds than stocks. Why? I think a lot of investors have rushed into the bond market, that supply of bonds will increase not only in the government space but also the municipal space as towns, cities and states deal with their budgetary problems. Corporate bonds were very cheap relative to stocks coming into the year but have dramatically outperformed in the first two months. Given that a lot of investors in the corporate bond space are newer investors (looking for a place to park money), I think bonds across all sectors may start to weaken from here.

The U.S. dollar is benefitting from a flight to quality move given the major political and social issues elsewhere in the world. Additionally, as the U.S. government has shown it will not allow major banks to fail (although the banks’ shareholders can and will be diluted), a lot of money has flowed into the dollar. I think the Canadian dollar and Australian currency are fundamentally stronger than the U.S. dollar at this point.

In regard to Washington and its impact on the economy and markets, it strikes me that the Obama administration is hellbent on implementing as much of its social program and liberal agenda as quickly as possible. The markets are sending a very clear signal that his agenda is not pro-growth, investor friendly, or fiscally sound. He’s the President and the electorate sent the Republicans home, so we need to let our democratic process work. That said, the markets do not and will not stand idly by “HOPING” things work out.

I do firmly believe we will work our way through these economic challenges, but it will be a longer and harder road than most market analysts and political pundits would promote. Maintaining hope is a critically important part of our country and our moral fiber. I am ALWAYS hopeful, but I am not blindly hopeful. That would be called willful neglect.

Check out the piece, Buy and Hope Investing, written by John Mauldin, one of our Economic All-Stars (see left sidebar at Sense on Cents).

One thing I truly hope is that you find Sense on Cents helps you to navigate the economic landscape and that you will share the site with your friends.

LD

In the spirit of traveling to be with loved ones for the holidays, I thought it may be appropriate to launch our second trip from LD’s Dollars and Sense “Central Station.”

Our maiden voyage on December 19th was, from all reports, a resounding success.

We took in a variety of sights along the way in terms of views of Wall St., portfolio management, fiscal discipline, and the like.

If you care to come along for the ride, and if you have financial issues or questions from a macro- or micro-level pertaining to Wall Street or Main Street, then please do not be bashful to ask me anything.

I will not be bashful in providing honest opinions. I welcome others’ insights as well.

Aaaaaaaall Aboard!!

LD

Yet Another Barack Obama Baloney Alert!

Barack Obama had the Audacity Of Mendacity to pimp this brazen lie today. Lucky for him, his ears don’t grow every time he lies:

“Let’s be clear who John McCain is fighting for — he’s not fighting for Joe the Plumber, he’s fighting for Joe the Hedge Fund Manager,”

Increasingly arrogant because he knows his personal PR team in the main stream media won’t call him on any filthy lie he tells, Obama has once again not only lied in America’s face, but done it without a hint of conscience….a habit he has mastered, because it is becoming increasingly apparent that he has no soul.

Well I was just wondering then, Barack, since we are “being clear here”: If John McCain is fighting for Joe The Hedge Fund Manager, how come Joe The Hedge fund Manager has given you so much money?

Before you scrub the net, Barack, there are pages upon pages dating all the way to last year, that discuss how much Wall Street and Hedge Fund Managers are in love with you. Now why is that?

In fact, as I was researching this latest lie of yours, I could hardly keep up with all the links and all the names…..and all the money! Gratefully, the fast and efficient American Thinker got ahead of this issue in September.

Let’s keep one thing in mind. As even the liberal New York Times has stated:

Barack Obama is the candidate of the hedge funds because of the outsized support these titans of mismanagement have heaped upon him.

George Soros-hedge fund pioneer and titan-was early in his support. As emperor of a range of 527 groups, he has wielded his influence to help his largest political investment to date: Barack Obama.

But it’s not just the master of economic manipulation George Soros who loves Barack Obama. No sir. As if April 2008:

Many of the top 10 managers on Alpha magazine’s mind-blowing 2007 rich list, which was released last week, have put money on Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. They have each given the maximum donation allowed: $2,300. (Let’s face it, this is pocket lint to these guys.)

Obama’s hedge fund contributors include managers:

John Griffin, the founder of Blue Ridge Capital, who made $625 million in 2007, according to Alpha. Griffin is backing Obama after initially supporting Mitt Romney.

Kenneth Griffin (no relation) of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, who earned $1.5 billion. He contributed to the Obama campaign after the senator went to his office last year.

Stephen Mandel Jr. of Lone Pine Capital, who took home $710 million last year.

And, of course, George Soros, who earned almost $3 billion last year. It is no surprise that Soros, a Democratic stalwart, is backing Obama. Soros campaigned against President Bush in 2004, and Moveon.org, which Soros has plied with tens of millions of dollars, endorsed Obama in February.

Well now wait. If you were a very very rich hedge fund manager and you wanted to give WAY more money to your special candidate, you would have to be……..a……bundler. That’s a person who puts the hammer on employees and other people dependent upon him or her –and collects up large sums via small donations. That way they don’t look like lobbyists but they get all the “credit” for the “Bundle”–and the greasy political recipient gets to call all those donations gifts from “the little guy”. Sound familiar? As a matter of fact, some of them actually are lobbyists, but I digress.

Now why is it that hedge fund lobbyists bundlers have raised more than twice as much money for Barack Obama than for John McCain? I mean, John McCain is the one looking out for Joe The Hedge Fund Bundler right?

Right.

[July 2008 figures below]

New figures show the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has drawn $822,375 in campaign contributions from employees of hedge funds, compared to $348,300 for his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The figures, compiled for Reuters by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group, reflect mounting concern over the rising cost of health care and other domestic issues where several hedge fund managers said Mr. Obama had an edge over Mr. McCain.
….snip….

[Now for the bundlers as of July 2008]

Employees at $20 billion hedge fund Citadel Investment Group, run by Kenneth Griffin, rank as Mr. Obama’s top hedge fund backers, donating $185,300 to their home-state senator so far.

Employees at New York-based Taconic Capital Advisors donated $42,650 to Mr. Obama and $500 to Mr. McCain, while employees at D.E. Shaw & Co, also headquartered in New York, gave $41,915 to Mr. Obama and nothing to Mr. McCain.

Now why is it that Barack Obama fancies that John McCain is looking out for Joe The Hedge Fund Manager when Joe The Hedge Fund Manager keeps giving more of his money to Barack Obama? Must be because Joe The Hedgefund Manager always gives more money to the guy who is going to screw him, right?

Right. Well that’s not what THEY think:

“People are clearly looking to gain influence with the candidates down the line and are making their bets accordingly,” said a hedge fund manager in Chicago who declined to be identified so he could speak candidly.

Well, I guess they must just be financial masochists then. Because, according to Barack Obama, it’s John McCain who is looking out for them, right?

Right. So then why is it that Hedge Fund “Heavies” have been hosting some very lucrative fundraising bashes for Barack Obama?

The first was co-hosted by George Soros, the financier and former hedge fund manager, and Paul Tudor Jones, who runs the giant hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation. That event, held in Mr. Jones’s $25 million waterfront mansion — which Vanity Fair’s Nina Munk has described as a “a cross between Tara and a national monument” — collected $2,300 from each of the approximately 300 attendees, the Greenwich Time reported.

Wow, nice digs, Mr. Jones! Way better than the digs Tony Rezko finagled for Barack, but Barack wants one just like yours.

Now wasn’t that sweet of Mr. Jones? I mean how many hedge fund managers would host a bash like that for Barack Obama, who “Isn’t looking out for him”? I mean, one would think that, since John McCain is the one looking out for him, he would have hosted that bash for John McCain, right?

Right.

So, Barack, are you sure you don’t want to withdraw that lie you told mistake you made regarding exactly who is looking out for Joe The Hedgefund Manager?

Oh and one more question, Barack. Where there any plumbers at these parties? Just wondering.

…………….

From my blog, Uppity Woman.