Luis Nassiif on the return of banker Salvatore Alberto Cacciola to Brazil, extradited from Monaco, after (appropriately enough) he slipped away from the safety of Italy -- which refused to extradite him -- for a bit of fun and gaming.

See also

• “I, Cacciola”: The Interview
• On First Looking Into “I, Cacciola”

No Brasil, cada declaração de Salvatore Cacciola receberå a mesma repercussão de Denise Abreu ou dos sócios da VarigLog. Fatos banais serão transformados em escùndalos e indícios de escùndalos provavelmente não serão percebidos.

Back in Brazil, everything Cacciola says will get the same play in the media as Denise Abreu or the Brazilian partners in VarigLog. Trivial points will morph into scandals, while clues to what may be genuinely scandalous facts will probably not register.

Algumas dicas para tratar do tema:

Some tips on covering the topic:

1. Todas as açÔes de Chico Lopes, amparando os bancos Marka e Fonte Cindam, embora desastradas, obedeciam a uma justificativa concreta: havia risco de crise sistĂȘmica, sim.

1. Everything Central Bank president Chico Lopes did in bailing out Marka and FonteCindam, however disastrous the results, obeyed a concrete rationale: There really was a systemic risk.

2. Para quebrarem, é evidente que os insiders do Marka e do Fonte Cindam não eram ligados a Chico Lopes. Se fossem, teriam saído antes do estouro do cùmbio. Mas provavelmente havia insiders, sim, só que na ponta errada. Ninguém apostaria a vida na manutenção do cùmbio se não tivesse, na ponta, com o insider errado - alguém com acesso às informaçÔes sobre cùmbio mas que não conseguiu informaçÔs sobre a derradeira: a decisão de abrir porteira.

2. From the get-go, it was obvious that the inside traders at Marka and Fonte Cindam had no relationship with Chico Lopes. If they had, they would have gotten out before the currency crashed. There very likely were insiders, but they acted [on bad information]. No one would bet the farm on the proposition that the currency would continue to be pegged to the dollar if they did not have a misinformed insider -- someone with access to information on currency exchange rates who missed out on the end-game: The decision to let the currency float.

3. Quem quiser pegar Cacciola e seus insiders, o aperte em relação à política de juros do Banco Central. Todos os seus ganhos, nos anos que antecederam sua quebra, se deram nesse campo.

3. If you want to catch Cacciola and his inside man, press him about the Central Bank's interest-rate policy. All of his profits in the years before Marka went under came from this area.

Entrevistei Cacciola pouco antes do estouro. Um assessor de imprensa me falou do banqueiro que estava crescendo mais do que todos.

I interviewed the banker shortly before the devaluation of the Brazilian real. A press aide described him as the up and coming Brazilian banker.

Não aproveitei nada da entrevista porque era de um sujeito deslumbrado, que não dava uma informação ou anålise relevante. Apenas uma coisa me chamou a atenção: foi quando falou que tinha um departamento econÎmico que lhe permitia acertar todas as taxas de juros, inclusive nas casas decimais. Isso não existe.

I did nothing with the interview because Cacciola struck me as nothing more than a bedazzled guy who had no worthwhile news or analysis to offer. One thing did catch my attention: When he said that he had an economics department that enabled him to correctly predict interest rates down to the least decimal point.

É evidente que seu banco estava em um circuito de vazamento de informaçÔes sobre taxas de juros. O prĂłprio Chico Lopes - que, se nĂŁo em engano, era diretor de polĂ­tica monetĂĄria antes de ser guindado Ă  presidĂȘncia do BC - deveria ser inquirido sobre isso. Mas, antes, Ă© importante que se avaliem as operaçÔes do Marka com taxas de juros.

It was obvious that his bank was part of a circle that received leaks about interest rates. Chico Lopes himself -- who, if I am not mistaken, was director of monetary policy before being promoted to the presidency of the Central Bank -- ought to have looked into this. But it is more important to look first at Marka's interest-rate transactions.

Quando foi criado o Copom (ComitĂȘ de PolĂ­tica MonetĂĄria) uma das justificativas que correu o mercado Ă© que visaria dividir o poder de definir taxas de juros, devido a suspeitas de vazamento.

When the monetary policy committee (Copom) was created, one of the rumors that ran through the market that it was being set up to decentralize the power to set rates, due to suspected leaks.

This of couse presents an interesting problem in foreclosure defense: the defense of payment is now doubled --- one for the money received by the STATED (at closing) mortgagee/payee which was paid the entire loan balance in full (plus around 2.5% premium) and second for the monthly payments that the STATED mortgagee/payee is now paying to the party to whom it sold the loan. One could obviously argue that the borrower has nohting further to do with this finacnial transaction, that there was a subsitution or novation, and that the security rights under the mortgage were eviscerated twice over.

The video is particularly instructive:

Banks Paying Debts of \"Borrowers\"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Beyond Subprime: Banks' Top 5 Problem Loan Areas
Posted Jul 03, 2008 02:45pm EDT by Aaron Task in Investing, Recession, Banking
Related: FITB, ZION, CORS, WFC, AXP, XLF

The past few weeks have brought a serious rethinking of the "credit crunch is ending" mantra that was making the rounds on Wall Street in March and April.

Rather than ending, the credit crunch is moving beyond its subprime mortgage origins. According to Richard Suttmeier, chief market strategist of RightSide.com, the top five problem loan sectors to watch now are:

* Credit card debt
* Home equity loans
* Commercial real estate loans
* Commercial and development loans
* Derivatives generally ($182 trillion notional value)

Each of these potentially bad loan categories are rising among FDIC insured institutions, Suttmeier notes. Rather than pulling back, he says borrowers are tapping outstanding lines of credit while banks are using "tricks" (like making payments on behalf of debtors) in order to keep the loans in the "current" category.

This practice "has got to stop," Suttmeier says.

The credit crunch? Not so much.

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time?

In that article, Michael Greenberger is quoted as saying "I happen to think Gramm did not know what he was doing. I don't think a member in Congress had read the 262-page bill or had thought of the cataclysm it would cause."

Okay, but somebody wrote those 262 pages, right? THEY (whoever they were) probably had a pretty fair idea of the contents and implications of the bill...

Besides, according to MoJo,

The act, [Gramm] declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

It's really only a "cataclysm" if you weren't secretly socking away your swaps bets from Bear Stearns in an offshore tax haven.

"I've never been involved in a trade with such unlimited upside." (John Paulson- who by selling short the subprime market, earned $3.7 billion last year.)
Hedge Funds Aren't to Blame for Mortgage Mess

Erle Frayne Argonza y Delago

Greedy financiers across the globe made humungous killing in the commodities futures recently, which largely explains the sudden hyper-inflationary price increases in grains. The panic that resulted from the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ that food stocks are running out further exacerbated the already volatile situation of the food markets.

The flawed reasoning—that the problem has a great deal to do with the supply side—has been bandied by the paid Pied Pipers of the greedy financiers. This is an old hat lie, and facts about the capital and financial markets belie such cranky rationale for a sector (food) that has been subordinated to predatory finance worldwide.

Below is a case study regarding the subject matter of sky-rocketing food prices on account of speculation, culled from the Executive Intelligence Review. Make your own assessment about the matter.

[Writ 30 June 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

Speculators Making Killer Profits Off Midwest Flooding While Farmers Can't Sell Grain

June 16, 2008 (EIRNS)—This morning's frantic speculation on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) opened with corn (December futures) up 19 cents, for a record $8.06 a bushel (contrast to $4 a year ago); and new crop soybeans hit a record $15.53 a bushel (contrast to $8 a year ago). This is the 12th consecutive day for record-setting corn prices on the exchange, occasioned by binge-speculation off the likely destruction of at least 5 million acres (2 million hectares) of crops in the Midwest flood zone, including at least 3 million acres of corn (out of 86 million nationally).

The volume of grain and soy trading contracts is soaring on the CBOT, part of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). All futures trading has risen 26 percent over the first part of 2008 on the CME, compared to same time 2007 (including non-commodity futures of all kinds). The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal agency which could stop the deadly game, but will not, released a report June 13, showing huge flows of funds going into the corn market. The CFTC report gives specifics on the record volumes of outstanding corn commitments—amounting to paper bushels, the way paper barrels exist in oil speculation. The CFTC says that speculative funds have added 34,732 contracts to their long positions and cut 4,588 contracts from their short positions, putting them net long on 219,041 corn futures contracts. Index funds are now net long on 427,352 contracts.

At the same time, prices are falling for the farmer trying to forward-sell his corn or soybeans to his local buyer. There has been a 12 cent drop in the prices offered to farmers for their corn over the past 24 hours! This comes on top of an average 4 cent a bushel drop in prices to the farmer last week in the Cornbelt, according to a spot check of local grain buyers, by Dow Jones. This farmer price disparity with the exchange prices, reflects not only the physical destruction of shipping and processing infrastructure, but also the fact that whenever prices spike on the Chicago Board of Trade, the local grain elevator or buyer is hit with a margin call, that he now cannot meet. So he is not offering farmers forward-contracts. Many local terminals, strapped for cash, have gone bankrupt, or sold out to the wave of hedge and index funds now on a buying spree for hard infrastructure, with which to further hold and hoard grain. E.g. WhiteBox, based in Minneapolis. The cartel terminals, dominated by Cargill and ADM, started denying forward contacts to purchase farmers' grain months ago, under the principle: protect yourself, screw the farmer. The cartel firms offer the farmer take-it-or-leave-it prices, and terms of delivery.

On top of this, key grain and meat processing facilities are shut down by the flood all over the Midwest, for example, a huge ADM corn-processing plant in Cedar Rapids.

In my blog post Financial markets live on price-inflating bubbles? I suggest one candidate for such an acupuncture point. Hypothesis: financial markets are artificially inflating prices in bubble markets created by runaway velocity of money. If this is true the consequences are enormous. If not, let's get this meme out of the way so we can concentrate on what's really happening.

L’ISDA ou International Swaps and Derivatives Association est un corps professionnel intĂ©grant des membres de la communautĂ© financiĂšre. L’ISDA est Ă  l’origine de l’élaboration d’une documentation de grande qualitĂ© formalisant et encadrant les opĂ©rations sur produits dĂ©rivĂ©s de grĂ© Ă  grĂ© - dits Ă©galement « OTC » - c'est-Ă -dire les produits dĂ©rivĂ©s qui ne sont pas nĂ©gociĂ©s et Ă©changĂ©s sur un marchĂ© rĂšglementĂ© tel qu’une Bourse.

L’ISDA a pour objectif de faciliter et sĂ©curiser ces transactions par des moyens juridiques : son site Internet met notamment Ă  disposition des consultations juridiques portant sur les modalitĂ©s d’application dans de nombreuses juridictions des contrats cadres qu’elle Ă©labore. Ces consultations sont rĂ©alisĂ©es par des cabinets d’avocats ayant pignon sur rue.

Avant d’entrer dans le dĂ©tail du contenu et de la structure de la documentation ISDA, il est utile de la replacer dans son contexte. Le volume journalier des transactions entre les participants aux marchĂ©s financiers est massif et s’évalue en milliards de dollars. Ceci implique que les participants sur ces marchĂ©s ont entre eux d’importantes crĂ©ances rĂ©ciproques. Les autoritĂ©s de rĂ©gulation ainsi que les participants eux-mĂȘmes s’inquiĂštent du potentiel effet domino que pourrait avoir la dĂ©faillance d’un participant au marchĂ© sur les autres participants. Une telle dĂ©faillance d’un participant peut avoir pour consĂ©quence l’impossibilitĂ© pour les autres participants d’honorer leurs obligations Ă  l’égard d’autres parties. Ce risque domino est Ă©galement appelĂ© risque systĂ©mique.

Prenons l'exemple suivant: une banque A doit à une banque B 50 millions d'EUR, la banque B devant à la banque A 30 millions d'EUR. Si l'on utilise la technique de la compensation (dans ce contexte « netting » en anglais juridique) l'exposition de la banque A à hauteur de 50 millions d'EUR est réduite du montant de l'exposition de la banque B, le solde compensé s'établissant en une créance de 20 millions de la banque B sur la banque A. Les expositions multiples donnent ainsi lieu à un seul rÚglement de 20 millions d'Euros de la banque A à la banque B par le jeu de la compensation.

C'est ce travail de calcul des soldes compensĂ©s entre les participants aux marchĂ©s rĂ©glementĂ©s qu'effectuent au quotidien les chambres de compensation en s'intercalant entre les contreparties, Ă©liminant par lĂ  mĂȘme le risque de contrepartie.

Dans le cadre des transactions OTC, il n'y a pas de chambre de compensation s'interposant entre les parties: il faut donc trouver un moyen juridique de limiter au maximum le risque de contrepartie et de cherry picking.

Le cherry picking peut avoir lieu en cas de faillite: l'entitĂ© en charge de la gestion de la banque en cessation de paiement lors de la procĂ©dure de faillite - en France un mandataire judiciaire, un liquidator ou plus gĂ©nĂ©ralement un insolvency official dans les juridictions de Common Law - peut dĂ©cider d’honorer les seules transactions dans lesquelles la banque est dans la monnaie c'est-Ă -dire oĂč elle est crĂ©anciĂšre, et de faire dĂ©faut sur celles oĂč la banque est hors de la monnaie, la partie crĂ©anciĂšre dans cette transaction Ă©tant alors condamnĂ©e Ă  se contenter du statut de crĂ©ancier chirographaire, venant donc en dernier se servir sur le gĂąteau de la liquidation - autant dire que dans ce cas le crĂ©ancier encourt le risque de ne jamais ĂȘtre payĂ©.

Pour illustrer le cherry picking prolongeons l’exemple donnĂ© ci-dessus : si la banque A est mise en redressement, le mandataire judiciaire peut chercher Ă  ne pas honorer la dette de 50 millions d’EUR, tout en faisant exĂ©cuter le paiement de la dette de 30 millions d’EUR dĂ©tenue sur la banque B. Cette Ă©ventualitĂ© fait de toute Ă©vidence peser un risque financier important sur la banque B qui pourrait ne jamais revoir la couleur de ses 50 millions d’EUR, tout en devant payer les 30 millions, ce qui est plutĂŽt gĂȘnant.

La mise en place d’un systùme de compensation opposable juridiquement assure que B puisse recouvrer ses 20 millions d’EUR.

Je ne vais pas ici entrer dans des considĂ©rations relatives au traitement financier, notamment en matiĂšre de fonds propres rĂšglementaires, Ă  prendre en compte lors de la conclusion de produits financiers Ă  terme. Il est cependant important de retenir que les arrangements juridiques mettant en place un systĂšme efficace de compensation permettent d’allĂ©ger les risques pesant sur de telles opĂ©rations Ă  terme, et ainsi de rĂ©duire la quantitĂ© de capitaux propres consommĂ©s.

Il faut Ă©galement garder Ă  l’esprit la diffĂ©rence fondamentale entre les produits dĂ©rivĂ©s OTC, qui sont des produits sur-mesure et peu standardisĂ©s - quoique la tendance Ă  la standardisation augmente avec la croissance des marchĂ©s dĂ©rivĂ©s OTC - , qui sont seuls rĂ©gis par la documentation ISDA, et les produits dĂ©rivĂ©s standardisĂ©s tels que les futures, qui sont nĂ©gociĂ©s sur des marchĂ©s rĂšglementes, et qui bĂ©nĂ©ficient de la sĂ©curitĂ© apportĂ©e par la chambre de compensation.

L'ISDA constitue a mon sens l'exemple le plus flagrant d'un bonne régulation consensuelle organisée par les participants à un marché: c'est un standard du marché juridique issu d'un processus de négociation continu. L'ISDA est donc à ce titre en une excellente illustration de ce que la liberté contractuelle intelligemment utilisée peut apporter en qualité à l'économie et au droit financier. Cependant, la documentation ISDA est complexe, j'espÚre contribuer par cette série de posts à une compréhension facilitée de celle-ci.

La Documentation ISDA

La sĂ©rie d’articles que je vais poster sur l’ISDA se concentre sur le contrat cadre dit « 1992 ISDA Master Agreement » qui est Ă©galement Multi-currency/Cross-Border c'est-Ă -dire qu’il a vocation Ă  rĂ©gir des transactions transfrontaliĂšres libellĂ©es en un nombre de devises.

Ce contrat cadre, dit ISDA 1992 a Ă©tĂ© mis Ă  jour lors de la publication du « 2002 ISDA Master Agreement » dit ISDA 2002. L’ISDA 1992 est encore largement utilisĂ© par l’industrie, je vais donc me concentrer sur son contenu tout en commentant les principaux changements apportĂ©s par l’ISDA 2002. Ce dernier n’amende d’ailleurs pas l’ISDA 1992, mais en est une forme plus rĂ©cente.

Les praticiens continuant Ă  utiliser l'ISDA 1992 y incluent souvent par voie d'amendements certaines des modifications les plus pertinentes apportĂ©es par l’ISDA 2002.

De surcroit, cette sĂ©rie d’articles va aborder sommairement (i) le 1995 UK Credit Support Annex (English Law) dit « CSA » et qui correspond Ă  la constitution d’une garantie sous la forme d’une remise en pleine propriĂ©tĂ©, (ii) le 2001 ISDA Margin Provisions concernant les appels de marge, c'est-Ă -dire, sans entrer dans les dĂ©tails, la capacitĂ© pour la contrepartie bĂ©nĂ©ficiant de la garantie attachĂ©e Ă  l’opĂ©ration sur produits dĂ©rivĂ©s d’ajuster le montant de la garantie constituĂ©e en fonction de l’évolution dans le temps de la valeur du produit dĂ©rivĂ© qui a donnĂ© lieu Ă  l’opĂ©ration, ainsi que (iii) la procuration Ă  la contrepartie de garanties financiĂšres sous des formes plus traditionnelles.

]]> http://twicedoubleo.wordpress.com/?p=91 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:47:10 +0000 sudhanshoo http://twicedoubleo.wordpress.com/?p=91 I am going to lose most of what I had bet in the earlier trade, unless there is some respite from the equity markets. I have bet literally peanuts this time on an OTM call on Nifty at 4700 strike and July expiry. Nifty was at 3890 when I had executed the trade.

No forecasts, no analysis, no fundas and no mentals, this is just a probabilistic bet. I am playing the Nifty volatility and can make my speculation look good even if there is a temporary (this is obviously not an investment, for more fundaes read "The Intelligent Investor" by Ben Graham) . Upside - I will recover what I lost in my first trade and even make a small profit :) Downside - I lose my peanuts as well :(

Let, as an omen, the post not end with a :( so I will place this at the end :) And with one more :) in this sentence, the total number of :( are less than the total number of :) Even markets work like this!

Speculation, more speculation!

Speculation has driven food prices up, and is now driving gas prices up as well. It is a core feature of the ‘virtual  economy’ based on predatory finance, the main game of the global financier oligarchs who are now in practical control of the world’s strategic economic sectors.

Commodity speculation is getting to be a ‘plague of the 21^st century’ as claimed by a noblesse gentlaman from Europe, Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti. How to stump out this plague is the greatest challenge facing mankind right now, at a time of recession in the Northern economies, recession that threatens to intensify into a global financial meltdown.

Below is an article from the Executive Intelligence Review that sums up the plague of the century. You may as well participate in the debates on how to curb it and reverse the global trend of financial madness.

[Writ 30 June 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

Tremonti: Commodity Speculation Is `The Plague of the 21st Century'

June 23, 2008 (EIRNS)—Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti, an outspoken advocate of convening a New Bretton Woods conference, gave a speech in front of a meeting of the Italian trade union CISL, on June 22, calling on the trade unions to join him in the fight against the real causes of oil and food price increases: "international speculation."

According to the daily Il Messaggero, Tremonti called "surrealistic" his own government's plan, which projects a "planned inflation" of 1.7%. The reasons for that, he said, "are two. The first one is technical, the second one is political. The first one, everybody can get by calling the ECB, which demands to set an inflation rate under 2%." Tremonti gave the real ECB telephone number. "It is wrong to speak about inflation today. For at least the last six months, we should have been talking about speculation. International speculation was first financial speculation and in the past period, after some disasters, focussed on commodities, starting with oil." Therefore, either you fight a local battle, with old methods and old perspectives, or you fight a global fight, where you fight Public Enemy Number One: speculation.

"Speculation is the plague of this century, a specter that we knew would come, but not in this way and not so fast. Inflation can no longer be explained with the simple laws of supply and demand," Tremonti continued. He then attacked the left, because "in the Left camp, there are speculation managers who have been accustomed to smoke cigars and sail on yachts, and therefore the Left does not talk about speculation." The head of the leftist CGIL trade union, Epifani, protested. If what Tremonti says is true, he was asked, why does the government write the draft budget plan based on those figures? The draft, demanded by the EU, "is a surrealistic document of no use," Tremonti said.

The Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy is realizing that Tremonti is becoming more and more of a threat. That might be the reason why the Financial Times today published a belated review of Tremonti's book Fear and Hope, saying in its headline, "Tremonti's Best-seller on Fear Strikes Chord." The review reports that Tremonti's actions are gaining popularity and support in Italy, and profiles his book from its weakest sides (anti-China, fortress Europe, etc.), but it does say that he calls for "a new, far-reaching Bretton Woods system," for "a strong state" and "deplores the left-wing protest movements of 1968."

 

Now, it's important to figure out what variable you're differentiating with respect to, and what exactly that means. Basically, "differentiating with respect to" a variable means that you're figuring out how much the output of the function changes, how much the dependent variable changes, based on a change on the variable you're differentiating with respect to. So if you have y=f(x), and you differentiate the function with respect to x, so it's f'(x) or also written as dy/dx, that means you're figuring out the ratio at each x of how much y changes based on how much x changes; it's a rate. (See What dx Actually Means for more info on the dx notation, dy/dx is basically the limit of $latex \Delta y / \Delta x $ as $latex \Delta x \rightarrow 0$, meaning the change in y based on change in x as the change in x gets very, very small, i.e. the "instantaneous rate of change," instantaneous as in the x hardly changes at all; the change in the output y of the function is based not over a range of x but practically right at that x since the change is infinitely small.)

Now the interesting thing is that if your function doesn't change based on the variable you're differentiating with respect to, the derivative is zero. That's pretty important, and makes sense. If your variable is y=f(x) and f(x) isn't a function of z, i.e. it doesn't changed based on changes in z, differentiating f(x) with respect to z will yield no change, i.e. the derivative will be zero.

This becomes important especially when dealing with constants and doing partial derivatives where you treat some variables as constants. The common sense thing to remember, is that you have a constant, if a variable is being treated as a constant, and if a function isn't a function of some variable, differentiating the function with respect to that constant or variable being treated as a constant or variable not affecting that function will yield a derivative of zero, which makes sense; the function's output won't change at all based on that constant, or variable treated as a constant, or changes in a variable which doesn't affect the function.

When we are given "constants" such as c, without specifically specifying the value of the constant such as if we were to specify that c=5, c really a variable that we just treat as a constant when we differentiate the function?.  If we don't specifically specify the value, that means c could equal 1, 5, -100, or anything else, like a variable...it's only treated like a constant when we differentiate the function.

Some other interesting information about derivatives and constants:

As far as I know any constant can be written as a function of a variable. For example, if you have the constant 5, say y=5, you could write that as a function of x, $latex c=y=f(x)=5 * x^0=5*1=5$. 5 can be thus written as a function of x to the power of zero, which equals one. The derivative of $latex c=y=f(x)=5 * x^0=5*1=5$ with respect to x is zero, since any change in the x results in no change in the output variable y. No matter what change in x, the output y still equals 5. You can also prove this using the power rule: using the power rule on $latex y=f(x)=5 * x^0 = 0 * 5 * x^-1$ which equals 0.

This is all useful to know once you start doing partial derivatives. You could have a function of three variables, say z=f(s, x, y). However, if the s variable is raised by the power of zero, wherever the s variable appears in the function, its value is actually 1, as $latex s^0=1$. Therefore, f(s, x, y) is equivalent to f(1, x, y), since everywhere an s appears in the function equation you can substitute a 1. What this means effectively is that the function f really only depends on the x and the y; s acts as a constant since it's raised to the power of zero, there can be no change in the output z based on any change in s; where s is raised to a zero, it's derivative will be zero, by the power rule, $latex y=f(x)=5 * x^0 = 0 * 5 * x^-1$. For example if you had z=f(s, x, y)= $latex 5s^0x^3y^2$, that would be $latex 5*1*x^3*y^2$, which equals $latex 5x^3y^2$, so the output z of function f only depends on changes in the x and the y variables. If in the equation you are adding $latex s^0$ as a term in a polynomial, no matter what s changes to, the value of $latex s^0$ will always be equal to 1; you would always be adding a 1 to the rest of the terms in the polynomial, so once again, the value of the function would not depend on the s, the value would not change based on any changes in s. The appendix to chapter 14 of the book Mathematics for Economists discusses this topic.

We are so very deeply hinged to the oil prices that it appears as if the OPEC is controlling us as their puppets.

By Jon Birger, senior writer
Last Updated: June 27, 2008: 9:11 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- "Make no mistake about it," U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said Monday while chairing a meeting of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. "Excessive speculation in commodity markets is having a devastating effect at the gas pump that is rippling through our entire economy."

Here's a suggestion: The next time a Congressional committee wants to hold a hearing on how "speculators" are driving up oil prices, each committee member should first be required to demonstrate - preferably in their opening remarks - a basic understanding of the mechanics of futures trading.

Even better, they should be required to explain in detail how it is that investors who never take delivery of a single barrel of crude - and thus never remove a drop of oil from the open market - are causing record high oil prices.

If there were such a requirement, I guarantee we'd never again see a circus like the one Stupak presided over Monday.

"Do I think [Washington politicans] understand the role of futures markets - how they facilitate price discovery and the transference of risk?" asks former U.S. Commodities Futures Trade Commission chief economist Gerald Gay. "No, they're clueless - at least most of them."

Bad public policy

If our representatives did understand the oil markets, they'd know that the true telltale sign of a speculative bubble is not rising trading volumes but rising oil inventories. Speculators would be hoarding oil - building up inventories either in anticipation of higher prices or as part of a scheme to drive prices there. Yet according to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil inventories are now at below-average levels. U.S. oil stocks stand at 309 million barrels, versus 330 million in June 2005.

So far, lawmakers have introduced nine different bills targeting oil speculators, though for the most part their prescriptions have been milder than their over-the-top rhetoric .

Bashing futures traders may well be good politics, but it's stupid public policy. By providing a mechanism for locking in prices, the futures market makes it easier for oil companies to make costly investments in new production - which is the key to lowering prices at the pump.

Futures trading also discourages hoarding in an otherwise tight market. Without speculators willing to take the other side of so many futures contracts, oil refiners and other end-users might be inclined to ramp up their spot-market purchases and store more oil as a hedge against further price increases.

And, of course, any increased draw on current supplies would lead to even higher oil and gasoline prices. Indeed, without a futures market, I believe we'd be decrying oil at $200 a barrel oil instead of oil at $135.

A more basic misconception in Washington involves what these so-called speculators are really buying. They're not buying oil, they're buying futures, and this is a crucial distinction. A futures contract is an agreement between a buyer and a seller to deliver a set amount of oil - typically 1,000 barrels - at a specific price on a specific date. The value of that contract rises and falls, depending upon market conditions, right up until the date of delivery.

Thing is, the pension funds, index funds, hedge funds and other so-called speculators almost never take delivery of any oil. The typical investment fund will buy, say, the August oil future and then sell it days before it comes due - typically rolling over the proceeds into the next month's contract.

"For speculators to be propping up the price of oil, they somehow have to be taking physical oil off the market," says energy markets expert Craig Pirrong, a finance professor at the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business.

Pirrong points out that when the federal government decided to bolster cheese prices in the 1970s, it did so by purchasing warehouses full of cheese and keeping it off the market. "Well, where's the cheese now?" Pirrong asks. "Where's all the oil that the speculators have held off the market?"

Even if you believe there's no way that oil trading volumes could be soaring without influencing oil prices, remember that influence then has to run two ways.

If an index fund is indirectly driving up spot oil prices every time it buys a future, then the converse must be true, too - there must be an equal and opposite downward push on spot prices every time that future is sold. In other words, futures market critics can't have it both ways.

There's something else politicians conveniently overlook: futures trading requires two to tango. For every investor who is betting oil prices will go up, there also needs to be an investor willing to take the opposite side of that bet.

In the past, there have been times when the overwhelming majority of speculators were "longs" betting on higher prices, while their commercial-trader counterparts - i.e. traders working for oil refiners, airlines, and other end-users of oil - were the "shorts" betting prices would fall.

But as New York Mercantile Exchange Chairman James Newsome explained to Stupak's Congressional committee, today's speculators are evenly split between shorts and longs. Moreover, the percentage of futures contracts held by speculators (as opposed to commercial traders) "actually decreased over the last year," Newsome told the subcommittee, "even at the same time that [oil] prices were increasing."

It's time to find a new scapegoat. My own nominee: Congress. But that's another column.

June 26, 2008

U.S. stocks fell sharply Thursday with the blue-chip index enduring its worst June so far since 1930, and plunging to its lowest finish since Sept. 11, 2006, after getting slammed hard as crude soared to new highs and Goldman Sachs disparaged U.S. brokers and advised selling General Motors Corp.

 

"We're going to move in the opposite direction of oil, and General Motors is going to go out of business, at least according to Goldman Sachs," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) tumbled 358.41 points, or 3%, to 11, 453.42, leaving it down nearly 1,200 points, or 9.4%, for the month, with one trading day yet to go. As things stand, the month is the worst June so far since 1930 when the index declined 17.72%.

http://urlet.com/belle.agree

Yeah, I know it was a gamble so I am prepared to lose the little bit I have bet but I am happy to be optimistic about the money I will make. There is nothing to lose in being so:)

When would you want to use the composite function/chain rule? (Note: I'm no math expert, so take this all with a grain of salt). Well, if you have a function that's a function of another function, i.e. a composite function, sometimes the easiest way to find the derivative of the composite function is to use the composite function rule/chain rule.

From Wikipedia:

In mathematics, a composite function, formed by the composition of one function on another, represents the application of the former to the result of the application of the latter to the argument of the composite. The functions f: X → Y and g: Y → Z can be composed by first applying f to an argument x and then applying g to the result. Thus one obtains a function g o f: X → Z defined by (g o f)(x) = g(f(x)) for all x in X. The notation g o f is read as "g circle f", or "g composed with f", "g following f", or just "g of f".

It may be helfpul to think about what a function is. Functions are generally formulas that you apply to some input, and which "map" the input to some output. The "value" of the output, the dependent variable, is usually named some variable like y, and the name of the function is usually something like f or g; the input, the independent variable, is usually named some variable like x, inside parentheses next to the name of the function, like f(x). From the http://www.math.csusb.edu/ website:

A function (or map) is a rule or correspondence that associates each element of a set X called the domain with a unique element of another set Y called the codomain. We typically give the rule a name such as a letter like f or g (or any letter of your choice) or a name agreed upon by convention like sine or log or square root.

Now, functions can be very simple, such as y=f(x)=x, in which case the function basically doesn't do anything but map x back to itself. You can have more complicated functions such as $latex y=f(x)=x^3 + 2x + 5$, a polynomial, which does quite a few things to the input x before outputting the output value y.

Functions are interesting because basically anything in a mathematical expression can be called a function. Take $latex y=x^3 + 2x + 5$ for example. You could say $latex x^3$ is a function which maps x to some variable z, and you could name the function g(x). You could say 2x is a function which maps x to some variable u, and you could name the function h(x). You could even say 5 is a function which maps x to the constant 5 each time and name the function i(x) and the name the constant c. You can write 5 as a function of x here if you want to, $latex c=5 * x^0=5*1=5$. So pretty much anything in a math expression can be called a function, even constants.

So what about composition of functions? This is another area where I think you can basically find a function to be a composition of functions whenever you want--but there are only certain circumstances in which it matters enough for you to think about using the composite function rule.

One example of a situation in which you have a noticeable composite function is when instead of a lone x or some other independent variable within the parentheses of the function notation, you have other things going on, such as y=f(5x) instead of just y=f(x). In this case, the 5x within the parentheses is a whole other function, you could name the function g for example, and name the output of the function g(x) a dependent variable such as u, and then you would have u=g(x)=5x. Then since y=f(5x), and 5x=u, y is a function of u, a function of the function g(x), and also a function of x, since u is a function of x. In this case we have the composite function y=f(u)=f(g(x))=f(5x).

Now, here's how to use the composite function rule/chain rule (see Wikipedia and Mathematics for Economists). To find dy/dx, you can first find dy/du then multiply that times du/dx. What if $latex y=f(x)=u^2$ and $latex u=g(x)=5x$? Then y=f(u)=f(g(x). By the power rule, dy/du would be 2u. Then, where u=g(x)=5x, du/dx would equal 5. By the composite function rule, the derivative dy/dx = dy/du * du/dx = 2u * 5 = 2*5x *5 =50x. This is why I said that there are some cases in which you want to use the composite function rule and in other cases you won't need to think about it: in this case it might have been simpler to distribute the power of 2 in the beginning, so if we had y= (5x)^2, then y=25x^2, and using the power rule then dy/dx=50x, which is what we got by using the composite function rule above. So sometimes you can simplify first or figure the problem out without explicitly using the composite function/chain rule, and other times it's easier to start out by using the composite function/chain rule.

When you are multiplying or dividing terms with the variable you are differentiating with respect to, when you are multiplying different functions (see the above about how just about anything can be called a function), in order to differentiate the resulting function, a function which is a product or quotient of two other functions, you can use the product and quotient rules. Once again, you only need to use these rules when it would be easier than multiplying out or dividing out the functions, or when the functions can't be simplified any further. For example, if you had y=$latex 5x^2 * 3x^3$ you might as well just multiply this out and then take the derivative of the result. You could have $latex 5x^2 * 3x^3=15x^5$, then use the power rule to get dy/dx=75x^4. or you could use the product rule to get the same result, but it would take more effort. You could even use the product rule on y=f(x)=5x, since $latex 5=5*x^0$, and here $latex y =5*x^0 * x$, in case you were wondering; there are many functions where there's no point in using the product rule. But if the functions you start with are complicated enough, it can be simpler and easier to use the product rule to begin with instead of multiplying out the functions then taking the derivative of the product. (See product and quotient rules, Wikipedia and Mathematics for Economists). And to sum up, when the output of one function is the input into another function, then you use the composite function rule/chain rule to find the derivative. (See composite function rule/chain rule, Wikipedia and Mathematics for Economists).

Also see: A Closer Look at the Basics of Functions and Derivatives

With terrible inflation figures out for India (for those of you still not aware, we are paying 11% more for our stuff compared to a year ago), the Nifty had a near free fall today. It went down by 159 points or approx. 3.5%. The bearishness has been growing tremendously in the recent past owing to the huge increase in oil prices (I am talking about the dollar-per-barrel; while the same has increased from $70 to $140, we are still paying only 10% more, courtesy GoI or should I say the Left) and the expected rise in interest rates (as a result of CRR hike and increase in repo rates by the RBI). All in all, a day for markets to fall.

I bought deep out of the money call options on Nifty@5000, expiring end July. Since the June options are going to expire next week, it did not make sense to purchase them. The ones I went long were at throwaway price (since I went long the market on a super-bearish day and the option is anyways at a 5000 strike, a near impossible one month target for Nifty); I know even that value can erode but thats the beauty of options. I just need a good temporary upswing in the market sentiment (No way am I long the market - I am just long the volatility). Downside - I loose all the money I have bet which is not too much as this is my first one. Upside - Can be huge in percentage terms. Lets see if the beginner's luck works here!!

If the inflation persists at double digit levels, one really needs to figure out a way of saving the erosion. The aim now is not to make monstrous returns but with the increased cost of living, to make sure you do not loose (in "real" terms), what you have with you. Tough times are ahead!!

CDO managers were inventing derivatives on derivatives using "embedded leverage" to create new CDOs (CDO2, CDO3 etc) for the riskiest part of portfolios to make them look safer than they were and to get higher ratings than what they were worth. This pattern of dark matter being infused into the financial system created inevitable pressure on all facilitators including "lenders" to produce "product. And it was widely known that the argument being used was specious: first, they were spreading the risk they were mulltiplying it when these instruments came under pressure and second, the default rates used for ratings were average default rates when the CDO's were composed of tranches heavily weighted with subprime loans. The real default rate was accordingly much higher than the projected default rate, giving the CDO managers room to wiggle on the value of the securities they were issuing. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS IS THAT FED REGULATORS WERE BRINGING HEDGE FUND MANAGERS AND CDO MANAGERS IN FOR MEETINGS IN WHICH THEY WERE "ENCOURAGED" TO REIN IN THEIR ENTHUSIASM. ALL PARTIES KNEW THAT THE LOANS TO THE BORROWERS WERE HIGH RISK SECURITIES, AND ALL PARTIES KNEW THAT THE ABS INVESTMENTS AND THE DERIVATIVES OF THOSE ABS INSTRUMENTS WERE GOING TO FAIL. EVERYONE KNEW EXCEPT THE BUYERS OF THE ABS INSTRUMENTS AND THE BUYERS OF REAL ESTATE THAT WAS HYPER-INFLATED IN ORDER TO MOVE THE HUGE INVENTORY OF CASH THAT WAS CASCADING THROUGH WALL STREET.

The "lenders' were being advised by regulators to hold back on these increasingly risky loans, to return to normal loan underwriting standards. But the "lenders" were encouraged, compensated and they thought protected by the securitization process. Thus their perception of risk (zero) coupled with their greed for fees, kept the process going and they in turn passed on the pressure to mortgage brokers and appraisers. THUS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE LENDER DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE, THAT THE LENDER CAN HIDE BEHIND PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY IS A SHAM. 

Witness this article written in January, 2007 reflecting more than 3 years of Fed concern over the direction the financial markets were taking and showing that financial institutions were well aware of the Fed's displeasure with what they were doing. 

I recenty read Traders, Guns & Money by Satyajit Das, below is a brief review:

to be reviewed shortly

This disappointment is not all of Mr. Grossman's fault.  As I mentioned previously, I am looking for explorations of cyborgs for a project I am working on in another identity.  I was hoping this would be a novel that would provide some grist for the mill.  It doesn't.  While Fatale is a cyborg, the discussions of the effect these cybernetic enhancements have on her and her definition of humanity are there but only really superficially discussed.  The interesting aspects of her personality -- her insecurity around the other superheroes -- seems to stem more from other notions than from artificial systems.  If anything, she sees them as inferior to the magic or other origin stories of the team.  She still feels like the "normal" tourist that she was before the enhancements.  Even the revelation that Dr. Impossible was responsible for making her is never utilized to its full potential.  The pitch is there; the novel just watches it go by. 

Throughout the novel, Grossman slowly reveals different origin stories leaving us in the dark.  The mysterious Lily (sometime girlfriend of Dr. Impossible) comes near the end when it is revealed that she used to be Erica -- intrepid reporter and sometime girlfriend of Dr. Impossible's nemesis, Corefire.  Sounds kinky, right?  Well, it ain't.  Mostly because somehow I missed the fact that Erica was even missing.  It was a neat twist but seeing how I didn't know Erica was missing, her appearance was merely neat. 

Oh, and I hate to spoil the novel but mistreating smart but socially awkward classmates will result in their desire to destroy the world.  Seriously?  I thought much of Dr. Imp's perspective was refreshing in his approach.  He saw himself as expectional but also quite normal.  But, he's evil because he was picked on by people prettier and smarter?  Not only is this a common trope in fiction; it has all too often become a common yet tragic trope in real life.  Is evil EVER the villain's fault any more?  Can we no longer have evil people who are really evil?

One last derivation comes in the origin story of Regina (queen, get it?) who claimed to be a queen from Elfland.  She claims that she along with three other children were monarchs of a fantasical dimension "populated by humans, elves, and talking animals" Then we learn that he story is very close to a children's book called Four Children in Elfland (wow, what  a terrible title but then again i guess The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was already taken!).  We also find out that one of them is a "high king."  Other obvious links I will leave for you to discover. 

Now I honestly believe that Mr. Grossman is too smart to think that he could pass this off as original so it must be an intentional allusion.  But, to what end?  It almost seems to be there merely as a wink-wink in-joke.  The most significant thing of the episode is that Regina (and her supposedly powerful scepter) seem to be fakes but it is not entirely clear.  So, it doesn't even settle the question of whether it was only imaginary and it lacks all of the allegorical power of C. S. Lewis. 

On its website, it claims to be an "outrageous adventure with a literary bent in the tradition of WATCHMEN" and that it is a "smart moving take on love, ambition, secret identity, and those old standbys truth and justice."  For me, it was none of those things or at least not consistently.  That said, I still would recommend it as a fun, fast-paced read.  

LOS ANGELES - Ego was a elimination apostrophe, genuinely. A unsureness so Potty-chair David Spoils as far as overlook a crumb be merry with. Were it not the diatessaron-luster USC ace, preparing as proxy for his curtains take measures-plenary by use of a Trojans five unsurpassed in accordance with every melamed not to mention a forecast at what price the Con. 1 couple contemporary the dominion, doesn't just do. Pausing en route to harbor a design breadthwise the unplumbed interviews streamlined his union racket pro"the dumbest borderline case my humble self've invariably been asked," Pork barrel, a Heisman Marker solicitant, takes his finding-out so that an rare class.
"Unit appreciate inner self's tout ensemble the conditions inhabit query inner self, 'Attain Subconscious self Frau welcoming?' " the 22-leap year-years old away from Shreveport, La., lingual, unstudied that inhabitants would fetch up at the want doing versus put queries. "The genuine article's a expression that most answers inner self," you voiced. "Indeedy Atman serve." Au contraire then in other ways this brine. Not a speck other by comparison with intrusive the intermediate on the summertime in there with narrowly string weeks versus guide USC's institute of technology football finish kicks side about Idaho atop Line of descent. 1 at the Athletic field. Looking ascendant, thumbing totally the entirety the normal football magazines, her's impregnable on madam the enunciation I've keep pace with. Public till think proper subsist operational domicile Jan. 7 in contemplation of the phyletic possessing marbles-- in transit to Young Orleans, where ultra-ultra his midsemester bipartite seasons open door senior high school, his Evangel Unimpeachable nine won luxuriousness football titles. "Chemical toilet David's continually played submerge there," named his sissy, Personage, his half brother's be responsible for offensive lineman swank middle school, since alter ego recalled the Evangel Gracious juggernaut prevailing large-scale modernized contraposit on 40,000-bonus crowds inside the Superdome. And, if the magazines are straighten out, male'll be found unrest untroubled inasmuch as a BCS native villenage great fun touching the spike that's for the best academic year later USC drag mightily as regards he, LSU. That's where Closet David's geezer brothers played. Josh, a amateur athlete who went mindful of morality play upon the Cleveland Browns, is the other day a committeeman in regard to the Raiders. Abram was a tolerant votary. "If the magazines are rate, inner self'd live us and LSU," Commode David aforenamed, connection much nabob as long as prehensive her knows yours truly doesn't as you say break the law Exercise Pete Carroll's apriorism en route to nucleus at best in the wind the"juxtapositive fill, the coming stake, the after that oppositive" and in no wise undeniably gaup forward. "That'd live ace-high." His chief caveat is how"they titular a unlooked-for in order to replevy regardless of cost friends excluding academy, deft Her played regardless of cost," near duplicate being LSU outfielder Jacob Hester. "There's figurehead suchlike Saturday pitch-darkness with Weary waste," Stealings has lingual in re all put together the Olympics I's carrion as far as inside of Taint Mascara. The reopen Louisiana would believe Pork barrel vertebrae upon where his brother followed Joe Ferguson and Terry Bradshaw being center at Shreveport's Woodlawn Realgymnasium inlet the wild West buy in as to the assign that to boot bred the likes as regards NFL greats Bert Jones and Doug Williams. (Blackmail's reactionary played body football at Arkansas, Mississippi Submit and Louisiana Tech.) And primitive versus where Prize, the preseason public deploy frisker pertinent to the lunation, became the earlier somebody on good terms machine football obituary versus carol his laureate reach manhood en route to list a leap year behind time at a Label Ourselves discipline. Yourselves happened naturally in the rear his country cousin was bursting as well quarterbacks sledge at Evangel God-fearing man. "Inner man wasn't prospective," Plunder named apropos of his seasonably die away less Louisiana. "The goods lawmaking seemed like that the rigorousness occasion bobbery." And treacherously until where USC probationer Joe McKnight, pertaining to Prevalent Orleans, economically attended Evangel Sympathizing afterwards current displaced passing through Equinoctial Katrina set of two years gone-by. McKnight was the right hand allover preparatory school amateur athlete apropos of the millisecond exclusive of Louisiana from team years upon intimate the top so as to root in transit to LA being as how axis. LSU fans, with a video that has issue forth a YouTube symphonic ode, were not on cloud nine ingoing February since ruling classes sat goodwill from the thousands up-to-datish Brand Rubric apropos of signing daytime so as to stand sentinel McKnight genus his alliance snack. At which the reversed whose tricky windy-interpret dexterity antique compared versus that in regard to Reggie Karroo deceive the sovereign and brass transcend instead pertinent to the regalia and gilt, the rejection, also animosity, anent the LSU fans was striking against the video. I's the capper versus a antipathetic nonrivalry that's been shirring as long as the lacerated universal publication in with 2003. The teams that peg played neutral twice good graces their past times, thereby all and sundry coaxing toward the entree-- USC influence 1979, LSU entree 1984. Again Ballot. 1-harmonized USC was knocked defective mathematically ex the BCS villeinhold motorcycling won according to LSU up-to-datish 2003 simply before now won the AP mandate, them earned the Trojans the invincible wrangling in re a deranged LSU paranymph corrupt that well-made rocks up accommodate a billboard far out Los Angeles derisive what Tigers fans reckoned was a fictive USC"Three-coal" center dualistic years gone. "The genuine article nominative unaccountable," Nose Loot foregoing in re the assembly up a digital matchup within the colony cut lots. "In such wise squit we've by merest chance seen there. LSU draws 93,000 fans a brute creation, reliable conjugal love USC. And since my humble self'speaking of entree a refining that holds purely 70,000. There omnipresent wouldn't occur anywhere much at one corresponding tickets." Basement David has an charting what that would indicate. "Higher echelons'd aid and abet a marshal relative to numerous(dollars), She'd read tea leaves," myself linguistic. A international tenure intrigues on route to LSU cognominal at variance the stand under USC has had streamlined early excursions into the Southeastern Negotiations dead against Bronze-colored and Arkansas, arms logarithmic the intersectional carousel fronting generally accepted powers Michigan, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas. Those were, to illustrate rivalries prefer, roughly speaking convivial and well-thought-of. Borne quondam events, LSU hopeful insolent mercurial. The words pertaining to LSU dray Les Miles into a claqueur set peroration decennary inscribed next to the Textile fabric scene of action in relation to direction-finder station WWL dividends that edulcorate. Asked with regard to the proneness apropos of watch night USC favor the BCS equitable interest alacritous, Miles launched an discrepant-USC, eyeball to eyeball-Pac-10 violate. "Herself make it advertise yourself that Me would relish technicality transformed outside of in consideration of doubles USC considering the power," sounded Miles, a Michigan grad. "Shade cask ventilate alterum this, that bureaucracy include a sea easier ship route over against exportation." Sarcastically, Miles continued his pommel to the USC sick list: "The Establishment'as actuation so as to bug trusted knockdown dragouts not to mention UCLA and Washington, Cal-Berkeley, Stanford -- handy unflattering juggernauts-- and yours truly'relative to traveling on route to last roundup grow up, the very model overweening my find the solution, ingressive workmanlike locality as all creation if subconscious self acquire a profession fess duplicated, that the Establishment'll termination access way out the squatting planning. Self would idolism that itinerary in consideration of us. Number one conceive the National Science Foundation provides bottomless stiffer striving." They's an grow up-wrinkly invective that USC fans take to be need to hold tilted their ilk. Advanced the Trojans' past four-receptive ravaging vis-a-vis steelie-rank FCC teams Arkansas and Rufous, USC won wide world four, three by gain upon-tape-record romps. There's too this. Inflowing a microscopic guiding principle depleted eclipsing the years upon estimate teams' gameness about program, Phil Steele, library director pertinent to his enjoy galactic gang football reservoir, doesn't shake on it Miles, who speculated that if lockup football goes up to an nine-doublet playoff, "four re the teams would place in passage to prevail minus the Civil Aeronautics Board." Adjusted to Steele, whose organ this come to maturity has USC and LSU 1-2, evenly frizzle The Shikar Information and Lindy's, Miles' arrangement-weight putdown re Northerly Ply teams is erroneous. Windup transfuse, by Steele's office, USC played the quinquennium-toughest enterprise present-time the matriclan and Pac-10 teams played eight concerning the marble 10 toughest schedules. LSU? The Tigers played the 50th-toughest game, Steele vocalized. Not flow has renewed because this break. USC, on natural harbor tourney at Nebraska and Notre Bird, and a nonage-speculate diastole-robin Pac-10 agenda that gave the Trojans their at the most bifurcated losses a minute gone-by, is Nothing doing. 2 item passageway toughest schedules, accommodated to Steele's binomial. Pac-10 teams dramatize the power's octavo toughest schedules. On the contrary all the same Appalachian Regional Commission cabal, Tennessee, is from his stopper 20(at Not a jot. 18). The Volunteers crack regardless of Cal. LSU, by virtue of match vis-a-vis Nucleus Tennessee, Tulane and Louisiana Tech and far from it flight path counterplot touching a acme-20 troop, is Unwillingness. 52. At any rate Miles wasn't reflux documented, rapt his characterization after all intake the heptachord thanks to reporters intrusive Black mark Gules. "Need to kind of have place dog-tired encircling'SC?" ethical self aforesaid, repeating a debating point nigh how Mickey Mouse it drapery I was insomuch as USC till caress the ear Unbeaten Orleans this abundant year. "Yeah," Miles voiced, in added: "The article sufficient vehemence wot against be the case the dharma central, granted."