Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JPMorgan $2B Loss From Loopholes?  
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

There has been a lot of media stories about the $2 Billion Loss JPMorgan Chase has announced.

Now we are seeing how the banks pushed for loopholes so they could continue to play games.

Quote:

Soon after lawmakers finished work on the nation’s new financial regulatory law, a team of JPMorgan Chase lobbyists descended on Washington. Their goal was to obtain special breaks that would allow banks to make big bets in their portfolios, including some of the types of trading that led to the $2 billion loss now rocking the bank.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/bu...-fought-rule-on-risky-trading.html

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
There has been a lot of media stories about the $2 Billion Loss JPMorgan Chase has announced.

Now we are seeing how the banks pushed for loopholes so they could continue to play games.

Let me get this straight - You want a law making it illegal for banks to lose money?

Supposedly, this loss stems from portfolio hedging, "a strategy that essentially allows banks to view an investment portfolio as a whole and take actions to offset the risks of the entire portfolio. That contrasts with the traditional definition of hedging, which matches an individual security or trading position with an inversely related investment — so when one goes up, the other goes down."

There is nothing wrong with the concept. What went wrong here was the execution. You cannot outlaw stupidity or incompetence. That's the job of the bank's management, BOD and shareholders. They lost money. What do you want to do - tax them on money they lost?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):

There you go again trying to explain basic finance to certain people. Don't you know it does not work?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8416 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

Yeh I figure Jamie Dimon is doing exactly what people were asking Bank CEOs to do. He is knocking heads. Isn't this what OWS would want? People screwed up and Jamie is telling them 'don't give me this type of crap result.' Ordinarily he would just defend the operation, so this is a change of tack. Maybe he will even fire a bunch of culpable people.

Good for him. Shows he is adaptable.

[Edited 2012-05-12 12:15:33]

User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
There is nothing wrong with the concept. What went wrong here was the execution

I understand it is now being linked to one trader in the London office.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...all-on-JP-Morgan-trading-loss.html



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Yup, and I heard old Barney Frank (D-MASS) spout that he wanted to make it illegal for financial institutions to make decisions based on their own profits. Now, I know what I heard, but I can't find a quote online, though I did find an

When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1762 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
Yup, and I heard old Barney Frank (D-MASS) spout that he wanted to make it illegal for financial institutions to make decisions based on their own profits.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Not quite sure what's going on in that last post but I can't even edit it. But, here's the link to an article where Barney Frank suggests that the profit motive is of no concern to regulators. That falls in line with what I heard this mornin on the news. I'll look for a link to his most recent quote.



http://thehill.com/blogs/>http://thehill.com/blogs/



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1757 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
Yup, and I heard old Barney Frank (D-MASS) spout that he wanted to make it illegal for financial institutions to make decisions based on their own profits. Now, I know what I heard, but I can't find a quote online, though I did find an

Yes the Dems are now pushing the Volcker rule.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dem...er-rule-after-jp-morgan-2012-05-11



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3005 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
Let me get this straight - You want a law making it illegal for banks to lose money?

No, I don't think he wants that. However, what he (and many of us) wants is for the bank to cease making risky bets and losing money, especially if it's a bank that was bailed out by the taxpayers. Apparently the bank has yet to learn a lesson from the 2008 crisis.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

As always happens every time the topic of finance comes up, the amount of economic ignorance in this thread is unbelievable. Maybe it is just a nature of this site - just like all the threads on airline operations tend to bring out the armchair CEOs, any thread on finance brings out the Monday morning risk managers.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 9):
However, what he (and many of us) wants is for the bank to cease making risky bets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter):
Now we are seeing how the banks pushed for loopholes so they could continue to play games
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 9):
However, what he (and many of us) wants is for the bank to cease making risky bets and losing money

Guys, banks make money by investing with varying levels of risk. If they were to only buy into zero-risk, guaranteed-principle investments, they would make only a few pennies on the dollar on their best day. If that happens, you can expect bank fees charged to customers like you and me to increase hundreds of percent.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1724 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 11):
If they were to only buy into zero-risk, guaranteed-principle investments

Like Greek government bonds?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1722 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They lost more money in this trade that the amount that Dimon was complaining that JP would loose due to increased regulation.

Kinda funny . no?

J Dimon has egg on his face.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5491 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

If JP Morgan Chase loses money as the result of poor investments, the bank should (1) change its management, and (ultimately) (2) fail. Not interested in seeing federal money thrown at it.


...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13042 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

The problem is this the kind of deal, on a smaller scale, that got so many banks into trouble and needing to be bailed out in 2008 and in part ruined Lehman Brothers, MF Capital (the one with Jon Corzine) and other investment houses. This loss should not hurt consumer and business customers nor shareholders, but it should lead to some executives that were involve and 'green-lighted' this deal canned as would happen at many other companies and some of the losses covered with major compensation cuts to Diman and others.

Banks do need to hedge investments, that is good business, but risks must be carefully calculated and not lead to such serious losses. Banks and other financial companies need to know that governments should not remove all risk with massive bailouts but do need to protect depositors.

To me the lack of reinstatement of some regulations and 'loopholes' as to allowing such investment was intentional to 're-inflate the bubble', to pump up the stock market for the leading banks and other stock companies after the 2008 crash.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8944 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1572 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
This loss should not hurt consumer and business customers nor shareholders, but it should lead to some executives that were involve and 'green-lighted' this deal canned as would happen at many other companies and some of the losses covered with major compensation cuts to Diman and others.
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
Banks and other financial companies need to know that governments should not remove all risk with massive bailouts but do need to protect depositors.

Insulating anybody from risk, including depositors, is a very bad idea.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
To me the lack of reinstatement of some regulations and 'loopholes' as to allowing such investment was intentional to 're-inflate the bubble', to pump up the stock market for the leading banks and other stock companies after the 2008 crash.

"Raising asset prices" has been the Fed's goal. That's what quantitative easing does.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 15):
Banks and other financial companies need to know that governments should not remove all risk with massive bailouts but do need to protect depositors.

That's what FDIC is for; to protect the deposits, i.e the money in savings and checking accounts. Anything else is investing or, as I like to call it, gambling.

It is disclosed when you apply for investment accounts.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineblink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5480 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 8):
Yes the Dems are now pushing the Volcker rule.

I can't remember the source--either CNN, NYT, WashPost etc., and Dimon even admitted that JPMorgan's loss would definitely give the pro-Volcker crowd a lot of ammo.

What I find a bit scary is that JPMorgan passed the Fed's stress tests with fairly good marks, so what do we not know about other banks that are more vulnerable?



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
You cannot outlaw stupidity or incompetence.

You can, in a sense. You can implement rules that, if followed, will lead people to not take certain courses of action that would be considered stupid or incompetent. The aviation world is full of such things - you shall not intentionally exceed the limitations of an airplane, you shall not descend below published weather minimums on an approach without visual reference, you shall not try and takeoff on a runway which is too short for your published takeoff distance, etc. All those are things that should be common sense, yet people did them, and some of them got themselves killed in the process. So regulations were written. This doesn't mean that someone couldn't continue to do those things if they really wanted to, but it does mean that someone will be more inclined to not do them, since there are now legal consequences in addition to the inherent dangers of those things.

Such regulations, if implemented in the banking industry, would require some sort of SEC (or perhaps Congressional) determination of what really constitutes stupidity when it comes to an investment strategy, which really means determining what is an acceptable level of risk. And that wouldn't be easy (I think it's fair to say that we can forget about Congress being able to do it). But it's not always easy to draw a line in the aviation industry either - that doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into. What is clear, though, is that when financial institutions make stupid decisions and lose money, they can create a whole lot of collateral damage, and it's not wrong to try and limit that. If bad decisions made by banks were limited to those banks, or even to those banks and their customers, I wouldn't care so much. But when a bad decision made by one bank can throw other banks and their customers into chaos, that's when it's time to take a look at the system.

What's tricky about this from the standpoint of the pro-regulation crowd is that, as Flighty said, the CEO has been everything one would want him to be following his admission of the problem (though I am curious as to how he could give reports not too long ago that said that there were no problems - people had been suspicious of this particular account for a while). So this isn't exactly the poster child for regulation that some would want it to be.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
investing or, as I like to call it, gambling.

Of course you do. I guess you could always entrust all your money to the U.S. government and put it all into CDs or treasury bills - after taxes and inflation you would only lose ~3-5% a year.

Quoting blink182 (Reply 18):
Dimon even admitted that JPMorgan's loss would definitely give the pro-Volcker crowd a lot of ammo.

It would only because the pro-Volcker rule people are nothing but a bunch of economically illiterate people who know nothing about finance. JP Morgan was hedging risks on their BANKING book, not their trading book - you know, the loans they extend out to people and companies, which for some reason some people think is a more "social" use of JP Morgan's capital than facilitating access to capital markets through underwriting and market-making. So yes, in essence, the risks JP Morgan was hedging were 100% proprietary, but precisely the types of risks encouraged by the Volcker rule (which seems to think that loaning $100 million to a corporation on a 5-year illiquid position is less risky than holding $20 million of that company's liquid bonds overnight in a trading book for market-making purposes). The fact is, what JP Morgan did would not be illegal under the Volcker rule (not should it be).

Quoting blink182 (Reply 18):
What I find a bit scary is that JPMorgan passed the Fed's stress tests with fairly good marks, so what do we not know about other banks that are more vulnerable?

This $2 billion mistake will cause a temporary 20 bps decline in their core tier 1 ratio, which is basically nothing. If that is not passing a stress test with flying colors I don't know what is.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1499 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 20):
Of course you do. I guess you could always entrust all your money to the U.S. government and put it all into CDs or treasury bills - after taxes and inflation you would only lose ~3-5% a year.

My point exactly. If I wanted a nice safe 'return', all I would do is invest in CD's or other such instruments where my principle is safe. If I want to invest and actually grow my money I have to take a gamble. Very much like the folks at JP Morgan (who happen to be my bankers) did. They gambled, they lost. Let's move on.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
There is nothing wrong with the concept. What went wrong here was the execution

There is nothing wrong with hedging, and if it was truly a hedge, then people wouldn't necessarily be up in arms. From some of the articles I've been reading, some analysts have said that it wasnt actually serving the purpose of a hedge.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
You cannot outlaw stupidity or incompetence.

That is true....but you can certainly impose regulations and checks to make it more difficult for people to make stupid or incompetent decisions.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 20):
It would only because the pro-Volcker rule people are nothing but a bunch of economically illiterate people who know nothing about finance.

Disagree entirely. The reason why this issue is coming up is because JPMorgan is a SIFI--a too-big-to-fail entity--which means the failure of JP Morgan imposes a systemic risk on the entire economy--and JP Morgan knows that. JP Morgan also knows that as a SIFI the U.S. government (and by extension, taxpayers) haS an interest in it not failing and bringing the system down with it--which means that if they failed, the government would bail them out again--so there's no incentive for them to avoid taking these risks.
If these institutions weren't too-big-to-fail, and only risking the skin of their shareholders and their employees, then I'd have no problem with them taking excessive risks--but they aren't. The bottom line is that if you don't want the Volcker Rule, then the banks will have to shrink.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
You want a law making it illegal for banks to lose money?

Maybe just go back Glass Steagall:

Quote:

The Banking Act of 1933 (Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933) was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and imposed banking reforms, several of which were intended to control speculation.[1] It is often referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2):
There you go again trying to explain basic finance to certain people.

So lesson No. 1:

The core issue to focus on is FDIC Protection that Banks really enjoy. Part of that benefit brought, as noted above, " imposed banking reforms, several of which were intended to control speculation".

That IS Lesson Number One in US Finance.

And that is the lesson we need to apply now. Bring back Glass Steagall. Of course the Conservatives will never go far when financial contributions are so leveraged against it. Maybe that should be Lesson Number One. Money talks.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3868 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
The core issue to focus on is FDIC Protection that Banks really enjoy. Part

FDIC is completely irrelevant here because it only pertains to commercial banking and is done to prevent bank runs. What's of more relevance is the Fed's discount window and lender of last resort access that these banks now have.


25 Flighty : He even owns that now. He has said yes this is completely contradictory to what I told you a few weeks ago -- his bureaucracy was scurrying to defend
26 Pyrex : Sigh... not this old canard again. Ok, if you are so smart, tell me ONE paragraph (just one) of the Glass Steagall Act that wouls have prevented this
27 StarAC17 : Yes and if I get this correctly getting rid of Glass Steagall allowed commercial banks to merge with investment banks and share funds. This means tha
28 einsteinboricua : That's all fine and dandy until the bank cannot return money to its customers. Then what? Another bailout from the fed and keep raising the deficit?
29 QFA380 : I honestly do not understand why there is such an uproar about this. It is much more of an internal JPMorgan issue than it is global financial crisis
30 Post contains images BMI727 : What do you mean it isn't possible? Bernie Madoff did that for years. And Social Security.
31 Mir : A little, sure. I know it's human nature to try and cover things up. But then there's the fact that a properly functioning market requires open and h
32 ltbewr : News reports late Sunday are saying at least 3 top executives involved with the big losses are resigning from JPMC. I hope more heads roll from the CE
33 us330 : No it won't--because of FDIC--your deposit is insured up to 250k regardless of how it's being used. This is what prevents runs on banks--because depo
34 Post contains links mt99 : Its those evil republicans are thwarting the poor Banks! "Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was the first to call for a hearing on Friday. "Cle
35 bhill : I don't think it was the amount of money involved that is the issue, but two things bother me about this. 1) Business as usual for the investment hous
36 tommy767 : I got a mutual fund with Chase and I'm thinking of taking my money and leaving them. I feel like Fidelity investments would be a little more responsiv
37 Flighty : We should never have to ask that question. In such a huge country, we should never allow banks to become so large. That is what is unacceptable. Even
38 Ken777 : Banks have FDIC protection that was established to protect depositors. When you add in the brokerage business (and related risks that banks are takin
39 windy95 : Yet we continue to bail out the Post office to a tune of a Billion a month.
40 Post contains images QFA380 : Wait til he pulls the 'the post office provides an important service whose social benefits outweigh their (large) economic losses' or the other one,
41 us330 : I have said posted this several times on this thread already--FDIC is completely irrelevant here because it only relates to deposits, and protects de
42 Pyrex : The sheer amount of financial ignorance on this thread makes me really sad about the future of America.
43 Post contains links Dreadnought : They didn't learn because they got bailed out. I'm pretty sure that we'd start doing some pretty crazy stuff in my company if the government declared
44 windy95 : Or fast and furious. I heard the story this morning that the FBI is investigating the loss and I really had to laugh. This administration really is a
45 Post contains images Revelation : Such distinctions matter to you, but don't matter to us because it will be the entire JPM corporation coming to the taxpayers for a bailout. I've rea
46 ozglobal : If you're wanting to get this straight, the post above is a 'fail' . Banks are regulated, not so losses are impossible, but so as not to take UNACCEP
47 Pyrex : I am sure the only thing they taught him about finance in community organizing school was "banks are bad", but unfortunately the sheer ignorance and
48 Revelation : That school was Harvard, a place that graduates a lot more "banks are good" people than "banks are bad" people. As opposed to perhaps you, who feels
49 us330 : This has to be a joke. A criminal probe into this, when not a single person on wall street went to jail for actions leading to the 2008 crisis? Even
50 sccutler : Agreed - and further, not a single person in DC went to jail?
51 Revelation : So are you suggesting that we should not look for illegalities now? In theory at least the post-2008 reforms, as weak as they are, should have made t
52 Dreadnought : Here's the problem: Government employees are in no way competent to determine what is acceptable or unacceptable risk, particularly when regulations
53 us330 : No, its when they bring it up after they've been told its irrelevant by people who are well-versed. Not at all--its more of a limited resources argum
54 Post contains links and images Ken777 : Mainly because the Republicans has stripped out their cash. If we went back to the traditional postal system the system would be in pretty good shape
55 Dreadnought : That's funny, because Ashcroft was AG when Lay was indicted with 11 counts in 2004, 10 of which were successful convictions (although Lay died before
56 ikramerica : Socialist party is simply trying to take complete control over banks. So far, they have near complete control over mortgages and student loans. They
57 Post contains images Ken777 : And, just as obvious, the expert professionals at the banks are just as incompetent. You don't have to just look at the JPMorgan screwup this past qu
58 StarAC17 : I think a few people may do just that when all the details of this comes out. Here is the thing and I will use the example of Australia. A postal ser
59 Dreadnought : Sure. I'm not saying there should be no regulation - but that the regulations should be as few as possible and easy to understand. An FAA regulation
60 StarAC17 : I agree 100% However we have banks now that in the case of JPMorgan Chase have total assets that are nearly double the GDP of Canada (as an example),
61 Pyrex : Maybe we should ensure that a substantial portion of the net worth of the regulators is invested in the stock of the companies they regulate? Liberal
62 StarAC17 : I meant to respond to this earlier but no one is going to jail for the 2008 GFC because any law they would have broken before then had been repealed.
63 us330 : Sometimes regulations shouldn't be set by a democratic system (and the court's agree with this argument--see below), when the participants in the dem
64 Dreadnought : Believe me I know the difference, and it is why I am so up in arms about it. Here is the principle: What comes out of the legislature is LAW. You bre
65 Pyrex : So under that logic no manager of any company ever would act on information that is potentially damaging to a company (just hope if goes away before
66 us330 : No, because my reasoning and logic is for regulatory bodies, not for businesses or companies. When applied to companies, then yes, of course the ince
67 Post contains links Ken777 : There is really no need to outsource postal services. All that really means is that some politician will get his pal a cheap deal that will generate
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Save The Internet From The US (CISPA) posted Mon May 7 2012 05:28:45 by varigb707
What's The View From Your Window? posted Fri Jan 7 2011 21:15:08 by Zentraedi
A.net Mini Meet: Bye Bye MD-90 Flight From ZRH posted Fri Jan 7 2011 06:04:16 by ManuCH
Would A Bad Gcse Maths Grade Prevent Me From... posted Tue Dec 28 2010 02:41:39 by T8KE0FF
I Love Being From The Los Angeles Area! posted Fri Dec 24 2010 18:59:17 by 747400sp
Today's Mail From Jacksonville posted Mon Dec 20 2010 20:36:37 by Airstud
More Anti Palin Hate From The Leftmedia posted Wed Dec 15 2010 07:41:28 by windy95
Yesterday's Mail From Minneapolis posted Sat Dec 11 2010 22:10:51 by Airstud
True Hero Saves Man From Train posted Sat Dec 4 2010 06:23:12 by RussianJet
Best Public Transpo From SWF-JFK? posted Fri Dec 3 2010 08:29:03 by jetjack74