# Short Selling Vacuum



## brettc4 (19 September 2008)

With countries putting a temporary ban on short selling, markets are moving higher very rapidly, especially the financials.

Early morning trade on some of the US Financials see them up 40%.

It is possible that our Financials with have a big jump come Monday.

Does this however leave us with a vacuum that will quickly be eroded once short selling is allowed again? or will the ban be for such a considerable time, that they will wait for the credit crunch to be over before removing the ban?

Thanks,
Brett


----------



## white_goodman (19 September 2008)

i sorta see it as changing the rules after the game has started atm.... im short for monday... lets see how i go... may be in for some pain


also is it possible to suggest that considering we havent outlawed shorting that we may move a little more independent of the US in terms of financials..?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 September 2008)

brettc4 said:


> With countries putting a temporary ban on short selling, markets are moving higher very rapidly, especially the financials.
> 
> Early morning trade on some of the US Financials see them up 40%.
> 
> ...




Either way , banning naked shorting it will produce instability in the market, maybe up, maybe down. I don't agree with it.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 September 2008)

What annoys me is the person who knows nothing about short selling but has an opinion on it much like the world is flat story years ago.


----------



## lakemac (20 September 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> What annoys me is the person who knows nothing about short selling but has an opinion on it much like the world is flat story years ago.



What the world is not flat????!!!!!
I knew it. I just knew it - banana shaped right? banana shaped...


----------



## cordelia (20 September 2008)

what annoys me is people commenting about short selling when they really have no idea about the difference between naked or covered shorts......

Has anyone read the ASX announcement? They are banning naked shorts not covered ones......

http://www.asx.com.au/about/pdf/mr_190908_abolition_naked_short_selling.pdf

a quote some posters should heed:

*"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ””Mark Twain. *


----------



## lakemac (20 September 2008)

And a bandaid is still a bandaid cordelia...

Naked or otherwise let the market make that call (or is that a put LOL).
I don't agree with regulations like these.
Made in haste because of a few (ok maybe quite a few) bleeding hearts.
Ultimately such regulations only extend the pain and deepen the problem.

If the market wants to get rid of these mal-investments then let it.
No point trying to shore up something that needs to be removed.
Good example of this is Japan after 1990.
Their banks refused for almost a decade to even acknowledge the existence of the bad debts on their books let alone write them off.
Japan remained in the doldrums for that decade until they did write them off.
Had the banks taken the hit then Japan as a whole would have been better off much earlier.

The "New Deal" of the 1930's was the same overregulated garbage.
All it did was to extend the pain.

I say let the market fall, let the short sellers (naked or otherwise) do their much needed job. Quick and clean much better than slow, painful and drawn out which is exactly what these stupid regulations are about to do.

As they say if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


----------



## white_goodman (20 September 2008)

what day does the US remove the suspension of shorting financials?


----------



## Trembling Hand (20 September 2008)

> The SEC’s emergency order, pursuant to its authority in Section 12(k)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, will be immediately effective and will terminate at 11:59 p.m. ET on Oct. 2, 2008.




Read all about it here,

*SEC Halts Short Selling of Financial Stocks to Protect Investors and Markets*

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-211.htm


----------



## lakemac (20 September 2008)

"SEC Halts Short Selling of Financial Stocks to Protect Investors and Markets"
Stop it. Stop it. No more. No more.
I can't stand laughing any more.
My stomach hurts.

I wonder if we can protect ourselves against the SEC???


----------



## pepperoni (20 September 2008)

There will either be a way around this soon (some BS way of covering) or a proper 10-20% down day soon.

Is a "kick the can down the road" by the powers that be IMO.


----------



## Greg71 (20 September 2008)

Screw it. Let the damn markets melt down. Ban going long.


----------



## Calliope (21 September 2008)

cordelia said:


> *"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." ””Mark Twain. *




The problem Cordelia, is that the fools think that being a smartarse is being clever. Intelligent posters will get short shrift.


----------



## CamKawa (21 September 2008)

Both covered and naked short selling have now been banned effective Monday. 


*Summary of ASIC's new position on short selling until the End Date*
naked short selling banned
covered short selling banned (subject to limited authorised market-maker exemption)
ASIC will reassess and advise the market in 30 days, whether or not it will at that time, or at a later date, reopen covered short sales for non-financial stocks.
source: http://www.asic.gov.au/ASIC/asic.nsf/byHeadline/08-205%20Covered%20short%20selling%20not%20permitted?opendocument


----------



## tech/a (21 September 2008)

Just short indexes.


----------



## sam76 (21 September 2008)

lakemac said:


> "SEC Halts Short Selling of Financial Stocks to Protect Investors and Markets"
> Stop it. Stop it. No more. No more.
> I can't stand laughing any more.
> My stomach hurts.
> ...




i thought the SEC stopped providing electricity ages ago ???!!



I'll have to use Telecom to call someone who knows....


----------



## aleckara (21 September 2008)

Maybe I am a little naive about this but at a risk of a flaming here it goes:

I have no issue with covered short selling. You borrowed something that you will pay back later. As long as this is the case then there is no problem.

However naked short selling is fooling the market to me. You are talking about creating supply temporarily out of thin air of shares. If there isn't a supply of shares available for you to sell then you shouldn't sell. Just like anything else in life - how can I sell what I don't have right of ownership borrowed or owned to? I can't sell a house and depress house prices so I can get a bargain now can I? I can't just magically create land and sell it to get cash now can I? Shares aren't tangible; somehow that makes people believe that this excludes them from that right. The right of every long holder to me is to do what they like with their supply including the right to hold it from the market.

In the end it swamps the market with supply that doesn't exist. I can't see how that is an efficient market. It seems like an easy way to play on peoples sentiment and make a quick buck. Sure the smart traders are laughing, but the average person just wanting to be responsible, invest and retire does not like his asset being devalued by non-existant supply of stock.


----------



## Trembling Hand (21 September 2008)

tech/a said:


> Just short indexes.




If there is a orderly market. The big money need ALL the market functions to play. Our index futs are already thin. Any thinner and they will be a mess.


----------



## Temjin (21 September 2008)

Do anyone know the history of covered short selling? Has it ever been banned in Australia before? I am wondering what is the implication of it to the market as a whole. If hedge fund can't short, where do all the money go then? 

This is crazy in my opinion, maximum intervention.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 September 2008)

Temjin said:


> Do anyone know the history of covered short selling? Has it ever been banned in Australia before? I am wondering what is the implication of it to the market as a whole. If hedge fund can't short, where do all the money go then?



Gold is my best guess.


----------



## subi1 (21 September 2008)

aleckara said:


> Maybe I am a little naive about this but at a risk of a flaming here it goes:
> 
> I have no issue with covered short selling. You borrowed something that you will pay back later. As long as this is the case then there is no problem.
> 
> ...




Good post.

That is exactly what I think


----------



## CamKawa (21 September 2008)

tech/a said:


> Just short indexes.



Eh? ASIC say "covered short sales for all listed stocks will now not be permitted "


----------



## skyQuake (21 September 2008)

CamKawa said:


> Eh? ASIC say "covered short sales for all listed stocks will now not be permitted "




SPI or CFDs


----------



## Trembling Hand (21 September 2008)

skyQuake said:


> SPI or CFDs




Will be interesting to see how whippy the SPI will be without the Arb BOTS much need liquidity.


----------



## nunthewiser (21 September 2008)

Forgive my lac of knowledge here ........what about warrants too ? put warrants gone now too ?


----------



## skyQuake (21 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Will be interesting to see how whippy the SPI will be without the Arb BOTS much need liquidity.




What % of volume do you reckon the arb bots account for? US banned shorting too but volume on DIJA and S&P were still ok...
Hopefully we see a nice smooth rally through the day as people cover. Easy trades 



nunthewiser said:


> Forgive my lac of knowledge here ........what about warrants too ? put warrants gone now too ?



They're ok like oppies. Cause they're not shares and pretty much OTC as far as im concerned.


----------



## CamKawa (21 September 2008)

This is what I reckon, in particular the bit about the constantly changing rules. The market needs stability not government interference.

"Jim Chanos, who runs a large short-selling hedge fund in New York and is chairman of the Coalition of Private Investment Companies, said the emergency measures would do little to stabilise the market. 

“Investors are best served when they can hear both the reasons to buy and the reasons to sell any given security,” he said. 

“We also believe that markets cannot withstand for long constantly changing rules in which each new regulation is announced in the middle of the night without any public comment or participation.”

The head of one hedge fund of funds firm also said: “By stopping the short sellers, you are artificially inflating prices and rewarding speculators on the long side. The measures will increase volatility.”

source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef5d128c-8677-11dd-959e-0000779fd18c.html


----------



## singlefished (21 September 2008)

CamKawa said:


> The market needs stability not government interference.




Forgive me if I'm wrong (and there's a good chance I will be ) but wasn't it the lack of government interference (ie: fiscal regulation) in the US that ultimately led to sub-prime issue in the first instance?

Cheers,
Scotty....


----------



## pepperoni (21 September 2008)

Im still blaming massively negative real rates due to 9/11 overcompensation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).png


----------



## theasxgorilla (21 September 2008)

pepperoni said:


> Im still blaming massively negative real rates due to 9/11 overcompensation.
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).png




Totally agree...this is what turned around what was IMO an incomplete unwinding of all kinds of speculative naughtiness during the late 90s.


----------



## lakemac (22 September 2008)

Intelligent argument and/or thoughts should never be flamed aleckara. They may be discussed, disagreed with, ignored or even become a religion 
I always welcome such posts.


aleckara said:


> ..You are talking about creating supply temporarily out of thin air of shares..



Ah the trick of fractional reserve banking. Creating credit out of thin air.

Although I am a proponent of really free markets, you may have swayed my mind on this topic aleckara. But then there may be another solution. Rather than limit or stop the practice, better to make it transparent. All you need is an index (an absolute number would be better) of the number of naked shorts out there (now there is a double entendre  ). That way any investor can gauge the shorting process and make informed decisions.


----------



## lakemac (22 September 2008)

singlefished said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong (and there's a good chance I will be ) but wasn't it the lack of government interference (ie: fiscal regulation) in the US that ultimately led to sub-prime issue in the first instance?
> 
> Cheers,
> Scotty....



Never wrong Scotty, just always learning 

Government regulation stifles markets, innovation, progress.
Now add to that the central bank which allows the unlimited creation of credit (well almost).

If you remove the central bank and the government regulations, would it stop sub-prime no. But removing the regulations would have limited the size of the problem. Why? Because of TRUST. Remember, any bank creating credit out of thin air ie. their goodwill, requires that another bank will accept that goodwill. If one bank keeps asking you to accept their goodwill above and beyond your trust of that bank you will eventually stop accepting their goodwill. This will happen sooner rather than later. Why? Without government mandated regulation you as a bank are going to be a LOT more wary of another bank's claims. You as a bank are going to do a LOT more due diligence - what Henry Kay (bless his heart  ) calls extreme due diligence. Due diligence is nothing more than sorting out fact from opinion. If nothing else Henry Kay taught me, it was that very valuable piece of advice (and the truth will set you free Henry  ).

It is the very regulation that gives people a false sense of security in what is inherently a very insecure environment. And that extends to the current "terrorism threat". Just another form of control. Get PERSONALLY responsible people. Get educated. Don't rely on the sugar coated words of the winner of a popularity contest (ie. a politician).


----------



## lakemac (22 September 2008)

pepperoni said:


> Im still blaming massively negative real rates due to 9/11 overcompensation.
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).png



pepperoni, interest rates do not, repeat do not affect the overall economy. It is the amount of credit in an economy that controls it.

On the basis of your theory lower interest rates should expand an economy. So explain why Japan's zero interest rates did not work during the 1990's. They didn't work because the credit tap was turned off via the window guidance system operated by the Bank of Japan (cf. Princes of the Yen - Richard Werner) (interestingly enough in Japan the government used to have control of the interest rate lever. The central bank didn't (for various historical reasons) - they now do).

Interest rates are like the magician's hand. "Watch the hand...". Slap! with the other one.


----------



## Timmy (22 September 2008)

Lakemac,

re interest rates not affecting the overall economy, amount of credit does...
I don't want to split hairs but doesn't an increase in rates reduce the dmeand for credit and therefore affects the economy?

Your Japan example, fair enough, but if all else remains equal (no change to windows etc.) then a lower interest rate should stimulate an economy (maybe in the indirect method you speak of, but a stimulation nonetheless).


----------



## lakemac (22 September 2008)

good question timmy.

I don't have (and have had no luck obtaining) figures indicating whether an increase in interest rates causes consumers of credit to reduce their demand for credit or if the reduction is due to banks not lending as much. Two very different situations.

I have been investigating credit card debt levels as a proxy but so far have not finished my research.

The issue is mortgages are 100 times larger (typically) than credit card limits. So my idea above may not be valid anyway.

The demand for mortgages by consumers may remain constant irrespective of the interest rate (opinion only - no hard data as I said before). That is based on the assumption that population levels keep rising and people still need housing. On the other side we have the mortgage lender. I suspect (opinion only - no data) that lenders are the controlling factor in that when they assess an application for credit in a higher interest rate environment the amount of repayment required will of course be higher and if you don't meet the banks requirements of trust ie. credit worthiness or ability to repay the loan then the lender will say no or only offer you a smaller amount (which of course means house prices have to come down as buyers have less money available).

So the question for any mortgage brokers and/or bankers out there is this: Has their been a lower DEMAND for mortgages since interest rates have gone up or is it just that you are getting less APPROVALS for those applications?

My proxy of using credit card debt levels may indicate consumer's demand for credit independently of the banks approval process. If you assume that on average not all people have maxed out their credit cards, there will be an amount of unused *discretionary* credit available (assuming banks don't lower credit limits - which is rare) that can be used by consumers without needing to get bank approval. ie. The theory is banks issue you a credit card with say $10k credit on it. You may have an outstanding balance of say $4k, so that means you have $6k of credit you can use before you need to ask the bank for more.

So if credit card debt is rising at the same time interest rates are rising it may mean the demand for credit by the consumer is still there. I don't know yet if it correlates to mortgage lending (demand side or approval rates).

Either way (demand down or approvals down) interest rates only form one tenth of the money supply (say 10% interest) and a 0.25% rise in interest rates is a 1:400 ratio to credit. Therefore a change in credit creation has a 400 fold effect relative to interest rate effects in an economy.


----------



## Timmy (22 September 2008)

Thanks lakemac


----------



## aleckara (22 September 2008)

Timmy said:


> Lakemac,
> 
> re interest rates not affecting the overall economy, amount of credit does...
> I don't want to split hairs but doesn't an increase in rates reduce the dmeand for credit and therefore affects the economy?
> ...





Interest rates affect the demand in the economy for money/credit, that's true.  This is the main part of policy I do not agree with. I think in a real free market for money interest rates would be a price - the incentive to save (i.e supply) would equal the incentive to spend/borrow. Just like every other market (i.e risk/return).

It affects the demand for the creation of credit I think. If interest rates are higher demand should fall obviously. Once current loans are paid off the destruction of money occurs - as lakemac was referring to below in the fractional banking system.

However if the price of the debt is low, but demand is being crimped by high eligibility criteria for loans, etc. then price can stay low with very minimal demand (and hence minimal economic activity). Japan are a nation of savers compared to us so maybe thats something to do with it.

Sometimes I think it pays to look at not just the equilbrium but the magnitude of both the supply and demand factors.

Lakemac- referring to your comment. I see shares as an asset - not as money. Just like land, your car, boat, whatever. An investment asset real value (i.e theoritically/not practically its share price) shouldn't really be affected by the creation of money too much (as profits should be inflation adjusted anyway). I never saw it as the creation of money to begin with - rather the same money is doing a lot of work at increased risk (i.e counterparty risk). That same bit of money is simply an incentive to get people to work and keep the economy moving. In the end we benefit as we are rewarded for the work we get from others. Only issue if the incentive to work/produce doesn't result in additional work/additional asset traded - i.e capacity constraints. Money is an idea. The money creation to me is no problem, as long as it is backed by additional work in the economy then it isn't meaningless - it is backed by something real in this case output.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (22 September 2008)

The bad thing about shorts is that in a weak market they can trigger an avalanche,

A big hedge fund that does a massive short on say CBA, can make the share price drop artificially, which then triggers other peoples stop losses which floods the market with more stocks which can then trigger margin calls and force more stocks to be sold to clear the margin call,.... then the price drop breeds fear in the investors going long who may also sell down some stocks.

The hedge fund can then buy in at a lower price, but only at the expense of the investors and traders that had there margin calls and stop losses triggered.

Shorting can easily be abused by the big guys.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 September 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Shorting can easily be abused by the big guys.




No different than buying can be abused by big guys, imo.

If they want a stock to run they just have to place a few orders back in the queue to make it looks like buyers are building, and then if they really want they can just purchase a few lines of sell orders at once to give it increased volume and a nice price rise which will make people jump onboard.


----------



## lular (22 September 2008)

New to this so still learning. ( dont bite me if its obvious)

Would this be a valid assumption:

An organized atempt at creating a window of opportunity for a capital raising for the benefit of those institutions that are in trouble.
Blame the short sellers , take them out of the picture, rally the markets and fleece the sheep.


----------



## lusk (22 September 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> The bad thing about shorts is that in a weak market they can trigger an avalanche,
> 
> A big hedge fund that does a massive short on say CBA, can make the share price drop artificially, which then triggers other peoples stop losses which floods the market with more stocks which can then trigger margin calls and force more stocks to be sold to clear the margin call,.... then the price drop breeds fear in the investors going long who may also sell down some stocks.
> 
> ...




Problem is we are lead to believe in the news that this manipulation is done with borrowed stock, what would stop a hedge fund buying stock and then intentionally selling it to push the price down?

Banning short selling will not change anything, if they want to shake people out they will.


----------



## Temjin (22 September 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> The bad thing about shorts is that in a weak market they can trigger an avalanche,
> 
> A big hedge fund that does a massive short on say CBA, can make the share price drop artificially, which then triggers other peoples stop losses which floods the market with more stocks which can then trigger margin calls and force more stocks to be sold to clear the margin call,.... then the price drop breeds fear in the investors going long who may also sell down some stocks.
> 
> ...




I would rather see more evidences toward such "manipulation" theory than blindly believe what the media tell us.

My understanding is that short positions only account for merely 2% (or so) for all open positions on any stocks. In fact, there is a report saying that the number of short positions held on Goldman Sachs has actually DECREASED since 2008 and accelerated more in the leading weeks before its share price crashed down. Apparently, even Goldman Sachs know this but they aren't saying anything about it, but instead, nag on the government to take the blame onto the short sellers.


----------



## nunthewiser (22 September 2008)

lusk said:


> Problem is we are lead to believe in the news that this manipulation is done with borrowed stock, what would stop a hedge fund buying stock and then intentionally selling it to push the price down?
> 
> Banning short selling will not change anything, if they want to shake people out they will.




Yes and with the hegdies and other bigger fish not in there creating short entrys /covers it will be a lil bit more illiquid leading to manipualtion on a grander scale . only opinion of course but methinks the ramifications of these rash moves have not been thought through thoroughly


----------



## solomon (22 September 2008)

I will be surprised if short selling ever comes back.

Let me qualify that.

The present turmoil isn't going to disappear because helicopter Ben and friend drop near to 1 trillion dollars out of the sky. So while the danger exists of any kind of meltdown I think they might just extend the ban IMHO.


----------



## fordxbt (22 September 2008)

ban short selling creates euforia -> people gradually become interested again (interested in buying; rather than rocking in the faetal position about their loss) -> market begins to recover after scapegoat


----------



## Timmy (22 September 2008)

Temjin said:


> In fact, there is a report saying that the number of short positions held on Goldman Sachs has actually DECREASED since 2008 and accelerated more in the leading weeks before its share price crashed down.




Some pretty cluey traders at GS, might well have been short their own stock...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (23 September 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> No different than buying can be abused by big guys, imo.
> 
> If they want a stock to run they just have to place a few orders back in the queue to make it looks like buyers are building, and then if they really want they can just purchase a few lines of sell orders at once to give it increased volume and a nice price rise which will make people jump onboard.




yes but you can't force buyers as you can force sellers.


----------



## prawn_86 (23 September 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> yes but you can't force buyers as you can force sellers.




You can only force sellers if they are buying on margin (which seems very similar to naked shorts if you ask me).

Perhaps we should ban all margin lending also...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (23 September 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> You can only force sellers if they are buying on margin (which seems very similar to naked shorts if you ask me).
> 
> Perhaps we should ban all margin lending also...




And you will trigger traders with stop losses,...

Margin loans are nothing like naked shorts, Margin loans are simply just borrowing money to buy a stock and using part of the value of the stock as security for the loan, Much the same way as a people do when they buy property, they will use the property as security for the loan,


----------



## Temjin (23 September 2008)

Timmy said:


> Some pretty cluey traders at GS, might well have been short their own stock...




Heh, I'm not quite sure if they want to risk their job for doing so. But I wondered who would check?


----------



## brettc4 (23 September 2008)

Arguments on both sides of the short selling market make interesting points. It does help balance the market by allow selling to occur when investors see it turning down, but it also allows a small group to abuse short selling to a position well below what they value the stock at, simply to take advantage of someone elses margin backed position.

Should this be allowed? I would say no because the short seller in this case is not interested in buying the stock at what the general public would consider a pair price, while the person buying, is paying what they believe to be a reasonable and pair price.

This may be my simple view of it, but then again, I like simple.

Brett


----------



## alwaysLearning (23 September 2008)

Could someone please explain to me the difference between "naked short selling" and "covered short selling"?

Let me have a go and you guys tell me if I'm right:

1. Naked short selling is where you don't have to own the share, stock, or whatever it is that you are trading. You can just click on the sell icon and take a position such that you are making money as the market moves down.

2. Covered short selling is where you already own stock in a company and you then decide you want to sell some of your shares. 

3. So, can I confirm that if you were trading say the SPI 200 Futures contracts, then you can not 'short sell' at all?--Is that correct? Forgive my newbie questions...I only trade currencies and numbered item 1 is the name of the game with Forex trading and it works fine obviously. They can't put restrictions with shorting the USD lol 




> ASIC has prohibited naked and covered short selling of all securities, managed investment products and stapled securities quoted on licensed markets in Australia, subject to certain exceptions (see below). This prohibition came into effect on 19 and 22 September 2008.



http://www.asic.gov.au/ASIC/asic.ns...ASIC’s response to short selling?opendocument


----------



## chops_a_must (23 September 2008)

alwaysLearning said:


> 1. Naked short selling is where you don't have to own the share, stock, or whatever it is that you are trading. You can just click on the sell icon and take a position such that you are making money as the market moves down.



As far as I understand, a naked short is one you don't have access to, i.e. you haven't sourced the stock before selling it.

So it means a share is being "sold" without it even existing. Usually this shows up in the settlement when it can't be settled, and apparently this happens with less than 1% of all short sales.


----------



## Trembling Hand (23 September 2008)

And covered is when you borrow stock from a long term holder and sell it into the market But promise to buy it back latter to return the the original long term holder.

It is not what you have described at 2. That's just closing a long.


----------



## Trembling Hand (23 September 2008)

And all futures trading is naked, both long and shorts.



(except if you are a producer or hedger but thats not what futs are for )


----------



## alwaysLearning (24 September 2008)

Thanks guys, I understand now properly what short selling is 

It was the 'covered short selling' as TH mentions that I had a wrong understanding on but I get it now


----------



## n5032245 (14 November 2008)

there have been several stories of late that have mentioned that when the shorting ban is lifted on tuesday for non financials, that there is going to be a lack of stock to be lent out so that it can be shorted. 

i have heard that this has been happening in the states. i don't understand why there would be a shortage of stock now, as opposed to before the ban. does anyone have info/an opinion of this?


----------

