Print Story I am starting to believe that I am all that HuSi finds evil
By nathan (Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 12:57:12 PM EST) evil, lawyer, asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities (all tags)
First law school, now securitized debt pools. Run away!

Apparently I am going to be working with asset-backed securities for our finance group. For reference, an asset-backed security is a security whose income and collateral derive from a pool of assets. These assets are typically difficult to translate into cash due to complexity and high transaction costs. For example, the infamous mortage-backed security is a security backed by a pool of mortgages. Since a pool of mortgages is going to include mortages of varying degrees of riskiness, term, and interest rate, the pool is customarily tranched, and the tranches then become the backing assets for a securities issue.

Why would anyone want to do such a thing? For one thing, it can allow for hedging against risk, and for another, it can help debt to serve as investment capital. If your bank can securitize a mortage pool, the mortgages may be more valuable to it and that, in turn, may allow them to offer lower interest rates since they can get interest on the loan from someone other than you.

Is it a good idea? I'm darned if I know. Like any financial instrument, asset-backed securities are probably good in an environment of investment and bad in one of highly leveraged speculation. But to what degree do they contribute to speculation?

My neocon financier friend was deeply involved in the first wave of mortgage-backed securitizations in the '80's. He claims that they were good for potential homeowners in the middle class. I don't know if I agree with this, but it's not a trivial argument. It's very difficult to buy a house in many European countries.
< miscalculation: bullitt | Well, that was annoying. >
I am starting to believe that I am all that HuSi finds evil | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden)
evil can vary by georgeha (4.00 / 3) #1 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 01:05:35 PM EST
if those assets are based on shitty, subprime mortgages likely to default, yet you're rating them as solid as Treasury bonds, that's evil.

WORD. FUCKING. LIFE. by lolwhat (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 01:07:51 PM EST

If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.
[ Parent ]
I don't rate anything by nathan (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 01:42:30 PM EST
And I agree.

pretty much by gzt (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 01:54:47 PM EST
there were like 40 different things being done wrong by banks/insurers/etc with these sorts of things, but, in general, they're a good and useful thing, and you might as well have lawyers around to deal with the legal aspects of them. but it's just always struck me that the people on the mathematical end or the trading end will always be doing unsavory things with them because they have incentives to do so and not incentive not to.

[ Parent ]
the solution is obviously by nathan (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 02:00:19 PM EST
To abolish private property.

[ Parent ]
AAAAAAAARGH. by nathan (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 03:05:34 PM EST
I just received a long, technical document formatted in Comic Sans. I definitely DO NOT WANT to read 35 pages of securities law formatted in Comic Sans. This is what I want to do to the guy who invented Comic Sans:

Awesome trolling by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 03:14:28 PM EST
Do the guidelines prohibit submitting docs in Comic Sans?

[ Parent ]
the 'wanting to keep your job as a lawyer' ones do by nathan (4.00 / 0) #8 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 03:22:16 PM EST
But apparently this was assembled by an oldish paralegal.

I don't mean to say anything bad about paralegals - most don't like Comic Sans, I assume, since they're decent human beings with feelings and minds. There's a certain kind of person, though, who just has no soul and sees nothing wrong with submitting a document with Comic Sans throughout, just as a certain sort of person doesn't mind crapping with the door open or throwing candy bar wrappers on my lawn or eating Spam straight from the can with their fingers.

[ Parent ]
Comic Sans is the font of HR & Marketing: by ammoniacal (4.00 / 0) #9 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 04:07:40 PM EST
a.k.a. Women

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Trouble by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 05:01:32 PM EST
I see a couple of fundamental problems with securitization of debt:
  1. The main reason that RMBS was so attractive to large investors is that it gave them the higher interest rates (compared with, say, government bonds) associated with mortgage loans (which are justified by the notion that an individual homebuyer is more likely to default than a government), but without any of the hassle risk.  Well, where did the risk go?  I'm not an economist, but I'm extremely suspicious of the highly counterintuitive idea that risk can somehow be managed away.
  2. When the people who are originating the loans aren't going to be the ones ultimately holding the bag if the borrowers default, there just no fundamental motivation to do a good job of figuring out who is a good risk and who isn't.
Frankly, the very name "securities" implies a level of safety that probably doesn't exist.  I kind of have the same problem with "bonds" (I heard a piece on Planet Money from a fairly radical economist who thinks that we should outlaw corporate bonds...if you want to invest in a company, buy stock and get dividends.  You know the stock could go up or down, so you'll probably be careful...maybe not put your whole life savings into one company.  But with a bond, you have an expectation that the money is unrealistic expectation.

I think there's a lot of reasons why it's harder to buy a house in is scarcer, transportation is hard to come buy, labor is more expensive, code enforcement is probably stricter, etc. 

fortunately for me, by nathan (2.00 / 0) #11 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 06:03:57 PM EST
These are apparently securities backed by auto loans.

But with a bond, you have an expectation that the money is unrealistic expectation.

Bonds, like all corporate debt, are senior to equity. So bonds are more secure than equity.

Your economist wants to abolish the practice of lending money to corporations. I'm not an economist either, but this sounds like it would have some serious unintended consequences. Corporations use debt for all kinds of things that we probably don't want them to use equity for.

If corporations could only raise money by selling products or selling equity, they would sometimes have to sell equity instead of, for instance, issuing commercial paper in order to make payroll. This would strongly favor less cyclical industries over more cyclical ones and established companies over new ones. It would also give corporations a strong incentive to retain entire years' worth of earnings in war chests since, given a weak quarter, they'd either have to go bust or immediately dilute their equity. If that happened, it would remove huge amounts of capital from useful circulation.

Given the greatly increased risk of equity dilution, I think it would likely lead to a new generation of insane leveraged corporate raids that would make Pickens and Branson blush. That would be really bad for average people.

I'm not an expert in RMBS, but I think you're wrong to say that it allowed large investors to avoid risk. A tranched pool of mortgages has the same aggregate risk before and after the tranching, unless the rating of the tranches is corrupted, which is what others are referring to in earlier posts.

One of my corporate law profs pointed out that major changes in corporation and securities law are usually populist and reactive. It seems to me that the mere presence of mortgage-backed securities at the center of a particular episode abuse in the financial system says nothing in particular about whether asset-backed securities are, in principle, something we want to allow.

[ Parent ]
Well, you're right by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #12 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 06:25:39 PM EST
it would force companies to keep a lot of capital around.  And that would probably slow the economy down.  But it would be safer.  Just like I could have a much better lifestyle if I spent every single penny I earned, but I would be completely fucked if I lost my job.

I'm not sure the economist in question would want to get rid of commercial paper.  It's a lot easier for a commercial paper lender to assess the near-term (<30,60,90 days...I'm not sure where the cutoff between commercial paper and bonds typically is in terms of loan duration) financial health of a company than it is to figure out if they will be able to pay you back five years down the road.

I misspoke when I said that the primary attraction of RMBS was risk reduction.  It's labor reduction and hassle reduction.  As it was put in The Giant Pool of Money, large investors don't want to be bothered with running credit reports, doing surveys and appraisals, gathering employment history, and getting "mixed up with individual people and their divorces and their catastrophic health issues".  But it seems to me that if somebody really is doing all that work and going to all that hassle and doing it well, that that somebody would want to hold on to the mortgage and collect the 5% a year for 30 years, rather than selling it on to other people.

[ Parent ]
I agree with your corporate law prof... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 11:03:13 AM EST
but want to comment on this:
I'm not an expert in RMBS, but I think you're wrong to say that it allowed large investors to avoid risk. A tranched pool of mortgages has the same aggregate risk before and after the tranching, unless the rating of the tranches is corrupted, which is what others are referring to in earlier posts.
Yes, it has the same aggregate risk, but nobody looks at the lower tranches. Large investors were buying the higher-rated tranches. The collapse showed that the whole idea of rating and tranching is mostly a lie, at least when looking at this particular product.

[ Parent ]
that's a good point by nathan (2.00 / 0) #27 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30:17 AM EST
And I'm not against regulating any particular vehicle or strategy.

Consider, though, that tranching and rating hasn't been so bad in other areas, like auto loans or heavy equipment leasing. It would be weird if the particular corrupt practices in one industry led to a general ban on that practice elsewhere.

Personally, I feel that the home mortgage market was, like the education market, entirely corrupted. Whatever financial vehicles enabled it, the basic problems were elsewhere, for instance, in easy money, favorable tax treatment, the prosperity "gospel," the ripple effects of politicization, and so forth. At bottom, we had more people nominally owning bigger and allegedly-but-not-really "better" houses than they could in fact afford, the rest is details.

For what it's worth, I live in an 800 sq ft Levittown-style house with a carport and a slab foundation. Houses like that were invented for a reason. The average housing start in the USA before the crash was 2400 sq ft. Wow!

[ Parent ]
yeah, problems all around. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:03:50 PM EST
I don't know about HuSi by lm (2.00 / 0) #13 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 06:45:50 PM EST
But Aristotle says that it's at least a stupid idea, if not downright harmful.

But he was full of silly assertions. For example, thought that the world would be a better place if cities were limited to about 5,000 households or so.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
I agree that problems of scale are serious by nathan (2.00 / 0) #14 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 07:01:55 PM EST
The difficulty is that economic sophistication requires a large, concentrated population, cf the Tasmanians' loss of technologies over time.

Was Aristotle opposed to all lending at interest, or did he have a specific complaint against backing loans with assets? I know the blurb in Politics I.X, but it's not really fleshed out and I have trouble finding a telos in money.

[ Parent ]
What he had the largest problem with by lm (2.00 / 0) #15 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 08:01:40 PM EST
... is multiple layers of abstraction. Although he also had problems with lending at interest and, even, the so-called "money maker's art." The ideal household for him was a mostly self-sufficient homestead. Capitalism and banking were both things to be avoided as far as possible.

Your point about money not having a telos is precisely his point. The telos of money is artificial. Consequently, unlike other goods, its acquisition has no natural limit and an appetite for it, once developed, can never be sated.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
i'm not up on aristotelian terminology by nathan (2.00 / 0) #16 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 09:31:08 PM EST
But the distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural' social institutions seems kind of strained to me. Is Aristotle equally suspicious of, eg, technological knowledge? If he is, are you willing to extend the same suspicion to technology as you would to money?

I'd love to read a source on this. I don't know much about Aristotle.

[ Parent ]
How could you have a monetary science ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #17 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 10:27:42 PM EST
... if money has no telos (end, purpose)? In the Aristotelean framework, the various sciences (episteme) are the study of the four causes of various forms of being. Without a telos (a final end), it is tautological that money can have no final cause. If it has no final cause, it cannot have a formal cause and without a formal cause, it cannot have a material cause and without a material cause, you can't have an efficient cause.

But what you can have is an art (techne). Just as chairs do not exist in nature, and consequently there can be no natural science of chairs, one can nevertheless have an art of chair manufacturing. This art can draw from the physical sciences, that is to say, mastery of the art may require study of such things as tensile strength, supporting loads, balance, etc. But that doesn't make an art into a science, it just means that the art is dependent on science. When push comes to shove, "chairness" is something that an artisan foists upon some manner of material. It is not something natural, the only telos (end, purpose, intention) stems from the mind of its creator rather than something that is naturally present in the chair. (The discussion most relevant to this is probably the discussion over what a science is in the Metaphysics.)

The other consideration comes from utility. If someone were to say that they want a chair for the sake of having a chair, most people would look at at that person as if she were a bit daft. Usually if someone wants a chair, he only wants it in order to have something to sit in or in order to have something for guests to sit in. The chair considered as nothing but a chair has no inherent value. It's value comes from its utility.

Money is one step removed even from chairs. Yes, money is a tool that can be useful. But its utility is not the same form of utility as with a chair. (An obvious exception would be in bartering where a chair effectively becomes money.) Money has no physical component in the way that a chair does. You might say that money is closer to a perfect abstraction than a chair is and with the advent of electronic banking, we've created the ultimate in abstraction of the already abstract.

Money's only purpose is to be used to acquire other things. So it is a horrible mistake once somebody starts seeking out money for its own sake. (This is probably the discussion in the Politics that you referred to. It's from I.3 and has a parallel treatment in the Ethics V.5.)

But to get back to credit default swaps and the like, you've got a physical object (real estate). Then you've got an abstraction of that object (title). Then you've got an abstract device (a mortgage) that represents loaning an abstraction (money) to a borrower to secure an abstraction (title). This abstract device, in turn, is used as security for a loan making it an abstraction of an abstraction. And the layers keep getting deeper and deeper, more difficult to unpack, and prone to manipulation.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
i feel dumb posting this, as if I'm missing by nathan (2.00 / 0) #18 Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 11:42:27 PM EST
Several points, but I am still confused because I don't consider money any more or less natural than the artifacts of physical sciences.

Isn't this just a boneheaded position, since the physical sciences are episteme (studies of causes in nature,) while money is not present in nature? But in my opinion, that line of reasoning seems to beg the question of whether people are capable of being outside of nature. If you think human beings are in some sense natural creatures, which is a position preliminary to any possible social science, then money is no less natural than language or science or any other sophisticated, abstract human institution or behavior.

To argue it from a different direction, if I am reading you right (which I'm probably not, since I'm horrendously ignorant,) Aristotle draws a fundamental distinction between sciences and arts. But I think it's far from clear that any particular science is an episteme in any sense beyond the aspirational. If the physical sciences and the social sciences are both techne, then the concept of an episteme is not useful for distinguishing between the study of money and the study of technology (and language, and dance, and marriage, and all the other human activities in general.)

I would argue, contra Aristotle, that exchange is natural to man and that there is no discontinuity in essence between primitive trade and sophisticated trade. Indeed, our modern money laws are not basically customary law; if they were, it would hardly make sense to criticize them at all, given Aristotle's point of view. But instead, they are closer than we have ever come to a science of trade, that is, to a system allowing us to glimpse the fundamental human nature underlying trade unobscured by the accidents of particular initial conditions.

[ Parent ]
I think you mostly get it by lm (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:53:57 AM EST
The first sentence starts out wrong. The natural sciences, in Aristotle's view, don't have artifacts. They are investigations into what is natural. The only artifacts involved would be forms of art that are constructed in order to aid the investigation (microscopes and so forth) which are not functions of science but of craftsmanship.

You can attack his view two ways. One is to deny that nature has any purpose at all, and consequently, there is no real distinction between artifice and science. This would be the underlying supposition of your middle paragraph. The other attack would be to say that money is not an artifact but something natural. This is the substance of your last paragraph.

I think the first objection is stronger than the second.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
While on my morning run ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #22 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 07:47:48 AM EST
... it occurred to me that the simplest way to put it is that Aristotle would say that you're conflating technology (money, derivatives, etc.) with science (the study of commerce). Even if exchange is natural, that tells us nothing about whether the tools used for exchange are natural.

Or put another way, the study of sicks used as shovels is not part of the physical sciences but belongs to the art of shovel making. Sticks are natural. Digging is natural. But the use of sticks to dig is artificial.

This difference, in the Aristotelean framework, is because sticks have a natural purpose as sticks. But in order to be used as a shovel, it requires that a rational mind of some sort impose that purpose onto the stick.

So, like I mentioned above, you can collapse this distinction in two ways. The first is to argue that sticks have no natural purpose (no telos). The second is say that all human purposes for artifacts naturally inhere in said artifacts (a stick is by its very nature also a shovel and a rock is by its very nature also a murder weapon).

I think the second approach is problematic in a number of ways. The first one is has much stronger arguments behind it. Thinkers as far apart as Quine and Nietzsche have put forth some rather famous variations on the idea that nature has no inherent purpose.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
In the modern era . . . by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 01:15:27 AM EST
the pursuit of war would be severely curbed. Far too costly without the current tax base.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
A key point is that... by Metatone (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 03:58:25 AM EST
the problem with asset-backed securities is at the systems level, not the individual product level.

Individual asset-backed securities can be positive products all round... but at the system level once there are too many ASBs in circulation you get non-linear effects, in part because of the way they obscure information (by adding layers of abstraction), in part because of the way they distribute risk.

And contra the pro-ASB camp, they do distribute risk in ways that are predictably bad - although of course it only matters if they reach critical mass.

The extra problem is that as a common good, we can't just say "X million ASBs created a year, first come, first served" - that's unfair, ~Goldman Sachs would hoover them all up and your friend would be upset. So the solution is to raise the price... tax them... but then of course your friend makes less profit from them... and is still upset...

this all sounds very reasonable by nathan (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:14:06 AM EST

But it also sounds like the basic problem, as you see it, is just the complexity of the instrument. But complex societies require complex instruments or, at least insofar as they don't use them, they are leaving money on the table.

Not that anyone would care what my opinion is, but I'm personally in favor of a tightly regulated financial market. On the other hand, so long as there is money to be made, side contracts would always seek to replicate the complexity of current instruments.

Perhaps simple, structural reforms could strike a better balance than the present one between financial complexity and its externalities, but I wonder if this isn't simply part of the price of progress. (Progress in the netural sense of increased sophistication, size, and economic specialization, not in a value-laden sense.)

[ Parent ]
regulations by garlic (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:38:03 AM EST
to make sure information is flowing relatively freely about the risk of instruments and regulations minimizing the ability of a company failing to screw up the entire economy (through making them smaller, or making them take less risk) seem like the right route to me.

[ Parent ]
yeah, but the devil is in the details by nathan (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 11:13:31 AM EST
I have on my desk an 80-page prospectus summary for securitization on the order of $900M. The securitization documents themselves are hundreds of pages long and it's possible that no single person understands all the details of all of them. It's very easy for some amount of risk to be lost in the shuffle, even though we disclose everything possible. (The disclosure portion even discusses systematic risk in the economy and the industry at some length - this is relatively new, admittedly.)

Disclosure only works if the problem is concealment; if the problem is, instead, complexity, then no amount of disclosure will be a remedy.

Capping the size of businesses by law limits complexity on one front, in the same way that capping the population of a town by law would tend to limit its physical size and its degree of economic specialization. But that might also have unintended consequences, like encouraging complex business association side contracts or favoring certain low-capitalization businesses. Caps would also have to take into account minimum standards of size for particular industries (it would be bad to force 10 small companies to combine to run a nuclear reactor) and any cap high enough to allow for this would also be high enough to support most of the bad things going on right now and in the recent past.

[ Parent ]
disclosure by garlic (4.00 / 1) #33 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:44:41 PM EST
I think disclosure is important for things like Credit Default Swaps more than for collatorized debt securities.

[ Parent ]
The "money on the table" myth... by Metatone (2.00 / 0) #28 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 11:53:27 AM EST
is just that... a myth... At the system level these attempts to utilise complexity to "stop leaving money on the table" have destroyed 10 to 100 times the wealth they "created."

These complex contracts enable certain people to make money. Those people whine mightily at the notion that they might not be allowed to make that money, in just the same way that factory owners whine when they are forced to stop polluting the local river with effluent.

Can you police every factory? Can you police every side deal?

Clearly not... you just have to set standards and enforce them with appropriate viciousness, which keeps the dirty trade at low levels.

I'm doing my best to sound less reasonable here in the hope that you will see how much your views are shaped by the company you keep. There's nothing inevitable or "price of progress" about this. There's a set of people who make money off these constructs who want to claim that it aids the economy. There's no evidence for that. So why let them pollute the river?

Complexity exists. Society exists to tame it. Guilds of people who made money out of that complexity no longer have an easy ride and have to find new jobs. That's the real "price of progress..."


[ Parent ]
i don't disagree with any of this by nathan (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:30:36 PM EST
I should just make a macro for that phrase.

At the system level these attempts to utilise complexity to "stop leaving money on the table" have destroyed 10 to 100 times the wealth they "created."

I'm not sure what you mean by "these people." If you mean that financial instruments as a whole do more harm than good, I'm not even sure if I disagree with that. But financial instruments do some good to someone, and over various periods probably do more good than harm, so the case for banning them requires a very strong showing that is probably too hard for anyone to make even if it is in fact true.

As for my views being shaped by the company I keep, I think that statement verges on a kind of Bulverism (ie, assuming that I have an incorrect belief and going on to explain why I hold it.) Since I've been very reluctant to take strong positions pro or con anything in my corporate law diaries, it seems odd to appeal to motives one way or the other.

What I will say as that as a law student, I feel like I have a certain amount of appreciation for why things are the way they are - enough that I am intensely skeptical of reform in principle. Many attempts at legal reforms have foundered, not from greed or corruption, but simply from moralizing the problem or ignoring the reasons it arose. The ugly truth is that any formal system of law will have abuses baked into it.

But granting your premise - that some financial contracts are inherently bad in form, not merely in substance or in attendant corruption - I'd be interested in hearing which types of contracts those are, and what reforms you propose. Some reforms are good ideas and prove themselves extremely effective.

[ Parent ]
People who manage money by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #35 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:05:10 PM EST
ought to subscribe to "First, do no harm."

The heads of the Gordon Gekkos of the world should be stuck on pikes at every block.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
there aren't that many Gekkos in the real world by nathan (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:07:08 PM EST

Just got off a call with an investor. It's... a teacher's pension fund.

[ Parent ]
evil? by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #30 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 12:55:40 PM EST
Nobody at husi found me evil when I went to law school - or at least they didn't say so - so I doubt that's sufficient to get them to think you're evil, either.

I wouldn't choose to work with asset-backed securities, but if you're enjoying it, power to you. :)

Nor would I call them evil; it depends on the assets involved and what's being done with them. (Securities backed by guano would have been powerful things at one time, until the market in guano collapsed).

Anyhow: please to not be projecting judgments onto us. :)

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

I don't judge anyone by nathan (2.00 / 0) #31 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:16:52 PM EST
But be honest, no love lost for lawyers or corporations or lawyers who work for corporations...

[ Parent ]
odd. by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #42 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:01:56 PM EST
your sample set is skewed. or mine is.

there's some anti-corporate mindset here, sure.

but husi is, as a whole, less anti-corporate than my social network.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
don't you live in the bay area? by nathan (2.00 / 0) #43 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:10:32 PM EST
front page poll idea by garlic (2.00 / 0) #34 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 02:55:22 PM EST
since my who's getting the most sexxored idea didn't fly: who's the most evil on the site.

nathan: corporate lawyer
garlic: defense contractor
ammoniacal: love'em and leave'em -er
chuckles: racist
cam: too fit to be good
evilpickles: it's in the name
hulver : waster of all our job's times through site creation

[ Parent ]
Hardly the worst of my sins. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:15:14 PM EST
You cut me. You really do.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
with the knife of love. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:52:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WIPO: ObviousTroll by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 04:38:09 PM EST
cause he's Conservative (or the closest thing to a Conservative here).

Or is that breaker, or sasquatchan.

[ Parent ]
Should I move back to Canada, by nathan (2.00 / 0) #39 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:08:19 PM EST
I'll likely join the Conservative Party. So that makes me double evil. (Most corporate lawyers are Democrats, though.)

[ Parent ]
Not really by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #40 Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:48:03 PM EST
Canadians are cute and innocuous, not evil at all.

[ Parent ]
I am starting to believe that I am all that HuSi finds evil | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden)