The Great Oil Swindle

The Commodity Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) is investigating trading in oil futures to determine whether the surge in prices to record levels is the result of manipulation or fraud. They might want to take a look at wheat, rice and corn futures while they’re at it. The whole thing is a hoax cooked up by the investment banks and hedge funds who are trying to dig their way out of the trillion dollar mortgage-backed securities (MBS) mess that they created by turning garbage loans into securities. That scam blew up in their face last August and left them scrounging for handouts from the Federal Reserve. Now the billions of dollars they’re getting from the Fed is being diverted into commodities which is destabilizing the world economy, driving gas prices to the moon and triggering food riots across the planet.

For months we’ve been told that the soaring price of oil has been the result of Peak Oil, fighting in Iraq, attacks on oil facilities in Nigeria, labor problems in Norway, and (the all-time favorite) growth in China. It’s all baloney. Just like Goldman Sachs prediction of $200 per barrel oil is baloney. If oil is about to skyrocket then why has G-Sax kept a neutral rating on some of its oil holdings like Exxon-Mobile? Could it be that they know that oil is just another mega-inflated equity bubble — like housing, corporate bonds and stocks — that is about to crash to earth as soon as the big players grab a parachute?

There are three things that are driving up the price of oil: the falling dollar, speculation and buying on margin.

The dollar is tanking because of the Federal Reserve’s low-interest monetary policies that have kept interest rates below the rate of inflation for most of the last decade. Add that to the $700 billion current account deficit and a National Debt that has increased from $5.8 trillion when Bush first took office to over $9 trillion today and it’s a wonder the dollar hasn’t gone “Poof” already.

According to a January 4 editorial in the Wall Street Journal: “If the dollar had remained ‘as good as gold’ since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 per barrel, not $99. ($126 per barrel today) The decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a US monetary that is supplying too many dollars.”

The price of oil has more than quadrupled since 2001, from roughly $30 per barrel to $126, WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTIONS TO SUPPLY. There’s no shortage; it’s just gibberish.

As far as “buying on margin” consider this summary from author William Engdahl:

A conservative calculation is that at least 60% of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today’s price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.

So the investment banks and their trading partners at the hedge funds can game the system for a mere eight bucks per barrel or 16-to-1 leverage. Not bad, eh?

Is it possible that gambling on oil futures might be a temptation for banks that are already underwater from a trillion dollars worth of mortgage-related deals that have “gone south” leaving the banking system essentially bankrupt?

And if the banks and hedgies are not playing this game, then where is the money coming from? I have compiled charts and graphs that show that nearly two-thirds of the big investment banks’ revenue came from the securitization of commercial and residential real estate loans. That market is frozen. Besides, this is not just a matter of “loan delinquencies” or MBS that have to be written off. The banks are “revenue starved.” How are they filling the coffers? They’re either neck-deep in interest rate swaps, derivatives trading, or gaming the futures market. Which is it?

Of course, there is one other possibility, but if that possibility turned out to be right than it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire financial system. In fact, it would prove that the system is being rigged from the top-down by our friends at the Banking Politburo, the Federal Reserve. Here goes:

What if the investment banks are trading their worthless MBS and CDOs at the Fed’s auction facilities and using the money ($400 billion) to drive up the price of raw materials like rice, corn, wheat, and oil?

Could it be? Could the Fed really be looking the other way so it can bail out its banking buddies while they drive prices skyward?

If it is true; (and I suspect it is) it hasn’t done much good. As the Associated Press reported on Friday:

The Federal Reserve announced Thursday that it will make a fresh batch of short-term cash loans available to squeezed banks as part of an ongoing effort to ease stressed credit markets. The Fed said it will conduct three auctions in June, with each one making $75 billion available in short-term cash loans. Banks can bid for a slice of the available funds. It would mark the latest round in a program that the Fed launched in December to help banks overcome credit problems so they will keep lending to customers.

Another $225 billion for the bankers and not a dime for the struggling homeowner! The Fed is bankrupting the country with their permanent rotating loans to keep reckless speculators from going under. So much for moral hazard.

As far as speculation, there is ample evidence that the system is being manipulated. According to MarketWatch:

“Speculative activity in commodity markets has grown “enormously” over the past several years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a news release. It pointed out that in five years, from 2003 to 2008, investment in the index funds tied to commodities has grown by 20-fold — to $260 billion from $13 billion.”

And here’s a revealing clip from the testimony of Michael W. Masters of Masters Capital Management, LLC, who addressed the issue of “Commodities Speculation” before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs this week:

Today, Index Speculators are pouring billions of dollars into the commodities futures markets, speculating that commodity prices will increase. . . . In the popular press the explanation given most often for rising oil prices is the increased demand for oil from China. According to the DOE, annual Chinese demand for petroleum has increased over the last five years from 1.88 billion barrels to 2.8 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels. Over the same five-year period, Index Speculatorsʼ demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels. THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM INDEX SPECULATORS IS ALMOST EQUAL TO THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM CHINA.

Index Speculators have now stockpiled, via the futures market, the equivalent of 1.1 billion barrels of petroleum, effectively adding eight times as much oil to their own stockpile as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the last five years.

Today, in many commodities futures markets, they are the single largest force.15 The huge growth in their demand has gone virtually undetected by classically-trained economists who almost never analyze demand in futures markets.

As money pours into the markets, two things happen concurrently: the markets expand and prices rise. One particularly troubling aspect of Index Speculator demand is that it actually increases the more prices increase. This explains the accelerating rate at which commodity futures prices (and actual commodity prices) are increasing. The CFTC has taken deliberate steps to allow CERTAIN SPECULATORS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE COMMODITIES FUTURES MARKETS. The CFTC has granted Wall Street banks an exemption from speculative position limits when these banks hedge over-the-counter swaps transactions. This has effectively opened a loophole for unlimited speculation. When Index Speculators enter into commodity index swaps, which 85-90% of them do, they face no speculative position limits. . . . The result is a gross distortion in data that effectively hides the full impact of Index Speculation. (Thanks to Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, the one “indispensable” financial blog on the Internet. Emphasis mine.)

Masters adds that the CFTC is pressing to make “Index Speculators exempt from all position limits” so they can make “unlimited” bets on the futures which are wreaking havoc on the global economy and pushing millions towards starvation. Of course, these things pale in comparison to the higher priority of fatting the bottom line of the parasitic investor class.

Brimming oil tankers are presently sitting off the coasts of Iran and Louisiana. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been filled. Demand is flat. The world’s biggest consumer of energy (guess who?) is cutting back . As CNN reports:

“At a time when gas prices are at an all-time high, Americans have curtailed their driving at a historic rate. The Department of Transportation said figures from March show the steepest decrease in driving ever recorded. Compared with March a year earlier, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less — that’s 11 billion fewer miles, the DOT’s Federal Highway Administration said Monday, calling it “the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history.” (CNN)

The great oil crunch is another fabricated crisis, another “smoke and mirrors” fiasco, another Enron-type shell game engineered by banksters and hedge fund managers. Once again, the bloody footprints can be traced right back to the front door of the Federal Reserve. Don’t expect help from the regulators either; they’ve all been replaced with business reps like Harvey Pitt or Hank Paulson. The only time anyone in the Bush administration finds their conscience is when they’re offered a multi-million dollar “tell all” book deal.

Can you hear me, Scotty?

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: Read other articles by Mike.

14 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. David said on June 2nd, 2008 at 10:14am #

    Thanks, Mike. The usual frothy entertainment. Only problem I had was that the main focus of this one doesn’t ring true. Here’s the problem. All trading in future contracts is done through month bound contracts. I can buy all the oil futures contracts I want for (e.g.) the month of June 2008. But come the closing day of that contract I must either liquidate those contracts or be ready to accept the actual oil. For, remember, that if I am buying the contract, there is a seller out there. Short term speculation can happen on both the sell and buy sides, but come the closing day of that contract, if the prices in those contracts are not representative of the real value of that oil, we’d see both buyers and sellers rushing to avoid loses or having to deliver/accept oil for which they own a contract.

  2. Alan said on June 2nd, 2008 at 6:02pm #

    Whether it rings true or not, it’s certainly the case that gas and other commodity prices have been driven in recent months by the infusion of cash from hedge funds taking flight from debt instruments and structured investments.

  3. rosemarie jackowski said on June 3rd, 2008 at 1:13pm #

    Thanks, Mike. Today the Congressional Hearing on the oil price “crisis” was broadcast on C-Span. No doubt that the Speculators are manipulating the market. We have been ‘Enronized’. Congress gave Wall Street the power to do this. Part of the testimony was about how Morgan-Stanley is the largest holder of oil in New England – where it is expected that people will freeze to death next winter.

  4. rosemarie jackowski said on June 3rd, 2008 at 1:23pm #

    “…In times of famine, Vladimir Ilych Lenin took a robust line on speculation. “We can’t expect to get anywhere,” he told the Petrograd Soviet in 1918, “unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot….” from the Financial Times.

  5. dan e said on June 3rd, 2008 at 3:01pm #

    David’s comment gives me hope that there are a few out there not ready to buy into the first speculative analysis offered. Mr. Whitney is very creative, but for me what his “explanation” lacks is a connection with concrete substantiated/falsifiable facts. I don’t see how his analysis is based on the historical record of transactions.

    His “commodity speculation did it all” explanation may be more plausible than Hank Paulson’s “supply & demand” faith-based Fundamentalism, or PSl/ANSWER/Becker family’s “Big Oil’s record profits in 2007 explain it all”, including why the US invaded & continues to occupy Iraq, but I for one am not satisfied.

    Not with those explanations, or any of my own speculations to this pt. I want to see a cause & effect explanation of this phenomenal price rise, based on data which meets at least minimum “scientific method” standards.

    If there’s anything like that out there, anything on any of the Marxist Highbrow sites/blogs/listserves, I hope somebody posts it here on DV where I’ll see it, or sends me a flash. This is something that demands explanation but for some reason it’s getting a lower editorial/punditorial priority than it should. ??



  6. Ingram said on June 3rd, 2008 at 5:16pm #

    The price association of anything is speculative, as is the value of money. David has a point in that oil can not easily be hoarded. What makes oil atractive (as are other comodities) is that it is of essencial value.There will always be a demand, overproduction leading to opening access by price falls to other categories of users. So we are talking of demand at a given price beyond that of production (which is very low). Only a very experienced economist would be able to accurately gauge how much slack can be taken up by industry and consumers. Alternatively we might view oil as the worlds strongest currency, which is lately of absolute importance to the manufacture of all else, and the running of every economy. Maybe we have decided to pay tribute to the fact . To what extent and for how long is another story….

  7. Diane Johnson said on June 3rd, 2008 at 5:43pm #

    Hi Dan

    you may find something at Global Research or at OnLine Journal but then they will probably agree with Mike you see economics is not an exact science 🙂

  8. hp said on June 3rd, 2008 at 9:05pm #

    Drugs are also prime indicators. Just a little harder to peruse the books.

  9. dan e said on June 4th, 2008 at 8:44am #

    Ingram’s post sounds good, but what does it MEAN?

  10. Ingram said on June 4th, 2008 at 3:29pm #

    Dan E , I don’t have a PhD so I hope you don’t think I am trying to dance the Bernanke. In other words: The value of anything is not fixed, and hence speculated, based on past transactions and future divinations. We use money as a reference and that in turn gives money its ‘value’ (gone are the days when it could be exchanged for gold from a banks vault, it is now tied to the perception of a countries economy’s worth), up a mountain its only value may be to help light a fire. Oil cannot easily be bought and stored to lower supply and increase competition and therefore prices. The oil producers can cause this effect by reducing output. On the other hand, it is plausible that speculators could buy and control such a large proportion of future supply that some sort of monopoly on prices could be achieved. People are buying at higher prices because they are afraid someone else will instead and sooner, they would then be unable to ‘fill their car to go to work the next day (no petrol)’ or at best be obliged to pay higher prices for the lesser amount of oil left on the market (which might be more hotly contested for) closer to the day they need it delivered . The idea of there being enough oil to meet demand is nonsense. There is enough oil to keep the worlds economies and world production going at a good rate. If there was more supply it would find demand – the price would reduce for the ‘excess’ and be sold off (still at some profit) to users who could not otherwise afford it. Only a very experienced economist, who has access to all the relevant data and understands the machinations of the global economy fully would be able to work out how much mankind is willing to pay for each barrel indefinately without some form of major economic upheavel (ie . businesses going bust, depressions in certain countries etc.).The price of oil has been cheap, current prices show people are prepared to pay much more, how much they can afford to remains unanswered(don’t forget the US is in competition for the supply -even if it might not afford to , another country may be able to- the world economies are so interlinked now that single failures and reajustments have a constant evolutionary effect throughout the worlds economic system – there I go again, err… the knock on effects can cause major long term readjustments of the way the worlds economies interact, as well as to how mankind behaves).
    Oil can be viewed as a currency in that ownership of it implies the certainty of being able to exchange it for other valuables (albeit indirectly using money). While paper money can be printed by the lorry full, so diminishing its authority, as well as the fact that it has an endless tendency to devalue itself due to inflation (can’t buy so much next day), oil is widely understood to be the portent of richness , and so its value is held in tune to the material benefits it bestows. In fact current prices reflect a recognition of the fact. Exactly what a constant and reasonable price would be, remains to be seen. I would seriously be prepared for some major upheavals at some point, and some return to protectionism to counteract various world economic powers abilities to control US interests….though it would only be the fault of US legislators and economists (and hence those that elected them ?) to have let it come to that, I suppose. Similar applies to most other comodities, even if that means millions are starved out of the market in some cases.

  11. dan e said on June 4th, 2008 at 5:26pm #

    Thank you, Brother “Ingram” for taking time to offer ‘ clarification’. Alas I’m sorry to say it looks to me that we’re both still in the dark.

    Many thanks also to Diane Johnson for kind words. Global Research/Chossudovsky (sic?) have been ahead of the curve often, so I’ll take your suggestion & chk the take on Gasprices. Online Journal? I usta sub to it, didn’t it go under? Has it been Born Again, resurrected, I’ll go & look, it used to be really good.

    “Experienced professional economist” is in my experience the job description of a professional bullshit artist. Far as I’m concerned this “economics” as it’s called is not a science at all, rather it is a species of Ideological Class Warfare. “Political Economy” & those who claim to practice it come off slightly better IMHO, but only slightly and only on specific occasions, since much of the time they too are F. of S.

    (Which is only natural, to be expected from people who associate with SEIU honchae & their project to spread Zionist ideological/organizational dominance into the Latin American labor movement. I’m talking about all these “Democratic Socialists”, “Communist Party USA” etc clowns, among others particpating in the current plot to subvert the Boriqueno teachers union).

    But just a quick glance gives us a few factors deserving consideration:
    1) conditions facilitating speculation by parties possessing nec. knowledge, access to credit, & freedom from other worries;

    2) some increase in global demand;

    3) possibility that major oil firms making Windfall Profits above/beyond the current avg. return on invested capital;

    4) possibility that Producers/Producing Countries are starting the whole ball of wax by demanding higher prices for the commodity when it is sold for the first time. (which fits most easily into my rule of thumb: When in Doubt, Cherchez Les Zionistes. But this hypothesis too needs to be proven so please continue to Assume Nothing.)

    It should not be impossible to nail down the impact/lack thereof of each candidate for the role of Prime Causal Factor, given the resources of a university Econ or Sociology dept, or of a major US newspaper like the NYT/LAT/CSM/WSJ. Or say the UK Guardian, Telegraph, Le Monde even? But it’s too much for me, I’m off my own focus as it is, so you got it, time for me to practice my flamadiddles & rustle up some scarf:)

    Thanks again,


  12. Ingram said on June 4th, 2008 at 7:02pm #

    Dan E , I think we are , most serious corporate transactions and dealings are kept there, we just cannot see them . Your probably right about the economist too, though there must be one decent altruistic being with a proper understanding willing to explain where and with who the mess is ? Economics is supposed to be warfare, though I still haven’t figured exactly what gets economized ? Freindship ? Goodwill ?
    If you get any closer you might find that intellectual property rights for your theories are already preowned and registered, just to make sure any challengers go down as fake copies, to the benefit of the ideological class originals…..

  13. dan e said on June 5th, 2008 at 12:33pm #

    Well Ingram, the first three of my “theories” represent positions taken by wellknown highly visible figures: two on the left symbolized for DV readers by Mike Whitney and PSL/ANSWER; the third being of course the Bush Admin/Bernanke et al Conventional Wisdom, aka the good ol’ Supply & Demand Curve, cf. the neat diagrams in your copy of Samuelson saved from Econ 101 class taken ca. 1970-sthg AAS. (Ante-“Anti-Samuelson”, written as i remember by a team of URPE members? Anyway it might help you achieve a more clarified take on “Economics” & relation of same to Science in general.)

    Re Hypothesis #4, not actually spelled out in this “comment”, I probably need to explain what I’m hypothesizing to give you a fair chance to criticize it. In a nutshell, the US’s usual hole card/savior of last resort has so far refused to come riding over the hill bugling “Fellow Worshippers, Inshallah Let Us Now Prevent Instability, that is, Let’s Increase Production, Wa Aleikum Salam, Piece Upon Yawll.” The Saud family enterprise, “Kuwait”, UAE, Qatar normally can be counted on to show up dragging Gadafi & Algeria to the party, but at the moment it seems they’re going along more with the Iranian/Venezuelan/Ecuadorian agenda than with that of Condoleeza/Bernanke/Paulson/Lameduck & Assoc.

    My guess is that recent and ongoing events in Gaza, which seldom make it onto TV News in the US but are Topic No 1 amongst residents of Fertile Crescent & adjacent areas, have a good deal to do with this uncharacteristic lack of empathy for Unca Sugar’s predicament.

    I’m dying to learn who it was who beat me to the punch on that one by nailing down the “Intellectual Propitty” rights, esp. since doesn’t seem to require a lot of intellectual capacity to figure out that there may be more than a coincidental linkage between the two anomalous phenomena, i.e., between ongoing atrocities shading over into Gradual Genocide in Gaza, and that “King Gas” station over on El Camino & Howe which yesterday was offering Unleaded Reg. for a mere U$4.35 9/10ths.
    Is it possible that Elders of the extended Saudi Royal Family could be at the moment more worried about the threat to their Regime’s stability posed by widespread outrage among their Subjects than they are about any potential for US/IMF/OECD/World Bank retaliation?

    What’s Bush/Bernanke/AIPAC gonna do, embargo sales of Military Hardware? Hehe, “Salamat, Nin Hao Ma”;)

  14. dan e said on June 5th, 2008 at 7:07pm #

    Okay, this wt I been talken bout folks. “Commodity Speckle-aters” my ass, Ralph. How long cn anybody especk these Islamic monarchists to keep usen their assets to prop up the v. buncha fellas got them in the crosshairs? Hehe, even handpickt Malaki is goen to Tehran. Ball game is changen folks, “As the Dialectic Turns”: we bein Interpenetrated:)

    Mortgaging America

    Investment funds run by foreign governments are keeping the U.S. afloat.

    By Eric J. Weiner

    05/06/08 “Los Angeles Times” — – 04/06/08 — America’s for sale. Just ask Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

    With the U.S. economy in shambles, Paulson just spent four days touring the Middle East, hat in hand, looking for investors to bail us out. Specifically, on Monday, Paulson met with heads of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the world’s largest “sovereign wealth fund” with roughly $875 billion in assets, and encouraged them to buy American businesses.

    Of course, it’s nothing new for U.S. officials to reach out to the deepest pockets in the world in times of crisis. Just a century ago, J.P. Morgan became an American icon by single-handedly rescuing the financial markets during the stock market panic of 1907.

    What is new, however, is that our economic problems have become so big that they no longer can be remedied by a few affluent individuals or investment firms. Only extremely wealthy countries have the resources to clean up this mess. So Paulson is forced to visit flush, oil-slicked Arabian emirates from Qatar to Abu Dhabi and beg for help.

    This is economic globalization in its most raw form — and a dramatic change in the way the worldwide economy operates. Today, the real power in international finance is held by rich countries, not wealthy institutions, corporations or private investors. And these countries are flexing their increasingly bulging muscles through investment vehicles known as sovereign wealth funds.

    Sovereign wealth funds, or SWFs, basically are mutual funds that invest the excess capital generated by a region or country. The first one was established by Kuwait when it still was a British territory. After World War II, as Kuwait was negotiating independence, its leader, Sheik Abdullah al Salem al Sabah, asked the British to help him create a fund that would invest the nation’s oil profits. The Kuwait Investment Board, which eventually became the Kuwait Investment Authority, today has about $250 billion in assets and is one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

    As the British Empire crumbled, the government created similar funds for many of its territories and colonies (including the islands of Kiribati, which profitably exported guano for fertilizer). Meanwhile, other countries with growing wealth started setting up similar funds, such as the oil-rich nations of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Norway and Russia, as well as China, Singapore and South Korea, which had highly productive economies that also generated lots of excess capital.

    Still, it’s only recently that SWFs have become major players on the financial stage.

    In 1990, the funds held just $500 billion in assets combined. Today, that figure is about $3.5 trillion. For comparison purposes, that’s more than all of the assets controlled by all of the hedge funds in the world. And by 2012, the figure will be at least $10 trillion, according to estimates by the International Monetary Fund.

    The primary reason for this explosion is, in a word, oil. As its price has soared from less than $25 a barrel in 2002 to more than $125 a barrel today, the value of sovereign wealth funds held by oil-rich nations has skyrocketed. And this trend isn’t expected to change any time soon.

    The new power of SWFs has been on graphic display during our recent mortgage crisis. They’ve essentially rescued the international financial system by injecting tens of billions of dollars into troubled banks. Citigroup, for instance, raised about $20 billion from a consortium of SWFs from Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Singapore. UBS secured nearly $10 billion from a Singapore fund that now controls 9% of the bank. Merrill Lynch took in about $11 billion from SWFs from Kuwait, Singapore and South Korea. And even august Morgan Stanley got $5 billion from China’s SWF.

    These investments are steadying global financial markets by ensuring that none of these key banks goes under. But there are important questions to ask about the increasing influence that sovereign wealth funds have over our economy. As SWFs grow in size, they will be in a position to control large swaths of the global business world. That means foreign governments, which control the funds, will increasingly own sizable stakes in companies in such important industries as computer technology, aerospace and biotechnology.

    These kinds of investments raise “profound questions” of geopolitical power, as former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers pointed out a few months ago at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Summers’ essential complaint is that there is no way of knowing if there is a political agenda behind a country’s investment in these essential industries.

    To that end, the International Monetary Fund is trying to draft a code of “best practices” that SWFs can adopt voluntarily. The funds generally have been resistant to the idea, although Abu Dhabi and Singapore have signed an agreement with the Treasury Department that lays out principles for the countries’ funds to be more transparent and not politicize their investments.

    But on a practical level, the growing influence of SWFs really brings up much more basic concerns. What does it mean for Americans to have decisions about our jobs, our home loans, our school loans and so on to ultimately rest with foreign governments? What does it mean to surrender this level of control over our own economy?

    The trouble is, we don’t know. And that raises perhaps the most important question of all: What if the cure to our mortgage crisis is more deadly than the disease itself?

    Eric J. Weiner is the author of “What Goes Up: The Uncensored History of Modern Wall Street as Told by the Bankers, CEOs, and Scoundrels Who Made it Happen.”
    Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

    Comments (11) Comment (0)