Basel Banking Committee Ready to “Strangle” Economy

real-agenda.com

The World Financial Order is almost complete. New measures will keep bailout monies in banks’ coffers, increase interests on loans while reducing credit availability.

A group of un-elected regulators has come to an agreement on how to strangle the global economy even further, while presenting their package of measures as “saving” policies” for a coming financial crisis.  The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision -current owners-  established more rules to exercise tighter controls on banks and the very financial system they managed to break by design.

At the top of the list, Jean Claude Trichet, warns that the no implementation of these policies would let banks free to do anything they want -he himself is a banker- and that the new rules would secure bank reserves for difficult financial times.  The package of rules was adopted on Sunday, and it has a very clear goal: “To protect International Economies”.  This confirms the group’s intention to establish a global financial system headed by no other than themselves.  Such Order would abide by their rules no matter what effects such rules have over individual national economies.

According to their published document, banks will have to triple their cash reserves -from 2 to 7 percent- which in their minds would act as a cushion for difficult times or when banks invest in junk financial products.  That amount is in itself ridiculous, if one takes into account that banks’ investments in dubious financial products is many times larger than 7 percent.  What this measure will do is to give banks an excuse to increase interest rates on loans and reduce their loan spending programs.  The reduction in available credit will achieve a goal the bankers had yearned for and that could not accomplish through the failed cap & trade fraudulent scheme: to bring global economic activity to a halt.

“The agreements reached today are a fundamental strengthening of global capital standards,” said Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank and chairman of the banking supervision group.  Trichet commanded the group dismissing some bankers concerns that these new measures will require them to curtail credit, which in turn would cripple economic growth. He said the new rules would “contribute to long-term financial stability and growth will be substantial.”  Other bankers sided with Trichet, saying the modest effect on growth or borrowing would be a small price to pay for a less explosive financial system.

What these new rules would achieve -if anything- is the legalization of bad investments, as banks will not have to worry about how to pay for loses.  They will have large amounts of money from investors to cover their backs.  In addition, banks will continue to count on nation states to make up for any shortfalls, as more bailouts for troubled banks have not been taken off the table.  The new rules issued by the group that includes former Goldman Sachs executive Ben Bernanke, will be approved in November by the G-20 before they are handed over to individual countries before they become binding.  Nation-states will have until January 1, 2013 to adapt to the new rules.

“Banks will unarguably be safer institutions,” said Anders Kvist, representative of SEB, a bank that operates out of Stockholm.  Shouldn’t Nation-states have the prerogative to regulate banks operating in their territories?  Meanwhile, bankers continue to point out the new measures will reduce the amount of available credit for borrowers but were not bothered by the other side of the coin: Centralized Control.  That is what this is all about.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, again, a group of un=elected bankers mandates banks to “protect themselves” when they invest in financial instruments of dubious origin.  How about letting banks operate freely and collapse if they have to, due to their irresponsible investment practices?  The new provisions, called a leverage ratio, will obligate banks to hold reserves against all their money at risk.  That is like the nanny global order telling their children not to pick their noses in public.

Of course, there are those to whom global financial regulation is never enough.  Some G-8 countries were pushing for an additional 2.5 percent increase, during “good times” of economic overheating. According to the document released by the group, the rules would be adopted gradually to give banks time to adjust.  Some of the measures will not take effect until 2019, with banks having to start raising cash in 2013.  Too little too late?

The Basel Regulators left the door open to imposing stricter rules on “important” banks, whose problems -irresponsibilities- can infect the whole financial system.  The banksters’ representatives in the US -The FED, FDIC- issued a common statement saying the agreement is a significant step towards reducing the occurrence of future financial crises.  Although Nation-states still have the ability to reject these new regulations and create and approve some of their own, the international financial order has been clear that failure to adopt their newest package of rules will be punishable with harsh changes in credit availability, large increases in interest rates and overall restrictions for financial aid.  Once the new polices are adopted they become binding and countries cannot abandon them.

In the meantime, the Basel group will allow banks to continue to receive government bailout money to raise capital through 2017.  Those banks that are not capable of raising enough cash may be obligated to merge or perish as part of the consolidation and control package the regulators have in mind.  Only in the US, it is estimated that some 400 banks are on the brink of failure.

Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt said it intends to sell shares for 9.8 billion euros to increase its reserves.  Other banks that will do the same include Société Générale -a bailed out bank- in France and Lloyds in Britain. The rules imposed by the Basel Group also include paying banks -with taxpayer money- to dispose of toxic assets such as derivatives.

El Capital que es Vendido en el Extranjero es USTED

El estado del sistema económico no es bueno”.  “Nuestro déficit de comercio es muy grande”.

“No podemos volver a ser imprudentes con el gasto”.

¡Nuestra deuda aumentará!  ¡Estamos en camino a la quiebra!

George Orwell escribió una vez que el gran enemigo del lenguaje claro es la insinceridad. Cuando hay una diferencia entre nuestros objetivos reales y esos que decimos son nuestros objetivos, instintivamente buscamos palabras confusas y expresiones trilladas; como un calamar expulsando tinta.

Usted probablemente escuchó frases confusas como el déficit comercial, la desvalorización de la moneda, la deuda nacional, responsabilidades o programas sin financiamiento y así por el estilo. Todo esto parece tan vago y actuario. Simplemente no tiene sentido! La realidad detrás de estas frases es perfectamente monstruosa.

Cuando alguien -por ejemplo un extranjero- presta dinero al gobierno, ¿qué es lo que ganan, cuál es su beneficio? Bueno, ellos reciben promesas de pagos en forma de interéses y el pago eventual del préstamo original. ¿De dónde su gobierno obtiene este dinero para pagar? El gobierno no es un negocio, no genera ganancias en un mercado libre. Entonces, ¿De dónde saca el dinero para pagar a sus prestamistas? ¿Comienza usted a entender que no son dólares o bonos o deuda lo que se está intercambiando o vendiendo?

¿De dónde el gobierno va a obtener el dinero para pagar a sus prestamistas? No es papel moneda o contratos o cantidades en una computadora lo que determina que se intercambia o vende. Solo existe una cosa que el gobierno puede para vender. Los gobiernos solo tienen un activo que ellos pueden usar como colateral. Su gobierno, sus líderes, están vendiendolo a USTED.

Cuando China le presta $800 millones de dólares a un gobierno, lo que ellos reciben a cambio es una garantía que recibirán $10.000 dólares -más interéses- los cuales serán robados de USTED y su FAMILIA; a punta de pistola si es necesario, y serán enviados al extranjero. Cuando un hacendado obtiene un préstamo del banco, él usa su ganado como colateral. Es la carne y leche que su ganado producirán en el futuro lo que él utilizará para pagar el préstamo.

En realidad, lo que el banco hace es comprar parte de la propiedad del hacendado, y en la realidad de hoy, USTED es ese ganado que sus líderes usan como colateral. Los líderes que USTED apoya y elige cada cuatro años; esos a los que usted dona dinero y tiempo en las campañas políticas, lo están vendiendo a los prestamistas. No importa si estos prestamistas son Chinos, Japoneses, o Sur Americanos. Todos estos señores feudales con cuentas en bancos caribeños y que residen en Rusia, Korea, Egipto, Colombia, Chile, Filipinas, Malasia o cualquier otro lugar. Cualquiera que este dispuesto a darles unos cuantos dólares a cambio de la sangre, el sudor y un pedazo del futuro por el cual USTED lucha cada día.

La bandera que USTED respeta y el himno que USTED canta, los líderes que USTED sigue y delante de los cuales USTED se arrodilla, tienen tan poca lealtad hacia USTED, como un señor feudal tenía hacia sus esclavos. Y desgraciadamente, los esclavos tenían más orgullo que nosotros. Los esclavos del sistema feudal no alababan a sus Dueños cuando eran vendidos, o cuando subastaban las vidas, esperanza, sueños y el futuro de sus niños.

Podemos entender porque el ganado lame la mano de su dueño, quien usa un hacha para cortar su cuello, porque el ganado son animales estúpidos que no entienden la realidad de su relación con su dueño, y sus planes inminentes para ellos. ¿Cuál es nuestra excusa? Cuando cantamos el nombre de los políticos; cuando aplaudimos y apoyamos y nos postramos y lloramos de felicidad porque un nuevo Dueño ha llegado para desmantelar y vender el futuro de nuestra familia; cuando adoramos con estupidez obsesiva a nuestros líderes, quienes se burlan de nosotros mientras nos subastan a cualquier dictador y agente de bolsa alrededor del mundo; ¿Cuál es nuestra excusa?

¿Será que nuestro orgullo ha sido destruído y transformado en una alegría patética la cual demostramos cada vez que un nuevo demagogo de sangre azul aparece pretendiendo que le interesamos? En el futuro, nuestros hijos preguntarán porque nos arrodillamos y celebramos mientras ellos eran vendidos al mejor postor. Este texto -y mi trabajo para “despertar” a la mayor cantidad de gente- es mi respuesta. ¿Cuál es la suya?

$1.2 Quadrillion Derivatives Market Dwarfs World GDP

AOL Finance

One of the biggest risks to the world’s financial health is the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market. It’s complex, it’s unregulated, and it ought to be of concern to world leaders that its notional value is 20 times the size of the world economy. But traders rule the roost — and as much as risk managers and regulators might want to limit that risk, they lack the power or knowledge to do so.

A quadrillion is a big number: 1,000 times a trillion. Yet according to one of the world’s leading derivatives experts, Paul Wilmott, who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics from Oxford University (and whose speaking voice sounds eerily like John Lennon’s), $1.2 quadrillion is the so-called notional value of the worldwide derivatives market. To put that in perspective, the world’s annual gross domestic product is between $50 trillion and $60 trillion.

To understand the concept of “notional value,” it’s useful to have an example. Let’s say you borrow $1 million to buy an apartment and the interest rate on that loan gets reset every six months. Meanwhile, you turn around and rent that apartment out at a monthly fixed rate. If all your expenses including interest are less than the rent, you make money. But if the interest and expenses get bigger than the rent, you lose.

You might be able to hedge this risk of a spike in interest rates by swapping that variable rate of interest for a fixed one. To do that you’d need to find a counter party who has an asset with a fixed rate of return who believed that interest rates were going to fall and was willing to swap his fixed rate for your variable one.

The actual cash amount of the interest rates swaps might be 1% of the $1 million debt, while that $1 million is the “notional” amount. Applying that same 1% to the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market would leave a cash amount of the derivatives market of $12 trillion — far smaller, but still 20% of the world economy.

Getting a Handle on Derivatives Risk

How big is the risk to the world economy from these derivatives? According to Wilmott, it’s impossible to know unless you understand the details of the derivatives contracts. But since they’re unregulated and likely to remain so, it is hard to gauge the risk.

But Wilmott gives an example of an over-the-counter “customized” derivative that could be very risky indeed, and could also put its practitioners in a position of what he called “moral hazard.” Suppose Bank 1 (B1) and Bank 2 (B2) decide to hedge against the risk that Bank 3 (B3) and Bank 4 (B4) might fail to repay their debt to B1 and B2. To guard against that, B1 and B2 might hedge the risk through derivatives.

In so doing, B1 and B2 might buy a credit default swap (CDS) on B3 and B4 debt. The CDS would pay B1 and B2 if B3 and B4 failed to repay their loan. B1 and B2 might also bet on the decline in shares of B3 and B4 through a short sale.

At that point, any action that B1 and B2 might take to boost the odds that B3 and B4 might default would increase the value of their derivatives. That possibility might tempt B1 and B2 to take actions that would boost the odds of failure for B3 and B4. As I wrote back in September 2008 on DailyFinance’s sister site, BloggingStocks, this kind of behavior — in which hedge funds pulled their money out of banks whose stock they were shorting — may have contributed to the failures of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

It’s also the sort of conduct that makes it extremely difficult to estimate the risk of the derivatives market.

How Positive Feedback Loops Crash Markets

Another kind of market conduct that makes markets volatile is what Wilmott calls positive and negative feedback loops. These relatively bland-sounding terms mask some really scary behavior for investors who are not clued into it. Wilmott argues that a positive feedback loop contributed to the 22.6% crash in the Dow back in October 1987.

In the 1980s, a firm run by some former academics came up with the idea of portfolio insurance.

Their idea was that if investors are worried about their assets losing value, they can buy puts — the option to sell their investments at pre-determined prices. They can sell everything — which would be embarrassing if the market then started to rise — or they could sell a fixed proportion of their portfolio depending on the percentage decline in a particular stock market index.

This latter idea is portfolio insurance. If the Dow, for example, fell 3%; it might suggest that investors should sell 20% of their portfolio. And if the Dow fell 20%, it would indicate that investors should sell 100% of their portfolio.

That positive feedback loop — in which a stock price decline leads to more selling — boosts market volatility. Portfolio insurance causes more investors to sell as the market declines by, say 3%, which causes an even deeper plunge in the value of investors’ holdings. And that deeper decline leads to more selling. Before you know it, many investors are selling everything.

The portfolio insurance firm started off with $5 billion, but as its reputation spread, it ended up managing $50 billion. In 1987, that was a lot of money. So when that positive feedback loop got going, it took the Dow down 22.6% in a day.

The big problem back then was the absence of a sufficient number of traders using a negative feedback loop strategy. With a negative feedback loop, a trader would sell stocks as they rose and buy them as they declined. With a negative feedback loop strategy, volatility would be far lower.

Unfortunately, data on how much money has been going into negative and positive feedback loop strategies is not available. Therefore, it’s hard to know how the positive feedback loops have gained such a hold on the market.

But it is not hard to imagine that if a particular investor made huge amounts of money following a positive feedback loop strategy, other investors would hear about it and copy it. Moreover, the way traders get compensated suggests that it’s better for them to take more and more risk to replicate what their peers are doing.

Traders Make More Money By Following the Pack

There is a clear economic incentive for traders to follow what their peers are doing. According to Wilmott, to understand why, it helps to imagine a simplified example of a trading floor. Picture yourself as a new college graduate joining a bank’s trading floor with 100 traders. Those 100 traders each trade $10 million: They “win” if a coin toss lands on heads and “lose” if it lands on tails. But now imagine you’ve come up with a magic coin that has a 75% chance of landing on heads — you can make a better bet than the other 100 traders with their 50-50 coin.

You might think that the best strategy for you would be to bet your $10 million on that magic coin. But you’d be wrong. According to Wilmott, if the magic coin lands on a head but the other 100 traders flip tails, the bank loses $1 billion while you get a relatively paltry $10 million.

The best possible outcome for you is a 37.5% chance that everyone makes money (the 75% chance of you tossing heads multiplied by the 50% chance of the other traders getting a head). If instead, you use the same coin as everyone else on the floor, the probability of everyone getting a bonus rises to 50%.

When Traders Say ‘Jump,’ Risk Managers Ask ‘How High?’

Traders are a huge source of profit on Wall Street these days and they have an incentive to bet together and to bet big. According to Wilmott, traders get a bonus based on the one-year profits of those on their trading floor. If the trading floor makes big money, all the traders get a big bonus. And if it loses money, they get no bonus — but at least they don’t have to repay their capital providers for the losses.

Given that bonus structure, a trader is always better off risking $1 billion than $1 million. So if the trader, who is the king of the hill at the bank, asks a lowly risk manager to analyze how much risk the trader is taking, that risk manager is on the spot. If the risk manager comes back with a risk level that limits how big a bet the trader can take, the trader will demand that the risk manager recalculate the risk level lower so the trader can take the bigger bet.

Traders also manipulate their bonuses by assuming the existence of trading profits before they are actually realized. This happens when traders get involved with derivatives that will not unwind for 20 years.

Although the profits or losses on that trade have not been realized at the end of the first year, the bank will make an assumption about whether that trade made or lost money each year. Given the power traders wield, they can make the number come out positive so they can receive a hefty bonus — even though it is too early to tell what the real outcome of the trade will be.

How Trader Incentives Caused the CDO Bubble

Wilmott imagines that this greater incentive to follow the pack is what happened when many traders were piling into collateralized debt obligations. In Wilmott’s view, CDO risk managers who had analyzed a future scenario in which housing prices fell and interest rates rose would have concluded that the CDOs would become worthless under that scenario. He imagines that when notified of that possible outcome, CDO traders would have demanded that the risk managers shred that nasty scenario so they could keep trading more CDOs.

Incidentally, the traders who profited by going against the CDO crowd were lone wolves whose compensation did not depend on following the trading floor pack. This reinforces the idea that big bank compensation policies drive dangerous behavior that boosts market volatility.

What You Don’t Understand, You Can’t Properly Regulate

Wilmott believes that derivatives represent a risk of unknown proportions. But unless there is a change to trader compensation policies — one which would force traders to put their compensation at risk for the life of the derivative — then this risk could remain difficult to manage.

Unfortunately, he thinks that regulators aren’t in a good position to assess the risks of derivatives because they don’t understand them. Wilmott offers training in risk management. While traders and risk managers at banks and hedge funds have taken his course, regulators so far have not.

And if regulators don’t understand the risks in derivatives, chances are great that Congress does not understand them either.

UNESCO continua robando tierras en Costa Rica

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Junio 3, 2010

El derecho a tener propiedad privada está, lenta pero seguramente, llegando a su fín.  Muchos de los parques nacionales y reservas

La Reserva de la Biosfera en Costa Rica incluye volcanes como el Poás y el Irazu.

biológicas que se mantienen alrededor del mundo con el pretexto de proteger la naturaleza han pasado de estar en manos de los ciudadanos y los países, a ser propiedad de las Naciones Unidas.  Esta iniciativa se propuso y fue adoptada bajo los escritos de la Convención de Biodiversidad de la ONU, la cual roba los derechos totales de propiedad a los ciudadanos de cada nación y la pasa a manos de organizaciones supranacionales.  Recientemente, la ONU, a través de UNESCO aumentó la extensión de tierras destinadas y consideradas como parte de la reserva de la biosfera en le Valle Central de Costa Rica.

La definición de un territorio en parte o en su totalidad como Reserva de la Biosfera, significa no solo que ese territorio no pertenece más al país donde está ubicado, sino que también deja en manos de la UNESCO y la ONU el tipo de desarrollo que puede ser permitido y la extensión de tierras que serán destinadas a ese desarrollo.  Según relata la Agenda 21, el objetivo es limitar cada vez más el territorio disponible para que las poblaciones puedan plantar cultivos, o desarrollar proyectos habitacionales, entre otros.

Recientemente, la agencia de noticias AFP reportó que la UNESCO aumentó el territorio considerado como de Reserva de la Biosfera en Costa Rica, una nación muy conocida por su protección del medio ambiente y el uso racional de los recursos naturales.  “La Unesco aprobó hoy la ampliación de 650.000 hectáreas de la reserva de la biosfera de la Cordillera Volcánica Central de Costa Rica. Esta reserva estaba inscrita en la lista del Consejo Internacional de Coordinación del Programa sobre el Hombre y la Biosfera (MAB) desde 1988. Lo que hace que este lugar se integrara dentro de la Red Mundial de Reservas de la Biosfera (WNBR).” Desde luego, el manejo de las tierras se dirige de acuerdo a las medidas establecidas bajo los acuerdos mencionados arriba, y estos acuerdos son escritos y controlados por la ONU.

El bosque tropical húmedo de Costa Rica es ahora propiedad de las Naciones Unidas.

Según la AFP, la ampliación del área de reserva de la biosfera, quintuplica su superficie y alberga una población cercana a los tres millones de habitantes.  Será que al ser estos territorios ahora propiedad de la ONU, también lo son las personas que ahí habitan?  Bueno, al parecer sí.  La AFP relata que la amplaición incluye la ciudad capital de Costa Rica, San José, por lo que cualquier proyecto de desarrollo o reorganización deberá primero ser aprobado por la UNESCO antes de ser implementado por el gobierno de Costa Rica o las autoridades locales en la provincia.  Mucha de las políticas de conservación, como se sabe, se desprende de la ilógica y enfermiza idea que nuestros recursos deben ser administrados por globalistas para que las ciudades y los países puedan tener una mejor gestión sostenible.  En realidad, lo que políticas como estas permite, es el control centralizado de las regiones más ricas del planeta por sus recursos naturales y su patrimonio cultural.

No habría ningún problema en conservar los recursos si estos se mantuvieran en manos de los ciudadanos y los países, sin embargo la ONU promueve la visión de que esta organización y no los propios países, debe decidir que se hace con los recursos ajenos.  En este momento, existen 564 reservas situadas en 109 países. Según la propia UNESCO, los espacios protegidos deben ser usados para la experimentación, lo cual incluye la introducción de especies foráneas que en muchos casos destruyen la misma biosfera que según ellos se pretende conservar.  De todos es conocido que la ONU controla, hoy más que nunca,  grandes cantidades de los recursos terrestres de agua dulce y marinos.  “Las Reservas de Biosfera son, por lo tanto, laboratorios del desarrollo sostenible que permiten obtener enseñanzas sobre el mismo”, indica el comunicado de la UNESCO.

Pero el robo de propiedades no se limita a Costa Rica.  Según el comunicado de la UNESCO, la reserva Araucarias de Chile, la cual ha multiplicado en 12 veces su extensión inicial desde que fue clasificada como reserva de la biosfera es ahora parte de la red administrada por la ONU.  Al igual que en Costa Rica, esta reserva está situada en una cadena volcánica; la meridional de los Andes en la parte central del sur de Chile.  La UNESCO añadió 13 nuevos espacios en 15 países de diversas partes del mundo a la Red Mundial de Reservas de la Biosfera. Tres de estas reservas están en el continente africano Zimbabwe y Etiopía, que se integran por primera vez en esta lista mundial.

La mayoría de las reservas encontradas en América Latina están en México, Nicaragua y Perú.  La reservas de México son Nahá-Metzabok, ubicada en el sudeste de México; la reserva Los Volcanes, que abarca al Popocatépetl, y la reserva de las Islas Marías, que consideraron un “vivero de especies endémicas”.  Los mexicanos cuentan con 40 reservas en esta Red Mundial, según subrayó la delegación mexicana.

1 Trillón de dólares Robado de los Contribuyentes para Salvar los Bancos

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Mayo 11, 2010

Los estrategas políticos europeos dieron a conocer un paquete de préstamos sin precedentes por el valor de casi $ 1 trillón de dólares  y un programa de compras de valores, para detener una crisis de deuda soberana que amenaza con destruir la confianza en el euro. El Euro fue sacudido la semana pasada después de 14 meses de altos rendimientos de los bonos en Portugal y España, los gobiernos de las naciones acordaron conceder préstamos de hasta 750 millones de euros (962 mil millones dólares) a los países que fueron atacados por especuladores.  En realidad, estos dineros no serán dados a los gobiernos, sino transferidos a los grandes bancos que originalmente causaron la crisis a los que los gobiernos de Grecia, Islándia, España y Portugal deben billones en interéses y capital.

Además, el Banco Central E uropeo se embarcará en “operaciones muy importantes”, dijo a la Unión Económica y Monetaria, Olli Rehn, la periodistas en Bruselas después de la reunión de 14 horas. “El BCE ha adoptado una decisión de intervenir en los mercados secundarios de valores gubernamentales.”

Bajo la presión de los EE.UU. y Asia para estabilizar los mercados, los gobiernos europeos apostaron a que la demostración de fuerza financiera podría prevenir una crisis de la deuda soberana y la especulación por las que el euro podría colapsar.

El fracaso de Europa para contener la crisis fiscal de Grecia provocó una caída del euro de 4,1 por ciento en la última semana, la mayor caída semanal desde las secuelas del colapso de Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ‘. Se le pidió al presidente Barack Obama que llamara a la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel y el presidente francés Nicolas Sarkozy para instarlos a adoptar “medidas enérgicas” en Europa para evitar que la crisis se extienda en todo el mundo.

En el marco del paquete de préstamos, los gobiernos de la zona euro se comprometieron a disponibilizar € 440 000 000 000, con 60 billones de euros más del presupuesto de la UE así como 250 billones de euros del Fondo Monetario Internacional, dijo el ministro de Economía español, Elena Salgado.

“Estamos poniendo sumas considerables en aras de inestabilidad en Europa”, dijo Salgado a los periodistas tras presidir la reunión.

Sin embargo, estas medidas han tenido poco efecto en la recuperación o estabilización de la economía mundial y los mercados.  Después de dos días, la fiesta por la aprobación del paquete de prestamos desapareció.  Los mercados bursátiles volvieron a caer y ahora los baqueros que provocaron la crisis parecen haberse quedado sin opciones para detener una crisis que según expertos será mucho peor que la de 1929.