Savings and loans crisis-1980's through the mid 90's

This is the 2nd post of my grand financial/online poker opus. I used the Stock Market crash of 1929 as a bit of a prelude to the modern lead up to the 2008 Financial Crisis, which in the opinion of many renowned economists and journalists, started in 1979. Thanks for reading.

 

  With the passing of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1932/33, banks were separated into 2 areas, commercial and investment. Not only did this cut down the size of the banks in the late 1920's, but the potential economic damage that could be caused by a widespread contagion. Banks no longer were able to use customer deposits in the same way as before, which was viewed as reckless gambling. The separation also helped to cut back on the conflicts of interest by banks that profited by customer loss.  The act also created the Federal deposit insurance corporation, otherwise known as the FDIC. It insured customer deposits in Federally approved banks up to a specific amount, which could potentially assuage fears in times of financial crisis, as in the late 20's and early 30's. Another important provision in the Glass-Steagall Act was Regulation Q, which stopped the practice of interest bearing checking accounts on customer deposits which supported aggressive competition amongst banks to attract more capital during the 1920s, termed "the race to the bottom". Regulation Q also limited the amount of risk that a bank could put it self in and encouraged investment in substitute areas like money market accounts and other banking alternatives which supported competition.  At the end of the day, the Glass-Steagall act was put into place in order to stop systematic risk while protecting consumers. Another important event was the construction of the Federal Savings and Loan insurance corporation which was created as a part of the National Housing Act of 1934. It's intention was the same as the FDIC with respect to insuring deposits in Savings & Loans companies as well as stopping the failures of financial institutions across the country.

  This brings us to the mid 1970's when the Savings and Loan industry was facing the first of 2 major challenges. The S&L industry was having a difficult time competing for capital in a slow growth economy facing high inflation. Depositors were taking their money out of Savings and Loan companies and putting them into market accounts which earned more in times of high interest rates. The second hurdle the lack of customers given the fact potential home owners had a harder time qualifying for a mortgage which meant less customers for the S&Ls. In 1979, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates again as a tool to curb inflation which  put S&Ls at a breaking point.

  In 1980, congress passed the first of 2 major acts of deregulation in order to help financial institutions especially the hurting Savings and Loan industry. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act removed the power of setting interest rates by the Federal Reserve and allowed financial institutions the ability to charge any interest rate they chose. It also gave banks the ability to merge and S&Ls could offer checkable deposits. The Savings & Loan industry was now able to compete on what at first appeared to be a more even basis for customer deposits than before and with the additional deregulation the S&Ls could use that capital from mortgages sold in to the secondary market to reinvest in order to seek better returns. The S&Ls commonly sold those mortgages to larger Wall Street banks that not only paid lower than face value for them, but re bundled the mortgages into a pool and resold them to the S&L industry as government backed bonds charging high fees. Another way the larger banks were ahead of the curve in light of the deregulation of 1980 was the fact that they had the liquidity to offer higher interest rates to their customers which in turn attracted investors to their stock.

According to a study published in the "Journal of Finance", entitled, An examination of the impact of Garn-St. Germain Depository institutions Act of 1982 on Commerical banks and Savings and loans, "...present evidence that the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 provided a wealth transfer from non-Federal Reserve System member banks and Savings and Loans (S&Ls) to Federal Reserve Member Banks. Furthermore, Cornett and Tehranian (1989) find that the banking deregulation passed in 1980 benefited stockholders of large banks and savings and loans but produced negative abnormal stock returns for small banks and savings and loans."

  S&Ls were forced to compete by offering higher than normal interest rates compared to the assets in their portfolios which caused them to be insolvent. By 1980 many of the already distressed institutions were failing. This raised strong concerns in Congress that if  S&Ls were facing these desperate conditions, then the entire financial system could be at risk if a large percentage of Savings and Loan industry went under.

  "The changes in the economic and financial conditions resulted in a demand for further reform of the financial system, and eventually, the passage of the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982." (pg.3)

   The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was intended to give further support to the housing industries on both the lender's side and borrower's side.  According to William K. Black, the Act was based on legislation first put forth in Texas, which at the time was one of the most profitable states with respect to their Savings and Loan industry. It deregulated many areas of Commercial loans by expanding the areas of lending and home loans by financial institutions. They could now offer a wider array of mortgages with less restrictions on who they could sell them to. S&Ls could now lend at a higher ratio compared to the capital they had. The Act also allowed more lenient accounting rules with which they would report their financial stability which made them appear to be more profitable. They were allowed to increase the percentage of commercial and consumer loans within their portfolios led to an unbalanced business acumen that would later prove costly. They were also allowed to invest, for the first time, in state and local government revenue bonds.

  These areas of deregulation were meant to make the market more fair and balance, especially for the smaller financial institutions like small S&Ls the ability to compete with larger banks as well as non-regulated entities, like money market funds and brokerage houses, but in reality, it gave the large banks pathways to capital that regulation hadn't allowed before. This perpetuated the inequality in competition which put pressure on the S&L industry to take on more risky investments and "sell short" in a long term market. This act, in effect, created a "race to the bottom" with respect to deregulation by the Federal government and the State governments in order to compete for S&L charters. It was easy for financial institutions to switch between being a Federal Charter or a State Charter while being backed by the FDIC. The attraction was what the institutions would be allowed to invest in under a given charter. The S&Ls naturally went where there was the least amount of regulation and oversight. As a result, the S&Ls grew at an enormous rate and were able to leverage their risk more so than ever before without having to back up their loans with capital.

  The icing on the cake was that there was little to no oversight, especially in States like California and Texas where the loan default rates were higher than average. The Savings and Loan industry was experiencing a housing boom in the mid 80's in the light of deregulation. Smaller S&Ls that were once insolvent  were now climbing their way out of failure and looking forward to successful endeavors, until 1986. The Reagan administration continued its policy of tax cuts with the passing of the Tax Reform Act of 1986  which may have been the final straw in breaking the back of the Savings and loan industry as well as popping the housing boom of the mid 1980's. One of the provisions in the Tax Reform Act was to remove tax shelters in the area of passive real estate investment, both in housing as well as commercial investments. This helped to cause a decline in housing prices which forced investors to sell which then compounded the problem by lowering prices even more. As prices fell, investors defaulted, and the institutions holding the mortgages in portfolio, especially small S&Ls, were forced to sell those mortgages which caused housing prices to fall even more.

    As the dominoes fell in one institution, so did others on down the line, much like 1929. Home owners defaulted at a high rate, smaller financial groups like S&Ls quickly became insolvent, and bond holders who were not insured lost their savings. By the late 1980's the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation itself was insolvent due to the number of S&L bankruptcies which numbered in the thousands. Tax payers, many of whom had never used a Savings and Loan were paying the cost  of this debacle which was estimated at $160.1 billion. That amount was not including Federally insured S&L losses before 1986 or after 1996. As it was in the financial crashes of 1893, 1907, and 1929, capital had to be injected in order to stop a systematic crash that could have very well shut down the entire U.S. economy which in turn could cause a world wide contagion.

 In hindsight, the Savings and Loan crisis of the mid to late 80's appears to be one that was manufactured out of ignorance, ego, and recklessness. Government on both sides of the aisle believed that the Financial sector would act in the best interests of home owners, investors, and their own institutions by being responsible and regulating themselves. They were wrong.

The stock Market crash of 1929--Using hindsight to help our foresight.

  Due to the fact that I have very little time to work on the extended blog post that I had been talking about dealing with government's policies towards the financial sector and online poker, I though that it would be a good idea to post some of the sections that I have finished in hopes of getting some feedback in any way shape or form. I have not listed the sources that I have used or quoted, so please give me some slack. There are a lot of links to list and this is just some rough pages, if you will. Thanks for your understanding.

The Stock Market Crash of 1929

  The 1920's were a time of innovation, speculation, and mass consumption driven by a boom in the  areas of investment and production. Soldiers returning from World War I were looking for jobs and had money to spend. Initially after the war here was a short, but deep recession as demand had been slowed to a near standstill. Innovation of products was an important channel to kick start the economy. Factories that had once been focused on wartime production, were soon churning out products for a population returning to normalcy. This boom was also supported heavily by 3 consecutive Republican Presidents, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Harding's strong belief in lower taxes, reducing the debt, and a economic philosophy of laissez-faire markets, would be the impetus for the golden twenties in which Calvin Coolidge would take credit and Hoover would have to deal with.
The supply side road to economic recovery ushered in a time of mass consumption of products once a luxury like the automobile, radio, air conditioning, home electricity and Hollywood movies. Another side of innovation came in the form of financial investments. New products were in high demand and companies needed capital to supply their growing customer base. The stock market, which was once for large commercial businesses, soon became a game for the masses. Everyone wanted their chance at making a fortune which after all was the American dream.
Many on those in  business and finance saw this as a way to increase their own fortunes. Charles E. Mitchell, president of National City Bank (now Citibank), and president of National City Company, which became the largest security issuing entity in the world, saw an opportunity in the everyman. His salesmen started to target individuals as investors and advanced millions to his sales team for speculation. The 1920's were marked by a cosmopolitan sensibility that helped to instill the idea of upward mobility. Unfortunately for the masses, there was an increasing disparity of wealth. The wealthiest 5% Americans were making over 33% of the income. How was the average person able to get in to the market and amass their own fortune? Credit.
One of the new slogans of the decade became, "Buy now, pay later".
Everyday people were getting in on the stock market craze based on margin buying. At the time, the market had seen a six year rise that appeared to have no end in sight in early 1929. The great American economist, Irving Fisher proclaimed that "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

In March of 1929, soon after Herbert Hoover's inauguration, there was a growing unrest on the part of investors over the fact that the stock market was largely dependent on borrowed money. By August of that year, brokers would regularly be lending more than 2/3rds the face value of the stock being purchased. More than $8.5 billion was out on loan which was more than currency in circulation. The Federal Reserve debated asking for regulation of the stock market and the practice of buying on margin, but ultimately stayed silent. Monday, March 25th saw a large sell off of blue chip stocks which continued on Tuesday. A small panic had begun on the part of investors. Those who had bought on margin, usually only 10%, were hit very hard and could not cover their stocks. Brokers sold off those stocks which caused the market to fall even more. As prices dropped more margin calls were triggered and so the dominoes began to fall. Credit became increasingly difficult to find as interest rates quickly went up to 20%. Banker, Charles E. Mitchell, worried about the whole system, as well as his own fortune, stepped in and through National City bank provided $25 million in credit to bring relief for margin calls. This capital injection helped to stop the bleeding and possible collapse in March of 1929.

In the following months the stock market continued to climb even though the economy had begun to slowdown. Steel production declined, the construction industry slowed, and the demand for automobiles fell sharply, yet the phenomenon of speculation pushed stock market prices higher. Borrowing soared to record heights as some blue chip stocks increased by 50% that summer.

In early fall of that year, Congress debated the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill which would increase tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods in the effort to protect farmers and American jobs from foreign competition. It was also seen as having strong negative effects from an international standpoint which are some of the reasons why it has been cited as a cause for the overall instability by investors in early September. The market began a roller coaster ride up until late October. A week before "Black Thursday", many highly respected bankers, like Charles Mitchell and Thomas Lamont of Morgan bank were saying how well the economy was and the only direction was up.

 

  On Tuesday, October 24th, amidst rumors of economic uncertainty, the stock market lost 11% of it's value right at the opening bell. It continued to fall through the early afternoon. Some of the leading Wall Street bankers, like Thomas Lamont, Albert Wiggin, Charles E. Mitchell, and Richard Whitney, decided to pool some money together and buy large amounts of shares in Blue Chip stocks at higher than normal bids in order to demonstrate their faith in the market in hopes that it would curb the sell off as it did in 1907. There was a temporary respite and the market closed that day only down a little over 6.3% which was small compared to the direction it had been going earlier in the day.

The crash had been staved off, but as Newspapers began to write about the instability of the market and the prospect of Herbert Hoover refusing to veto the Smoot-Haley Tariff act, the general consensus was that there was no better time than the present to get out of the market. October 28th, termed "Black Monday", saw a drop in the market of nearly 13%. "Black Tuesday", October 29, close to 16 million shares were traded, and the Dow lost an additional 30 points (11.73%).

Banker William Durant thought that he could support the market with a steady stream of capital in the form of purchasing stocks, but it was not enough. The market continued to fall and hit a short term bottom of 198 points by mid November. It then had a rally, going up to 294 in early April of 1930, then once again began a long and steady decline which hit rock bottom in July, 1932 when the Dow closed at a little over $41.

Many economists of the times had been warning of the coming crash of the stock market, but were not taken seriously by Wall Street or investors who had been borrowing money on margin. Roger Babson had been forecasting a stock market crash for 2 years, yet he was dismissed as unpatriotic until September of 1929, the height of unrest over the market's dependence on borrowed money. Billions of dollars disappeared in a matter of days in October of 1929. The stock market crash, although not considered the direct cause of the "The Great Depression", was a broken rung on the ladder of American and global economic stability.

Regardless of one's stance of the reasons for the stock market crash of 1929 or the ensuing depression, one thing that is always true of these historical events is that the mass population is effected. Jobs are lost, savings are lost, homes are lost, families are lost, dreams are lost, and faith in the system is lost. The practice of speculation in the stock market was like a long wonderful party at which the booze flowed freely and the music never stopped. That is until the next morning when the bill had to be paid, the house had to be cleaned, and the hangover was in full effect. Like many parties that lasted too long, the police, or in this case the government, intervened too late. In 1933, they passed the Glass-Steagal act which created the FDIC and put limits on the behavior and expansion of Wall Street and banks to say the least. It was the beginning of a regulated and responsible form of Capitalism in America that had been needed since before the dawning of the 20th century. Pandora's box was finally closed...

It's all about the Pokerz

So, as I said in my previous post, I have started to play more poker, mostly online, but I am finally concentrating on improving my NLHE game. I have been rereading Ed Miller's 1st No limit book and have been listening to some of Bart Hanson's old "Deuce Plays" podcasts. I've also been posting a lot more in the live low limit NLHE forums on 2+2. It's a nice feeling to be back in the swing of poker and surprisingly, I have not missed LHE as much as I thought I would. It is after all, my first love when it comes to poker, but given the landscape of the online poker scene at CAKE, there's just not a big enough player pool for me to build a bankroll, find good games and move up.

  Oh, I forgot to mention, I am officially a winning player at NLHE in the .02-.04 stakes. I know that doesn't sound like a great feat, but for the year 2011, I would just mess around and play ultra LAGgy at NLHE which meant losing quite a bit. When I did start to play a bit more serious, I would not hand read that well and just donk off when faced with big turn raises. I am now focused on improving my game which helped quite a bit the last time I played live at my nearby casino. I had a bunch of fish at the table with one decent LAG. I got an old man to spew off a buy-in to me with K4s while chasing a flush draw. I hit a bunch of sets and had another player hand over a buy-in when I hit set over set. All in all, I was up 2 1/2 buy-ins which was a nice confidence booster.

 I have also had some luck at the slots machine. In the past 3 months I have won close to $1,000 playing $10 slots which is always a nice addition. I know that you can't depend on winning lots of money at slots, but the lesson that I have been focusing on is not to view gambling money as real money which in turn, has helped me to not be so afraid, especially at the live poker tables. I am hoping this will help to concentrate on hand reading and picking good spots.

  Some more good news is that I have booked a trip for 1 to Las Vegas in the mid fall. I have been rather worn down from the Summer with my 3 sons. Obviously I love my children more than anything, but it does get tiring to be the referee of a 5 year old and two 3 year olds. Let's just say that I have become sick to death of Star Wars. I am hoping that a little Las Vegas RnR will recharge my batteries. This time I am going alone. No boys club being rowdy and arguing. Just me, a cigar, some scotch, and the pokerz. I do plan on throwing in some rest by the pool with a Pina Colada time as well, but I am hoping to play a good amount of NLHE and see where my game is at.
 As always, thank you for reading and any and all comments are welcome. Have a fun rest of your summer.

Welcome back...

  I know that it has been quite a while since my last blog. I was a bit overloaded with all of the things that I wanted to do, but could not attempt at the same time. That and the fact that my 3 kids were all home in late May for summer vacation and you can imagine how much time a stay at home father of 3 boys has. My last post, from what I can recall, mentioned a bad live outing at the poker tables, both live and online. That was a cue for me to take a little break from poker and focus on some other interests in the very little free time I had. I was working on finishing the first half of my treatise on the subject of legislation of the financial sector v.s. that of online poker, but I became burnt out over the subject, so I took a break from that as well. I am planning on getting back to that and am giving myself an easy due date of 2013, which I hope will be before actual legislation of online poker at the federal level.

  I do plan on getting back in to blogging on a semi regular basis on a myriad of subjects, but then again, I have set goals for many things in the past 16 months and none of them have fully come to fruition, so I won't hold my breath either. One thing that I happily stopped doing was Facebook.I was getting a bit tired of posting comedic updates and looking for responses, which was my form of entertainment given the fact that I don't directly interact with the outside world, except for going to the grocery store and other errands. I haven't decided if I will go back on Facebook at some point in the future, but I would like to spend the 2nd half of 2012, Facebook-free.

  Another area of loss I am looking forward to is my weight. I have always been a skinny person probably more gangly than skinny, but you get the picture...I would like to ensure that I am healthy so that I am around to bug the hell out of my kids for centuries to come. I have started to eat more salads, drink less alcohol, not have bacon double cheeseburgers with special sauce as often and eat chicken that is not fried. The next step will happen in the fall when I have more time to start running again given the fact that all 3 of my sons will be in school for at least 1/2 the day during the week.

  I have started to become interested in opera again and bought season tickets to the Lyric opera this next season. the subject of music or more specifically, singing is a difficult one for me because I aspired to being an opera singer and it was a major passion in my life. I guess you could say that it was my first love. I feel as though, opera and I are trying to become friends after the difficult and painful decision to break it off. I have never become friends with an ex-girlfriend, whom I was crazy for, so I am not sure how this one will go either.

  Anyways, I hope to hear from any of you out there, except for the Russian bots that try to get me to their ad sites. I hope all is well and the next installments will probably be poker related once again, to be more specific, I will pick up in my poker history series which if I am not mistaken, is the year 2010. I also had an interesting interaction in the 2+2 poker forums with an old adversary, named Dragon1893, which would be a great beginning for a little post on the history between he and I as far as online poker goes. Have fun, enjoy the heat and I will talk with you soon.

A bridge too far?

  This morning I woke up, fed my 3 sons breakfast, poured a cup of coffee and sit down at the computer to see the latest news. The big story, obviously, was that President Obama had stated in an interview that he supported same sex marriage, which was the first time a sitting President of the United States had taken this stance. I jumped on to facebook to check things out and saw a post referring to the recent Time magazine cover that had just hit news stands, so I looked it up on the news and saw the picture, posted above. I was a bit taken aback, to say the least, but not for the reasons that you may think.

  I read the article that accompanied the picture to get a better idea of what was behind the cover before I solidified my opinion. The New York Daily News article gives a basic summary of the story of Jamie Lynn Grumet, the 26 year old mother (above) and her 3 1/2 year old son, standing on the chair in camouflage pants. You know, the one with his mouth on his mother's boob. Jamie Grumet believes that breastfeeding is not only good for a child with regard to nutrition, but to parent-child bonding. She, herself, claims that she breastfed until the age of 6. She cites this as a contributing factor in her feeling secure.

 
  She said she remembers the being breast-fed and the positive feelings associated with it.
“It’s really warm. It’s like embracing your mother, like a hug. You feel comforted, nurtured and really, really loved,” she said. “I had so much self-confidence as a child, and I know it’s from that. I never felt like she would ever leave me. I felt that security.”--NY Daily News article

  I, in no way, disagree with the basic premise that breastfeeding a child is a very positive experience, for both child and mother, for a myriad of reasons. I support the fact that this person chooses to continue breastfeeding her child and raises him in the manner that she believes is best. the article also reveals that she has an adopted child from another country. She states that breastfeeding helped forge a bond between her and the child as well as help comfort him during the possible traumatic experience of being in a completely new environment. At the end of the article, Grumet is quoted as saying,

  “There are people who tell me they’re going to call social services on me or that it’s child molestation,” she said. “People have to realize this is biologically normal. It’s not socially normal. The more people see it, the more it’ll become normal in our culture.”

 Once again, I support her rights as a parent and her decision to do this. The only problem I have is with the cover itself. Now before you start calling me a prude and a misogynist who's not comfortable with seeing something natural and beautiful, like breast feeding, let me be very specific. In the article, Grumet is quoted as saying that breastfeeding helped her "feel nurtured and really, really loved...I had so much self-confidence as a child, and I know it's from that."

  The imagery on this Time magazine cover does not give me the sense of nurturing or being really, really loved. You have a woman standing with one arm around a toddler, looking at the camera, with a look that does not say, "bonding moment" to me. Then you have her son standing on a small chair, with his mouth on the mother's breast as he stares directly in to the camera. How is this an example of a "very positive experience"? Is this how breast feeding is normally done in their household? Of course not, but my point is that this cover seems to be for shock value alone, which is what bugs me. Now, once again before you start hurling names at me like, curmudgeonly, sexist, white man, who should have been born in the 19th century, I understand the value of shocking imagery that can push the envelope and the conversation at the same time. I just don't think this cover is one of them.

  The biggest problem I have is the boy. Here is a 3 and 1/2 year old boy who doesn't understand the situation he's being placed in and has complete trust in his mother to do what's best for him. He is being dropped in to the midst of a rather controversial subject and he has not say in the matter, nor is he mature enough to make the decision if he was given the chance. the imagery comes across as stark, uncaring, and almost exploitative. Was this pose necessary to promote the content of the article, specifically the warm nurturing feeling that this boy and his mother get from the hug-like bond of breast feeding even at 3 and 4 years old?

  When this young boy grows up, he may very well defend this cover and be very proud of it, as I hope he does, but he may also have to fight through the jungle of nature when the nurturing factor of his parental bonds aren't there to protect him. That is quite a ball & chain to hand over to this child before he can even understand the enormity of what he has been assigned to. I don't believe that this is a horrific thing or that it should be taken off the new stands and I still defend the mother's right to decide what's best for her children, even though I may not fully agree. In the end, I think that this cover does more harm to the message as well as to Jamie Lynn Grumet's nearly 4 year-old year-old son Aram, than good. Then again, what do I know. I was given formula.







http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/time-magazine-cover-shows-mom-breast-feeding-young-son-jamie-lynn-grumet-practices-attachment-parenting-article-1.1075654

Short, unimportant update: Nothing to see here!

  So, much of what I have said with regard to planned posts and goals can be compared to Axl Rose's, magnum opus, Chinese Democracy which only took him 10+ years to record. My knee started hurting again a few days ago after playing with my 3 sons, so I won't be attempting a restart of running any time soon. I have not been to a casino in quite a while and my last time out was a disaster. I have been playing online at Cake poker rather consistently, but only for shits N giggles. My bankroll is a little over $80 is an all-time high since post Black Friday. Speaking of online poker, I stalled in my magnum opus on the subject as I was getting a little burned out. In my defense a lot has been happening in the debate over online poker legislation, but there has been legislation going on. I am starting to feel a small spark on inspiration coming on, so I hope to finish up the first part and then move on to the second half which will discuss online poker.
 
  I've also considered blogging about some other subjects that I find interesting, but whenever I get close to the keyboard, I lose interest due to the fact that I don't feel that my thoughts in cyberspace make a whole helluva matter to anyone, not that I ever thought they would in the first place, but I need to kick myself in the ass and just do it. I have started singing again due to the fact that I have some more regular free time on my hands to practice. I hope that with my children all being in school come the fall, I will have even more time to devote to improving as well as other things like blogging my curmudgeonly opinions. For anyone out there, thanks for staying put, if that applies and I hope to talk to you very soon.

What's the Buzz...?

  So it's been quite a while since I have posted anything, but I have reasons. I haven't felt like writing. Well, thanks for stopping in, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Y'all come back now ya hear?!

  To be more specific, I was 85% finished with the 1st half of my magnum opus revolving around the hypocrisy of the government's policy towards online poker, but I became a bit worn out on the subject, so I am letting it sit on the shelf for a little while to see if I don't become more excited about it. So, even though I hadn't posted much in the last 2 months, I had been doing quite a bit of writing.

  Another reason is the fact that I haven't been playing much poker as of late, whether that be online or at a card room. The last live session I played was back in early January, if I recall, and I stunk up the joint as I was down $300 due to being on my D+ game. been getting in some hands on Cake Poker (NLHE & LHE), but nothing too serious. I had built my bankroll up to $72 once again only to see it take a quick nosedive back down to $48. I am now hovering in the middle $60s hoping to breakthrough the glass ceiling.

  I have also begun to (again) to practice singing on a semi-regular basis given the fact that my 3 sons are on a, more or less, regular schedule. I hope to have even more uninterrupted time in the fall when they will all have school in the afternoons. As I wrote before, I had been practicing singing a little over a year ago, but different interruptions caused me to suspend that hobby until now. I am looking forward to the fall not only because my kids will all be in school, which will be great for their social life and learning, but my wife and I have season tickets to the Opera which will be a nice treat each month of the year. I've been listening to a good idea of opera, not only for enjoyment, but to critique the singers I hear and pick out, from a technical standpoint, what I like and don't like. I hope it will help me in strengthening my abilities as well.