Predatory Lending

[ReignIB]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
If a fish swims in to a sharks open mouth willingly, was the shark actually hunting?[/quote]

It is if you change the shark to a snapping turtle and Take into account his worm-shaped tongue.

Unless you have a degree in business, it’s not the easiest thing to see through a good loan officer or real estate agent’s pitch. You want a home, they show you numbers that mean you can get one. They show you how you can afford it, they get good deals for you, they make the numbers work. Unless you happen to have an inside knowledge of what exactly they did to get you that good deal you’re pretty helpless. You have no idea that the house you refinanced for 245,000 is actually only worth 200,000.[/quote]

aggressive assessments are almost non-existent in today’s market, fanny/fredie’s policies are pretty tight to the extent where they are losing business in rural areas where it’s often hard for assessors to find comparables. local banks won’t underwrite their own loans unless the applicant is solid.
also, you make it sound like mortgage officers are going door to door offering loans to unsuspecting victims who are incapable of thinking for themselves figuring out whether they can afford something or not.

[/quote]

The control has definitely tightened up since I worked in the industry (2004). Since then a lot of mortgage companies have gone out of business as a result of how much more difficult it is to get a loan through in terms of requirements of credit, verification, and income. They’ve made it virtually impossible for the mortgage brokers to do what they did when I worked in the field. As a result, you’ll notice many firms have gone out of business.

lol. You aren’t far off with your door-to-door guessing. Cold calling, door to door… anything was considered valid advertising. We generally worked off of lists of people whose mortgages were a certain age. The majority of the people who refinanced through us had never heard of us before we contacted them. So yes, we were just going around randomly offering loans to completely unsuspecting strangers.

As for thinking for themselves, well, I suppose that depended on their ability to do loan amortization schedules and ability to see through any shady “hookups”, which they would have had no way of knowing were happening between brokers, assessors, etc
[/quote]

“stranger” doesn’t necessarily mean “victim”, I get telemarketers calls every day, doesn’t mean I’m going to buy anything if I don’t want or can’t afford it.

[ironcross]

[quote]JEATON wrote:
You know, the same thing was going on in the automotive industry at the same time. There the lenders were often even worse than the dealers.

I can remember rehashing many applications with loan officers where the conversation went like this…
Me, “No, he does not have a second job and there is no other source of income.”

Loan officer, “Ok then, lets go over it again. He makes $4200.00 a month and …”
Me, “No, he only makes $3000.00 a month and…”
Loan officer, “Listen! You are not listening to me! He makes $4200.00 per month and that raises his internal score to a B+ tier. Congratulations! You now have a deal with zero stips (stipulations or prof of anything) and you can write the contract for 75 months and three points retention. Just make sure that “incorrect” first application gets out of the deal jacket and the corrected one in. Send me more deals!”

The worst lender of all for this was one called Americredit Financial. They had an up and down relation on Wall Street for years. Their claim to fame was a “proprietary” scoring system that could just see into the future how different loan tiers would perform. Can you say bullshit?

Well as it turned out, when loans would start to fall behind they would call up the customer and offer then a friendly deferral for a small fee and just roll the payment to the back of the loan. They eventually started to offer lots of opportunities for deferral. I also seem to remember some other hijinks with the methods in which they accounted for reposession losses, etc. Of course if a loan was deferred, then it was not delinquent and never showed up in their reports and 10k’s.

The story gets more interesting. Along the time that the shit starts to hit the fan in 2007 and 2008 Americredit is on the ropes. They securitize their loan portfolios much like the other bastards were doing with the mortgages. Except now with the shorter terms shit was coming to a head quickly. Guess what happens next?

Obviously they go under right? Yeah, right.

Along comes General Motors in the form of Government Motors and buys the rotten fuckers out. Ever hear of a little company called GM Financial? This is what GM decided to rebrand Americredit as after they bought it for approx $3.5 billions in funds that they got from, oh I don’t know, maybe the American tax payer.

GM Financial

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Holy hell. This is the most interesting thing I’ve read all week. Wow. Good post.

[ironcross]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
If a fish swims in to a sharks open mouth willingly, was the shark actually hunting?[/quote]

It is if you change the shark to a snapping turtle and Take into account his worm-shaped tongue.

Unless you have a degree in business, it’s not the easiest thing to see through a good loan officer or real estate agent’s pitch. You want a home, they show you numbers that mean you can get one. They show you how you can afford it, they get good deals for you, they make the numbers work. Unless you happen to have an inside knowledge of what exactly they did to get you that good deal you’re pretty helpless. You have no idea that the house you refinanced for 245,000 is actually only worth 200,000.[/quote]

aggressive assessments are almost non-existent in today’s market, fanny/fredie’s policies are pretty tight to the extent where they are losing business in rural areas where it’s often hard for assessors to find comparables. local banks won’t underwrite their own loans unless the applicant is solid.
also, you make it sound like mortgage officers are going door to door offering loans to unsuspecting victims who are incapable of thinking for themselves figuring out whether they can afford something or not.

[/quote]

The control has definitely tightened up since I worked in the industry (2004). Since then a lot of mortgage companies have gone out of business as a result of how much more difficult it is to get a loan through in terms of requirements of credit, verification, and income. They’ve made it virtually impossible for the mortgage brokers to do what they did when I worked in the field. As a result, you’ll notice many firms have gone out of business.

lol. You aren’t far off with your door-to-door guessing. Cold calling, door to door… anything was considered valid advertising. We generally worked off of lists of people whose mortgages were a certain age. The majority of the people who refinanced through us had never heard of us before we contacted them. So yes, we were just going around randomly offering loans to completely unsuspecting strangers.

As for thinking for themselves, well, I suppose that depended on their ability to do loan amortization schedules and ability to see through any shady “hookups”, which they would have had no way of knowing were happening between brokers, assessors, etc
[/quote]

“stranger” doesn’t necessarily mean “victim”, I get telemarketers calls every day, doesn’t mean I’m going to buy anything if I don’t want or can’t afford it.
[/quote]

Are you reading this thread?

[ironcross]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.

[Aragorn]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.[/quote]

You are correct. Bush gets a lot of blame. And he is not blameless. But this has roots that go much deeper than just GWB’s administration and I believe the look into past administrations has merit. This had been building up for much longer than people think.

[ironcross]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.[/quote]

You are correct. Bush gets a lot of blame. And he is not blameless. But this has roots that go much deeper than just GWB’s administration and I believe the look into past administrations has merit. This had been building up for much longer than people think.[/quote]

Definitely! I was reading up on it, and I believe the Community Reinvestment Act, originally put through by Jimmy Carter has a lot to do with it. It was modified by all subsequent presidents do date, and thus had more effect in certain administrations that others. For example, during the Clinton administration, there was a huge push for every American to own a home, resulting in another reform of the act and housing/economy boom based on false pretense (when it come down to it, they were pushing to give credit to those who shouldn’t have it). This made Clinton look great, but in the end he seems like a bit of a con artist, because by the time it all came crashing down, he was long gone.

However, abuses of good intentions were present at every level.

Community Reinvestment Act

[JEATON]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.[/quote]

My point was simply that the Dalibama and Government Motors orchestrated this particular little abortion of mismanagement.

[JEATON]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
You know, the same thing was going on in the automotive industry at the same time. There the lenders were often even worse than the dealers.

I can remember rehashing many applications with loan officers where the conversation went like this…
Me, “No, he does not have a second job and there is no other source of income.”

Loan officer, “Ok then, lets go over it again. He makes $4200.00 a month and …”
Me, “No, he only makes $3000.00 a month and…”
Loan officer, “Listen! You are not listening to me! He makes $4200.00 per month and that raises his internal score to a B+ tier. Congratulations! You now have a deal with zero stips (stipulations or prof of anything) and you can write the contract for 75 months and three points retention. Just make sure that “incorrect” first application gets out of the deal jacket and the corrected one in. Send me more deals!”

The worst lender of all for this was one called Americredit Financial. They had an up and down relation on Wall Street for years. Their claim to fame was a “proprietary” scoring system that could just see into the future how different loan tiers would perform. Can you say bullshit?

Well as it turned out, when loans would start to fall behind they would call up the customer and offer then a friendly deferral for a small fee and just roll the payment to the back of the loan. They eventually started to offer lots of opportunities for deferral. I also seem to remember some other hijinks with the methods in which they accounted for reposession losses, etc. Of course if a loan was deferred, then it was not delinquent and never showed up in their reports and 10k’s.

The story gets more interesting. Along the time that the shit starts to hit the fan in 2007 and 2008 Americredit is on the ropes. They securitize their loan portfolios much like the other bastards were doing with the mortgages. Except now with the shorter terms shit was coming to a head quickly. Guess what happens next?

Obviously they go under right? Yeah, right.

Along comes General Motors in the form of Government Motors and buys the rotten fuckers out. Ever hear of a little company called GM Financial? This is what GM decided to rebrand Americredit as after they bought it for approx $3.5 billions in funds that they got from, oh I don’t know, maybe the American tax payer.

GM Financial

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Holy hell. This is the most interesting thing I’ve read all week. Wow. Good post.[/quote]

Thanks. But know that the story did not end there. Note that while I will tell you the GM line has great vehicles, the sales numbers are massaged and manipulated tremendously in order to show how fucking the American taxpayer by making them and the creditors to pick up the loses and then basically give the results over to the UAW.

What few seem to notice is that a large percentage of the retail sales have been of the sub prime nature courtesy of none other than Americredit/GM Financial. In the process another sup prime bubble is forming and you also have to ask yourself “where is the money for all these sup prime loans coming from.”

[ironcross]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.[/quote]

My point was simply that the Dalibama and Government Motors orchestrated this particular little abortion of mismanagement. [/quote]

No, Obama did not. Now, if you mean democrats in general, then yes, they helped. As did the republicans. Both sides contributed to the polices that resulted in the boom and then the fall. But all of this happened before Obama was elected, including the passing of all of the policies and the financial boom. So, while Obama may have his faults, lumping this in there is a gross inaccuracy and bears the question of personal agenda.

[JEATON]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.[/quote]

My point was simply that the Dalibama and Government Motors orchestrated this particular little abortion of mismanagement. [/quote]

No, Obama did not. Now, if you mean democrats in general, then yes, they helped. As did the republicans. Both sides contributed to the polices that resulted in the boom and then the fall. But all of this happened before Obama was elected, including the passing of all of the policies and the financial boom. So, while Obama may have his faults, lumping this in there is a gross inaccuracy and bears the question of personal agenda.[/quote]

You are not hearing me. I am not talking about the whole housing, derivitive, socialist/crony capitalist turd in the punch bowl. I am simply limiting my comments to the last three or so years of the soap opera that is and was GM. That was the Dalibama’s own particular pet project to reward and solidify his base with the union mafia.

[borrek]

[quote]JEATON wrote:
You are not hearing me. I am not talking about the whole housing, derivitive, socialist/crony capitalist turd in the punch bowl. I am simply limiting my comments to the last three or so years of the soap opera that is and was GM. That was the Dalibama’s own particular pet project to reward and solidify his base with the union mafia.
[/quote]

Can you back that up with some documentation? I’m not saying it isn’t true, but I’d like to see it coming from a few sources.

[ironcross]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.[/quote]

My point was simply that the Dalibama and Government Motors orchestrated this particular little abortion of mismanagement. [/quote]

No, Obama did not. Now, if you mean democrats in general, then yes, they helped. As did the republicans. Both sides contributed to the polices that resulted in the boom and then the fall. But all of this happened before Obama was elected, including the passing of all of the policies and the financial boom. So, while Obama may have his faults, lumping this in there is a gross inaccuracy and bears the question of personal agenda.[/quote]

You are not hearing me. I am not talking about the whole housing, derivitive, socialist/crony capitalist turd in the punch bowl. I am simply limiting my comments to the last three or so years of the soap opera that is and was GM. That was the Dalibama’s own particular pet project to reward and solidify his base with the union mafia.
[/quote]

Ew. I’m about to eat breakfast here.

[JEATON]

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
You are not hearing me. I am not talking about the whole housing, derivitive, socialist/crony capitalist turd in the punch bowl. I am simply limiting my comments to the last three or so years of the soap opera that is and was GM. That was the Dalibama’s own particular pet project to reward and solidify his base with the union mafia.
[/quote]

Can you back that up with some documentation? I’m not saying it isn’t true, but I’d like to see it coming from a few sources.
[/quote]

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience.

[borrek]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience. [/quote]

This is the kind of BS that keeps PWI such a cartoonish joke of a forum.

[HoustonGuy]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

God bless America and God bless the Obama administration. [/quote]

Actually, 2004 is the year Bush was re-elected. In that time period, Obama wasn’t even a pie in the sky.

However, the boom started during the Clinton administration, so it might be interesting to look to that for changes in policy which might have cumulated 8 years later.[/quote]

My point was simply that the Dalibama and Government Motors orchestrated this particular little abortion of mismanagement. [/quote]

No, Obama did not. Now, if you mean democrats in general, then yes, they helped. As did the republicans. Both sides contributed to the polices that resulted in the boom and then the fall. But all of this happened before Obama was elected, including the passing of all of the policies and the financial boom. So, while Obama may have his faults, lumping this in there is a gross inaccuracy and bears the question of personal agenda.[/quote]
This is not a political issue. All markets should be governed legally but US Presidents do not run the mortgage loan industry. Gov’t should and does set legal parameters but it is not the job of gov’t to micro-manage private industry. Period. It is not one presidents fault or anothers for dumbasses taking out a mortgage that costs more each month than they earn and the banks should take personal issue in their employees who give out bad loans.

This is a private market matter and in the US always should be.

[Aragorn]

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

This is not a political issue. All markets should be governed legally but US Presidents do not run the mortgage loan industry. Gov’t should and does set legal parameters but it is not the job of gov’t to micro-manage private industry. Period. It is not one presidents fault or anothers for dumbasses taking out a mortgage that costs more each month than they earn and the banks should take personal issue in their employees who give out bad loans.

This is a private market matter and in the US always should be.[/quote]

Ideally, yes. But in reality the private market is not entirely private, particularly the more lawmakers (and the presidents who cheerlead and push for certain policymaking agendas) interfere with market forces. Throw in QGEs (Fannie and Freddie), and you have a mess. QGEs do not operate on the same market forces that the rest of the private sector SHOULD (even though they don’t operate this way in reality either) because they are also beholden to the gov’t that pushes their legislative policy through enforcing QGE operations in that direction.

EDIT: And yes, it is the dumbasses fault for taking out the mortgage – even though they can be swindled by clever salepeople. And yes the banks should fire shady salespeople, but they don’t because they were in it to gain anyways and it helps their short-term bottom line when they ditch the subprimes onto someone else, as Ironcross noted earlier.

[JEATON]

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience. [/quote]

This is the kind of BS that keeps PWI such a cartoonish joke of a forum.
[/quote]

And this is the kind of response that makes me think you are a petulant little bitch. Your question is fucking wide open. What exactly were you wanting documentation of.
And as I told you, I have first person knowledge of what I spoke of.
So, just exactly how do you want me to source my direct experience.

So, in short, fuck you.

[borrek]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience. [/quote]

This is the kind of BS that keeps PWI such a cartoonish joke of a forum.
[/quote]

And this is the kind of response that makes me think you are a petulant little bitch. Your question is fucking wide open. What exactly were you wanting documentation of.
And as I told you, I have first person knowledge of what I spoke of.
So, just exactly how do you want me to source my direct experience.

So, in short, fuck you. [/quote]

If you think asking a simple question, and then calling someone on their bullshit is petulant, then you are as stupid as you come across.

I’ll make it more simple for you. In a thread about predatory lending, you have intimately linked Obama to GM and predatory lending practices. You went so far as to call this his “pet project.” You, in fact, do not have direct personal experience here. Your experience may be with financing cars, but you can in no way link that to an Obama policy or directive.

Or, you can continue your circle jerk.

[JEATON]

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience. [/quote]

This is the kind of BS that keeps PWI such a cartoonish joke of a forum.
[/quote]

And this is the kind of response that makes me think you are a petulant little bitch. Your question is fucking wide open. What exactly were you wanting documentation of.
And as I told you, I have first person knowledge of what I spoke of.
So, just exactly how do you want me to source my direct experience.

So, in short, fuck you. [/quote]

If you think asking a simple question, and then calling someone on their bullshit is petulant, then you are as stupid as you come across.

I’ll make it more simple for you. In a thread about predatory lending, you have intimately linked Obama to GM and predatory lending practices. You went so far as to call this his “pet project.” You, in fact, do not have direct personal experience here. Your experience may be with financing cars, but you can in no way link that to an Obama policy or directive.

Or, you can continue your circle jerk.
[/quote]
No, my little pin-headed ninja, I did not in the way you are implying. I stated my knowledge and long time business dealings with a company called Americredit (over fifteen years). I then went on to tell how this lender with a less than scrupulous past was purchased by GM, with taxpayer’s money (because all of their money was taxpayer’s money at this time) to replace GMAC which they no longer owned. I then went on to say that a sizable portion of the uptick in sales has been due in fact to a lot of what would be categorized as subprime lending through this new entity called GM Finance (Americredit).
Now, if you have some kind of stake in some sacred cow (GM, the Dalibama, Americredit, GM Financial), I really don’t give a rat’s ass.
Also, If you are denying the role that Obama and his administration played in fucking the debt holders (bondholders), overriding the normal path, process and procedures of corporate bankruptcy, then chew on this.

Bondholders, who had financed the last several years of GM’s decline owned $27 billion in GM bonds. So, the gov’t comes and makes them a settlement offer of 10% of the new company.

Meanwhile, in the next room sets the UAW, which has a claim on $20 billion for its health care and pension obligations. The fed offers them 39% of the new company in exchange for sacrificing half or $10 billion of that.

Meanwhile, across town, the gubament was working out a deal that would net the UAW 55% of the new Chrysler.

Now was I implying that the Dalibama was fucking the bondholders in favor of his favored UAW voting block? Absolutely. You you deny or do you have your head so far up Obama’s ass that your chin whiskers tickle his prostate?

Now what else would you like me to help you out with?

[666Rich]

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Shouldn’t be hard to find, but I am not interested in proving anything to anyone. In this particular context, I am the source. I have lived through it in the early days as a Finance Director and later as the manager of a large GM dealership. I am just sharing my particular experience. [/quote]

This is the kind of BS that keeps PWI such a cartoonish joke of a forum.
[/quote]

And this is the kind of response that makes me think you are a petulant little bitch. Your question is fucking wide open. What exactly were you wanting documentation of.
And as I told you, I have first person knowledge of what I spoke of.
So, just exactly how do you want me to source my direct experience.

So, in short, fuck you. [/quote]

If you think asking a simple question, and then calling someone on their bullshit is petulant, then you are as stupid as you come across.

I’ll make it more simple for you. In a thread about predatory lending, you have intimately linked Obama to GM and predatory lending practices. You went so far as to call this his “pet project.” You, in fact, do not have direct personal experience here. Your experience may be with financing cars, but you can in no way link that to an Obama policy or directive.

Or, you can continue your circle jerk.
[/quote]
No, my little pin-headed ninja, I did not in the way you are implying. I stated my knowledge and long time business dealings with a company called Americredit (over fifteen years). I then went on to tell how this lender with a less than scrupulous past was purchased by GM, with taxpayer’s money (because all of their money was taxpayer’s money at this time) to replace GMAC which they no longer owned. I then went on to say that a sizable portion of the uptick in sales has been due in fact to a lot of what would be categorized as subprime lending through this new entity called GM Finance (Americredit).
Now, if you have some kind of stake in some sacred cow (GM, the Dalibama, Americredit, GM Financial), I really don’t give a rat’s ass.
Also, If you are denying the role that Obama and his administration played in fucking the debt holders (bondholders), overriding the normal path, process and procedures of corporate bankruptcy, then chew on this.

Bondholders, who had financed the last several years of GM’s decline owned $27 billion in GM bonds. So, the gov’t comes and makes them a settlement offer of 10% of the new company.

Meanwhile, in the next room sets the UAW, which has a claim on $20 billion for its health care and pension obligations. The fed offers them 39% of the new company in exchange for sacrificing half or $10 billion of that.

Meanwhile, across town, the gubament was working out a deal that would net the UAW 55% of the new Chrysler.

Now was I implying that the Dalibama was fucking the bondholders in favor of his favored UAW voting block? Absolutely. You you deny or do you have your head so far up Obama’s ass that your chin whiskers tickle his prostate?

Now what else would you like me to help you out with? [/quote]

Good information, I always learn something from your posts.