BOE 3rd November Rate Announcement
Discussion
OoopsVoss said:
Gold is not the answer, nor is BTC.
You can't carry enough of the former and the later is useless when the lights go out. And they will. We are now in a digital environment that requires the banks to service payments. In 2008 a 700bn failure nearly took everyone put through a liquidity and margin problem. The banks are now bigger, there is many times more more leverage and the governments deliberately engineered bank support of public sector debt balloon.
I agree with the thrust of the argument that leverage has Created ridiculous asset bubbles, but any reset can't be contained.
I tend to agree. What we need is a decentralised currency, back to proper money for the people, unfortunately we seem to be running headlong into the opposite. I don’t know the answer, I just feel it’s all wrong and it’s about to come tumbling down. This tends to happen on history and it’s usually under the guise of war. You can't carry enough of the former and the later is useless when the lights go out. And they will. We are now in a digital environment that requires the banks to service payments. In 2008 a 700bn failure nearly took everyone put through a liquidity and margin problem. The banks are now bigger, there is many times more more leverage and the governments deliberately engineered bank support of public sector debt balloon.
I agree with the thrust of the argument that leverage has Created ridiculous asset bubbles, but any reset can't be contained.
So basically, BTFD.
There is an irony that today, front-running bailout or intervention actually generates the need for an intervention.
And the intervention then secures the valuations of the pumped assets?
You basically just join in any pump and there is no dump?
Or are these events now choreographed dramas to rinse investors?
There is an irony that today, front-running bailout or intervention actually generates the need for an intervention.
And the intervention then secures the valuations of the pumped assets?
You basically just join in any pump and there is no dump?
Or are these events now choreographed dramas to rinse investors?
Edited by Mr Whippy on Sunday 3rd March 12:50
OoopsVoss said:
Gold is not the answer, nor is BTC.
You can't carry enough of the former and the later is useless when the lights go out. And they will. We are now in a digital environment that requires the banks to service payments. In 2008 a 700bn failure nearly took everyone put through a liquidity and margin problem. The banks are now bigger, there is many times more more leverage and the governments deliberately engineered bank support of public sector debt balloon.
I agree with the thrust of the argument that leverage has Created ridiculous asset bubbles, but any reset can't be contained.
There is no (certainly one) answer it seems then? More of the same because it can't be allowed to fail/reset, but more money/debt never fixes the issue of their being already too much money or debt does it? So one wonders what the trajectory will be as more time and more debt piles on.You can't carry enough of the former and the later is useless when the lights go out. And they will. We are now in a digital environment that requires the banks to service payments. In 2008 a 700bn failure nearly took everyone put through a liquidity and margin problem. The banks are now bigger, there is many times more more leverage and the governments deliberately engineered bank support of public sector debt balloon.
I agree with the thrust of the argument that leverage has Created ridiculous asset bubbles, but any reset can't be contained.
Re Gold why did it go from $20 in 1919 to $43 1971 (52 years) but then to $2,000 in 2024 (another 52 ish years)
"Britain stopped using the gold standard in 1931, and the U.S. followed suit in 1933, finally abandoning the remnants of the system in 1973"
It "feels" like that whilst currency was pegged in some form to Gold it's price remained pretty stable/tracking inflation, since the departure from any sort of Gold backing it's dollar price has risen far more rapidly than before as have the number of US$ currency units?
The argument for Gold always descends into the mad max scenario when it's of no use, but really in an 'after the dollar' or any countries currency collapse something comes in to replace it. So financial turmoil occurs, but something has to be done for society to continue on afterwards without mad max type chaos.
In countries around the world the US$ has been the go to trusted source of replacement when the domestic currency is in trouble. This works due to the global trust in it, it is after all still just a note, a piece of paper, but as it's trusted that's far easier to use than Gold. If the dollar starts to waver then the trust in it has gone and will any other fiat currencies be able to replace it or will it have to be something backed by something real/physical again?
Is this not the one and only reason any country holds serious amounts physical Gold? The IMF also has a significant holding.
https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/202...
If we say the USD collapsing can't happen then we are saying the US can just continue with the huge deficits and debt increases as they have done so far? May be, but what about when interest on the debts exceed the tax take as it's projected to do at some point?
If Argentinians had the 85K deposit protect we do in 2001, it wouldn't have helped much when they suddenly limit what you can withdraw and then at the end of that the same 85K then buys a tenth or hundredth of what it used to? This is the danger of fiat not a danger we tend to ever witness here, although the various threads about feeling the pinch or wondering where the money goes are indicators it's happened to a small degree and as individuals just like in other countries, we aren't likely to believe it's possible to get worse and so won't make any provision for the possibility.
Is there anything so little talked about in the media, so universally sullied or plain outright dismissed that is simultaneously held by almost all countries/central banks across the globe. They don't have EFT holdings they go through all the hassle of having the real physical thing whilst the idea of individuals owning it physically puts you automatically into the, doom monger, tin foil hat, gold bug, prepper guy category.
Nice synopsis. Also worth throwing in that in terms of gold, assets are much cheaper to buy now, compared to 1970 equivalent gold price for a normal family car would be 60oz, now it’s around 14oz. A house 250oz, 160oz today. What’s happened is that our currency is becoming more and more worthless, so buys us a lot less. This is the definitive problem of fiat currency, and is why every single one in history has failed. Always. We’ve got a very big problem this time, as most currencies are underpinned by the dollar, when that goes, we all go.
Mr Whippy said:
DonkeyApple said:
However, like every generation, not all take advantage, not all get lucky, some make bad decisions and some are just losers. That hasn't changed.
I’m 44 and in the 80s and 90s I never felt I’d been pigeon holed.The underlying view I got from the world was a futurist utopia. Or the hope of one.
Moon bases. Kubrik’s vision of 2001.
People working together. Star Trek on TV. The fall of the Berlin Wall. Blah blah.
Then I grew up, and the very clear message in hindsight should have been, be a total self-serving c**t.
f
k everyone over. Buy houses. Leverage. Take greedy risks. Be greedy.If you’re not being greedy, then you’re just subsidising your potential wealth and success to someone who will be greedy.
Luck, taking advantage, in my view is b
ks.We had an opportunity for a utopia but that generation blew it on feathering their own nests.
Deregulation, greed, ignorance, cronyism.
I see government today as a corporate enemy to society. They’re not elected representatives, they’re a hostile business that need to be seen as such when making life choices and decisions.
They’re not your friend, or there to help you, they’re like a business opponent you need to figure out and take advantage of.
Had I been taught that at school I’d have done wonderfully (financially, if that’s all that matters, while also being an utter society destroying shower of s
t)I’m still not sure what I can do for my society while my society also keeps voting for, and legitimising, the muppets in control.
I can only assume people are so desperate that they cling to this dream and hope of ‘making it’… just a bit longer, just one more promotion, just one lucky investment… one more lottery ticket, etc.
They’re kept subservient because they have nothing else to cling on to.
But paradoxically they’d probably have everything they wanted if they just quit work and stayed at home.
The economy would collapse in days. Government would realise they only have one job… represent the people who make the economy, the country, society, work!
They’re there to moderate capitalism for the greater good, not to enrich themselves and chosen friends, and bastardise it.
Everyone alive today grew up being bombarded by that utopian view of the future. It's not something weirdly unique to 44 year olds.
Every generation has had people feathering their own nest. It is madness to try and suggest that the Boomers somehow invented that!! The facade that somehow the 'silent generation' and the 'greatest generation' were somehow full of people of moral principle is just silly. They were riddled with crooks and self serving douche bags and it is merely a natural function of time that distorts people's realities.
People have always 'cling to the dream of making it'. Again, that's not suddenly unique to people today. It's practically the definition of a loser. The person who thinks they're owed something and then just sits there hoping it will randomly materialise before them.
You also seem to believe not being taught the facts of life at school has put you at a disadvantage but no one is taught this stuff, we all mostly leave education with a delusion and a great hope and it is during first contact with the real world that we learn these things.
It's at this point that people who have the path to be higher income earners make their life choices and split into the two different groups There are those who realise how things have always worked and then choose to work with that and then there are those who persist in maintaining the delusions of youth, the blaming of others, the wanting pocket money, the envy of others, still living at home, spending their money on shopping and self indulgence and most recently, genuinely believing WFH is some kind of birth right and being extremely confused as to why they're on the front line of work force reductions.
There are, as there always are, significant problems and hurdles within society but the cacophony of whinging from higher income adult babies is somewhat farcical. All the pensioners with perfectly good, if not excessive, retirement incomes endlessly botching about how hard done by they are, the growing whinging of those in their 50s who have wasted their money shopping and not growing up who now are starting to see their peers who chose to pay off their mortgages, not rent cars endlessly, not go skiing twice a year and not marry an unemployed interior design fraudster all discussing their retirement to coincide with when employers all stop wanting to have sad old people cluttering the workspace. Maybe the real difference among the 40 somethings is that more of them believed that b
ks of youth and genuinely spent their working life to date thinking bizarrely that they were somehow special and different and deserving? Maybe some of it is down to the baffling naivety of seeing all these fraudulent lifestyles being endlessly promoted and not actually realising almost all are fake?among lower income households we have a the very serious issues that have been caused by debt deregulation that has drive asset values, stalled wage inflation, formed synthetic lifestyles but among higher income earners they, like all those who have preceded them, knew they should have been saving and paying down essential debt in their 30s and 40s but made their own choices to do the opposite. Seeing these higher income earners subsequently attempting to claim they have been subjected to the same issues as lower income earners is pretty disgraceful. Like those gap year kids begging in Asia.
jameswills said:
I tend to agree. What we need is a decentralised currency, back to proper money for the people, unfortunately we seem to be running headlong into the opposite. I don’t know the answer, I just feel it’s all wrong and it’s about to come tumbling down. This tends to happen on history and it’s usually under the guise of war.
Why not just steadily reduce consumer lending and property lending so that society simply gently reshapes so that putting shelter over one's head does not cost such a large percentage of income?The solution is so simple that people are trying to create insane and complex solutions to a very simple problem. That problem is that the core basic costs are too high. It's not that salaries are too low or benefits too low or that some people earn too much. The cause is overtly the deregulation of lending. Regulation that since the dawn of civilisation has existed to stop exactly what has happened from happening.
Most people just can't stop shopping and nor do they understand fair value. If they see someone else has something then they want it also. That is written into our DNA, it is what we are. If you then give people endless credit they go endlessly shopping. The millions girl as this credit at the few who can't help but become super wealthy.
At the moment society is in denial. It desperately wants to believe it can solve the problem of things being too expensive by borrowing more and paying more. But everyone knows that is just more of the same and if you want to rebalance the gap between the haves and have nots then there are no fudges there is only deleveraging. The gentle winding back of the very thing that has created the problem.
There's no need for some insane revolution or the reversion to medieval currencies rebranded to appear trendy and cool. You just reduce the amount shoppers can borrow and slowly increase legislation that keeps excessive investment capital out of the residential property market.
The battlecry of those around 40 to crash the market is somewhat futile. They are screaming this generally because they don't own a property but if property were to crash they still wouldn't own a property as they would be even more unlendable than they currently are. A big crash would only benefit those who are in school today, just like the last one.
Just reduce the amount consumers can borrow. It really is that simple. The environment then reshapes around that reduced spending power.
Debt is essential for a balanced and mobile society. Excess debt is the cause of all collapse of civilisation. We have very clearly deregulated lending too much and we have failed to rein it in enough to date.
It's really simple things like capping certain credit types at levels that do not impinge on their benefits but instantly stop those who don't need credit from using it to drive excess asset inflation that then forces everyone else to have to pay more.
It's really simple things that have manifest impacts over the longer term. As this is a car forum we can look at cars as an interesting example. Car credit is pretty much uncapped with no limits to what you can borrow but imagine if back in 1997 car credit had remained capped and was say arbitrarily limited to a maximum loan value of 75% of average income? The cap would have had absolutely no impact on lower incomes but those on higher incomes wouldn't have been able to drive up the average value of the U.K. fleet and creating the environment of everyone having to pay for the costs of repairing all these extremely expensive vehicles.
In basic terms, the more someone earns the less consumer debt they need to a level where they need none whatsoever as their income is more than suffice. There is no social upside to lending to consumers who do not need credit. You only do that when you want to falsify an economic boom and it only ever leads to one point in the future which is division, unrest and the lunacy of over indulgence.
Want to reduce the cost of motoring then reduce the credit facilities at the top of the market. Want to reduce the cost of housing then reduce the credit multiples at the top of the market.
The Millenials who are successful and in their 40s are now coming to power and beginning to dominate the employment market and the political arena. Do we think for one moment the successful Millenials will do anything to benefit their peers who had the same chances and opportunities as then but missed them? I doubt they're going to be mystically different from all who have gone before.
Can't argue with all that, but people with the ability to change things must have seen this before and have never taken the simple option?
Nothing is truly a simple fix is it at this stage is it?
DonkeyApple said:
Just reduce the amount consumers can borrow. It really is that simple. The environment then reshapes around that reduced spending power.
But then you likely spark a significant recession? then job losses, then more belt tightening deeper recession, the negative spiral that includes debt defaults and possible financial institution collapses? Nothing is truly a simple fix is it at this stage is it?
Scootersp said:
Can't argue with all that, but people with the ability to change things must have seen this before and have never taken the simple option?
Nothing is truly a simple fix is it at this stage is it?
The art lies in the balance. Much of the general consumption is from people who don't even use credit, hence why many areas have held up while those more exposed to needing those who require credit have seen a contraction in revenues. DonkeyApple said:
Just reduce the amount consumers can borrow. It really is that simple. The environment then reshapes around that reduced spending power.
But then you likely spark a significant recession? then job losses, then more belt tightening deeper recession, the negative spiral that includes debt defaults and possible financial institution collapses? Nothing is truly a simple fix is it at this stage is it?
The car market wouldn't implode if debt secured against cars were capped at say £25k. Especially as the bulk of new cars are imports. It would be an act that would have almost no impact on the majority but begin to reduce the value of the U.K. fleet which would have benefits on things like insurance costs. You could even just limit the cap to ICE which would mean EVs wouldn't require any subsidies as anyone wanting an expensive vehicle would either have to save up for it or switch to EV.
With regards to property, when London values increase those rises ripple out to the furthest reaches of England regardless of whether those regions have seen an increase in income. Those enormous £1m+ mortgages are also a potential risk to everyone else because of the person loses their income they stand next to no chance of avoiding default. If multiples were ratcheted down against loan size then you'd slow asset inflation at the top of the market and remove a large part of asset inflation from the rest of the market.
The key is that if we want to slowly and gently deleverage the economy to benefit everyone then we do not want to start at the bottom but to take a top down approach where those impacted can just simply adjust and adapt for no pain other than the terrible social embarrassment of driving a Golf instead of a Porsche or living in a £1m home rather than a £1.5m one. Such horrors would be truly terrible and illicit much gnashing of teeth and wailing but none are going to starve or be ruined, just not be able to rent as many non essential things. Basically, achieve the exact same domestic goal as raising interest rates but with no one being crippled and everyone benefiting.
Personally, as the BoE lowers rates I'd be using the FCA to cap consumer borrowing at the top end to maintain the effect but just among those of us who don't actually need credit.
DonkeyApple said:
The key is that if we want to slowly and gently deleverage the economy to benefit everyone then we do not want to start at the bottom but to take a top down approach where those impacted can just simply adjust and adapt for no pain other than the terrible social embarrassment of driving a Golf instead of a Porsche or living in a £1m home rather than a £1.5m one. Such horrors would be truly terrible and illicit much gnashing of teeth and wailing but none are going to starve or be ruined, just not be able to rent as many non essential things. Basically, achieve the exact same domestic goal as raising interest rates but with no one being crippled and everyone benefiting.
Aren't the 'we' that could bring this about going to have to have the same collective lightbulb moment though? as without that, it's turkeys voting for Christmas. Even with the power and the lightbulb moment you are going to be very unpopular!? Also there is issue of if lots of the £1.5M house owners go to the £1M homes, and credit issuing is tightened who can/will buy the £1.5M homes from them?
I'm not convinced a gentle deleverage can be done, but as gentle as possible should be sought, tonight's reading is going to be this from page 67 to see how we've got on in the past........
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured...
Scootersp said:
Aren't the 'we' that could bring this about going to have to have the same collective lightbulb moment though? as without that, it's turkeys voting for Christmas. Even with the power and the lightbulb moment you are going to be very unpopular!?
Also there is issue of if lots of the £1.5M house owners go to the £1M homes, and credit issuing is tightened who can/will buy the £1.5M homes from them?
I'm not convinced a gentle deleverage can be done, but as gentle as possible should be sought, tonight's reading is going to be this from page 67 to see how we've got on in the past........
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured...
Raising interest rates is an example of deleveraging consumers though. The problem is that it is a clumsy and archaic blunt tool for that task, conversely, consumer lending regs are a 21st century precision tool for steering capital away from one market but also steering a particular type of capital. Also there is issue of if lots of the £1.5M house owners go to the £1M homes, and credit issuing is tightened who can/will buy the £1.5M homes from them?
I'm not convinced a gentle deleverage can be done, but as gentle as possible should be sought, tonight's reading is going to be this from page 67 to see how we've got on in the past........
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured...
In some ways, if one considers excess lending to be a cancer then interest rates are the equivalent of using a 12 bore to target the tumour whereas intelligent lending regs are more akin to using a laser to whack specific cells.
jameswills said:
Nice synopsis. Also worth throwing in that in terms of gold, assets are much cheaper to buy now, compared to 1970 equivalent gold price for a normal family car would be 60oz, now it’s around 14oz. A house 250oz, 160oz today. What’s happened is that our currency is becoming more and more worthless, so buys us a lot less. This is the definitive problem of fiat currency, and is why every single one in history has failed. Always. We’ve got a very big problem this time, as most currencies are underpinned by the dollar, when that goes, we all go.
Whilst it's normal and obvious, you can't look to history here to guide the future path. Gold is just another asset class to me, but its utility is somewhat blunted by the scale and physical delivery. You are not a nutter for investing in it. Thinking it helps you in a "reset"; might be a tad optimistic unless you have an army of lunatics at your disposal because it could be a bit errrr Mad Max..Here's what the CBs have done (pre Covid so its actually not the full picture). Looking at x6 Balance Sheet growth:
Of that, you probably have something like 50% equiv of the EUs GDP in the ECBs balance sheet and around 30% in the BoE and Fed respectively.
That amount of QE has been spun up to the max, through leverage (which these days in the wholesale world is secured - lent against other debt securities or assets like equities whose growth is being underpinned by expansive monetary policy).
Whilst the Central banks did record Balance Sheet growth, so did the banks. Combined the main CBs managed to do $20trillion, JP Morgan manged to do $2 trillion on its own between 2009 and 2022.... There are over 40,000 banks in the world; before you get into shadow banking.
The very entities that have engaged in massive spin-ups of balance sheets are also responsible for moving money around the system (they are as critical as fuel and food) - the Central Banks can't do it (and only a subset of banks have accounts there). The problem there is, whilst its OK for banks to do leverage creation - its NOT match tenor. The other function of a bank is maturity transformation. IF the assets you use to spin up leverage decline in value - you get margin called - but you might not be able to recall on the other side because the asset base has a longer tenor. You kick off a contagion chain. Because the numbers are so big, the only way to avoid it - NOT let the system die.
Its lunacy and you should think about it like the end of Dr Strangelove, except its not a nuclear but leverage bomb.
Edited by OoopsVoss on Monday 4th March 15:02
ooid said:
Looks like "Fiat Currency" has become the new "Fauci" and "Gold" become the new "natural immunity" for all the usual c19-doomsday conspiracy souls here...
This is what I mean about the Gold narrative/sentiment, Gold equals conspiracy loon, it just rolls off the tongue and is at best 50:50 agreed/disagreed with, when the "International Monetary Fund" holds over 90 Million ounces. Also this is an IMF working paper
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023...
"In the third quarter of 2022, global central banks added US$20 billion of gold to their international reserve
portfolios. This was the largest quarterly increase in official gold demand in fully 55 years according to the
World Gold Council (2022). This startling increase excited much commentary, taking place as it did against the
backdrop of a secular decline in the share of global reserves held in the form of gold stretching over the better
part of four decades."
So Global central bankers, groups of people not lone wolf nut jobs, those often the very target of conspiracy theorists are suddenly buying more Gold which makes them what, conspiracy theorists?
Scootersp said:
This is what I mean about the Gold narrative/sentiment, Gold equals conspiracy loon, it just rolls off the tongue and is at best 50:50 agreed/disagreed with, when the "International Monetary Fund" holds over 90 Million ounces.
Also this is an IMF working paper
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023...
"In the third quarter of 2022, global central banks added US$20 billion of gold to their international reserve
portfolios. This was the largest quarterly increase in official gold demand in fully 55 years according to the
World Gold Council (2022). This startling increase excited much commentary, taking place as it did against the
backdrop of a secular decline in the share of global reserves held in the form of gold stretching over the better
part of four decades."
So Global central bankers, groups of people not lone wolf nut jobs, those often the very target of conspiracy theorists are suddenly buying more Gold which makes them what, conspiracy theorists?
They are also buying a lot of Bitcoin, causing the price increase we see now. There’s a few reasons they could be doing this, all conspiratorial of course. Also this is an IMF working paper
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023...
"In the third quarter of 2022, global central banks added US$20 billion of gold to their international reserve
portfolios. This was the largest quarterly increase in official gold demand in fully 55 years according to the
World Gold Council (2022). This startling increase excited much commentary, taking place as it did against the
backdrop of a secular decline in the share of global reserves held in the form of gold stretching over the better
part of four decades."
So Global central bankers, groups of people not lone wolf nut jobs, those often the very target of conspiracy theorists are suddenly buying more Gold which makes them what, conspiracy theorists?
jameswills said:
They are also buying a lot of Bitcoin, causing the price increase we see now. There’s a few reasons they could be doing this, all conspiratorial of course.
Sorry? What Western Central Bank is long BTC? I'd be amazed if its any of the main ones. The ECB is adamant it won't (ever), I can't imagine the BoE either given the loss potential. Fed, unlikely.
Is this genuine? I can't see a situation where its wise for a Central Bank to hold.a speculative asset other than a path to CCY devaluation. Who is on the hook for the losses? I know the BIS has said tokenised securities and centralised stable coins "might" be acceptable, but decentralised Crypto currency is a leap.
The only way it makes sense to hold BTC is to avoid sanctions. Which means the only banks likely to be holding it, are up to their neck in dodgy shenanigans anyway. Russian Central Bank???
Eveb A normal bank is going to have absolutely minimal BTC holdings as the market risk requirement is so high. Its possible they are hedging derivatives (like Blackrock might an ETF), but they are delta flat (risk neutral).
Seriously, if there is genuine proof Western CBs are storing up BTC I'd love to read about it.
OoopsVoss said:
jameswills said:
They are also buying a lot of Bitcoin, causing the price increase we see now. There’s a few reasons they could be doing this, all conspiratorial of course.
Sorry? What Western Central Bank is long BTC? I'd be amazed if its any of the main ones. The ECB is adamant it won't (ever), I can't imagine the BoE either given the loss potential. Fed, unlikely.
Is this genuine? I can't see a situation where its wise for a Central Bank to hold.a speculative asset other than a path to CCY devaluation. Who is on the hook for the losses? I know the BIS has said tokenised securities and centralised stable coins "might" be acceptable, but decentralised Crypto currency is a leap.
The only way it makes sense to hold BTC is to avoid sanctions. Which means the only banks likely to be holding it, are up to their neck in dodgy shenanigans anyway. Russian Central Bank???
Eveb A normal bank is going to have absolutely minimal BTC holdings as the market risk requirement is so high. Its possible they are hedging derivatives (like Blackrock might an ETF), but they are delta flat (risk neutral).
Seriously, if there is genuine proof Western CBs are storing up BTC I'd love to read about it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/0...
The large financial institutions are, ultimately the ones that drive and control our currency today. My speculation is that it’s purely to hold as a monopoly and to keep the price high and away from people buying it, also forcing people to now sell to convert back into fiat. People have to stop thinking of Bitcoin as an investment strategy in order to increase their wealth in fiat currency, that in my opinion is a silly thing to do. You should be gathering Bitcoin to use when fiat fails. Yes conspiracy wibble to most I suppose, but it’s a theory. I am not totally sold on Bitcoin be the way, I’m wary that it seemed to appear out of nowhere just as the financial system collapsed in 2008. Again, just some idle theories!
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff