There's something funny going on over at Intrade with respect to the pricing of the Obama and McCain contracts.
Right now, Obama is trading at 52.3 points. That is, Intrade implies that he has a 52.3 percent chance to become the next President.
Now, I happen to think that is a patently absurd price. But you don't have to take my word for it. Over at BetFair, another large UK-based gambling and futures site, you can also buy an Obama contract. But the price there is 1.62, which implies a 61.7 percent chance that Obama will become the next President.
That is a huge spread, 51.5 points versus 61.7 points. This is the equivalent of the Giants being 3-point favorites at the Bellagio Sportsbook, and 7-point favorites at the Mirage down the block. Those things just don't happen in efficient, sufficiently liquid markets, because they create arbitrage opportunities: you'd lay $10,000 on the Giants at the Bellagio and $10,000 on their opponents at the Mirage. Any time the Giants win by fewer than 3 points or more than 7 points, you lose nothing, since your two bets cancel out. But any time they win by fewer than 7 points but more than 3, you win both bets, and take home $20,000 (less the casino's vigorish) for absolutely no risk. Pretty good deal, right? That's exactly what's happening with these futures contracts.
It does seem to be Intrade specifically that's out of line, rather than Betfair. At Iowa Electronic Markets, yet another political futures exchange, the probability of the Democrats winning the popular vote is about 61 percent. They don't have an electoral vote contract, but if they did, presumably that number would be a little higher because of the structural advantages Obama has in the electoral college this year that we've discussed here at length.
In fact, the Intrade pricing doesn't even seem to be internally consistent. If you look at their pricing in individual states, they have Obama at no lower than 60 percent or so in each of the Kerry states, as well as in Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico. And Virginia, Nevada and Ohio are all at about 50:50. The relationships between the odds of winning any given state and the odds of winning the electoral college are difficult to determine, but I'm pretty sure that Obama should be higher than 51.5 percent given those parameters.
Finally, take a look at the actual pattern of the trading within the last 36 hours:
It's pretty obvious that this is not some sort of random walk. Rather, every so often, some individual trader or some small group of traders are shorting all the Obama contacts in bulk and resetting the entire market. The markets then organically climb back upward until the rogue trader strikes again six or eight hours later. The volumes on these contracts have been very high for the past week as a result.
Most likely, this is just some idiot degenerate gambler who is trying to have some fun. Between the Obama and McCain contracts, there appears to be about $400,000 in contracts changing hands every day, which is a lot by Main Street standards, but minuscule by either Vegas or Wall Street Standards.
What's a little weird, however, is that this rouge trader is not only selling Obama contracts and buying McCain contracts .... they also seem to be buying Hillary Clinton contracts:
This is the exact mirror image of the Obama trading -- in fact, the trades seem to be occurring at exactly the same times. So someone is betting on some sort of disqualifying event happening to Obama.
I don't think this is any cause for alarm... if Joe Biden contracts were being bought up as part of this scheme, that might be more concerning, but they aren't. Still, if I were the Secret Service FBI (**), I would probably want to know the identity of this trader. And if I were one of those Beltway pundits who thinks I can be hip by referring to Intrade, I would take a look at the gross inefficiencies in these markets and think better of it.
(**) It seems to me that too much attention is being paid to this particular point. No, I do not think it is at all probable that this is connected to some sort of physical threat to Obama. But I do think it is the job of the FBI to investigate improbable threats. This is the whole reason the Pentagon was arguing for terrorism futures markets a couple of years ago.
9.24.2008
Intrade Betting is Suspicious
by Nate Silver @ 4:54 AM...see also futures markets, intrade
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

542 comments
Geoff said "You really think it is historically accurate to say that the Berlin Wall came down because the 'world came together' to beat the Soviets, then about 1/2 the world?
Talk about out of touch koolaid drinking. That's worse than claiming that McCain doesn't intentionally use the POW card. Just silly."
Geoff,
Unfortunately for you, it is no sillier than your analysis.
What you overlook is the root cause for the collapse of the USSR. Economists overwhelmingly agree now that the Soviet Union fell because of $10/barrel oil. For more details, check this link from the American Enterprise Institute, hardly a lefty bastion.
After the first OPEC price shocks, the Soviet Union invested a huge amount of capital in developing its domestic oil production. Further, convinced that it would generate huge sums from its oil production, the Soviet Union entered into a massive build up of its military, acquiring many expensive new systems.
In the early 1980s, when the price of oil plunged because of over-supply, the Soviet Union was effectively bankrupted, because it could not produce oil at a sufficient profit to support its oil infrastructure, its military budget and all of the other obligations of its centrally planned economy. In the US, many producers went out of business in the eary 1980s because of this price collapse.
Talk all you want about Reagan facing the Soviet Union down, but it is as historically inaccurate as what you just attacked.
"You really think they wanted it? "
I think they wanted it proposed because it had no chance of passing, and would obfuscate better plans to regulate them.
Found the Marketing Resource Group's web site. They aren't a polling firm, they are a political consultancy firm.
http://www.mrgmi.com/
"MRG MISSION >>
We are a full service communications firm, providing public relations, political consulting, marketing, advertising and crisis management. Our mission is to provide our clients with clear, effective communication that motivates consumers and influences public policy. "
Seems like the sort of firm you'd hire to run an internal poll with your set of assumptions?
One of the problems people have found with Intrade's free "satellite" markets on RCP and other places is that there's a lot of trading by bots. You frequently can't push a price above or below a certain level, because the system will automatically offer a huge number of contracts at the price where you've just bought everything up.
It's always a number tied to the real positions on the paid-market Intrade: 100 shares plus whatever the number of paid shares available is. So you'll be buying candidate X at 55% trying to bid it up on the free-to-play market — but if the lowest position on the paid market is 5 contracts at 55%, the system repeatedly reoffers 105 contracts at 55%. While you can beat this eventually, it's very expensive. It's a known feature of their free systems -- evidently to simulate the appearance of activity on free markets where there is none -- and it's a turnoff to many players.
I can't imagine the same features being in the pay-to-play system, but if there is any feedback coming to that market from the satellite markets whatsoever, it's garbage information. Sometimes -- not always, but often enough -- people in the RCP and other free-to-play markets are bidding against the computer.
"Obama "realized" the "conflict of interest"? The guy ran FAnnie into the ground and took a fraudulent loan. That's an understatement."
Johnson resigned as Fannie Mae CEO in 1998. How could he be the primary person responsible for its problems in 2008?
And "fraudulent loans"?? They were at interest rates that were a few tenths of a point better the national average. You GOP thugs tried to say similar things about a mortgage deal Obama got, but again, it's all smoke and no substance. Intelligent home-buyers shop around and leverage offers, and can easily beat market rates if they have above-average credit histories. For God's sake, getting a good interest rate does not mean there's illegal activity.
But you freak out about this, while you don't seem to mind that Davis has been receiving tens of thousands of dollars a month despite not doing anything in return.
On RCP, SUSA has WA 54-43 O.
what does the CW abbreviation mean?
---You really think it is historically accurate to say that the Berlin Wall came down because the "world came together" to beat the Soviets, then about 1/2 the world?---
On balance, yes. To be "historically accurate" would require a twelve hour qualification of terms. I'd score it an 85 on a 1 to 100 scale. As opposed to, say, getting the borders of a country incorrect scoring a 1.
---Talk about out of touch koolaid drinking. That's worse than claiming that McCain doesn't intentionally use the POW card. Just silly.---
How's that other quote coming?
inkstain: Someone tell Nate to call RCP and ask them why the MRG poll is up there, seriously.
"inkstain: Someone tell Nate to call RCP and ask them why the MRG poll is up there, seriously."
Nah, I'm a big fan of taking all polling into account. You just understand it for what it is.
Counsel - I agree with your economic analysis, but you forget that Reagan bled the Soviets and that hastened their demise and ensured they didnt get over the hump of their economic crisis but instead collapsed. Keep in mind the Dems were preaching "peaceful coexistence" that whole time, and if America had done that, we might still have the Soviets.
"CW-setting" what does CW stand for?
Geoff:
Your "centrism" is showing. Sincerely, you usually seem pretty rational, but today is just a string of talking points and bile. Is the state of the race polarizing you, or is this more indicative of your actual feelings?
And RE: Fannie Mae influence, you are holding McCain critics to a different standard than yourself. You argue, "Where's the influence?" with Davis, but you've shown no evidence whatsoever of "where the influence" might be with Johnson and Raines.
It would be one thing to say that NEITHER side appears to have been influenced, but you are applying a ridiculous double standard - regardless of the net result, McCain's campaign was and is clearly far more closely entangled with Fannie and Freddie than Obama's.
Again, doesn't necessarily mean NcCain was somehow manipulated by the FMs, but making that assumption has to excuse Obama's more indirect connections as well, absent some clear evidence to the contrary, which you haven't provided.
The Washington Post/ABC are out with a new national poll today showing Obama up over McCain 52-43. That's quite a jump from their post-GOP convention survey that had McCain up, 49-47.
I don't think national polls mean as much as state surveys do at this point, but the potential CW-setting reaction to this one, splashed atop today's Post, has worried McCain's campaign enough that they have scheduled a conference call today with their pollster and a top political aide to push back.
What does CW Stand for?
CW = conventional wisdom.
---Counsel - I agree with your economic analysis, but you forget that Reagan bled the Soviets and that hastened their demise and ensured they didnt get over the hump of their economic crisis but instead collapsed. Keep in mind the Dems were preaching "peaceful coexistence" that whole time, and if America had done that, we might still have the Soviets.---
As opposed to the rosy situation we have now? You know what else we might have? We might now have a Russia that survived a gradual, orderly transition to capitalism.
vanessa cw is common wisdom.
inkstain: I agree that we should take it into account - just as soon as there is an actual POLL instead of a rumor of a poll.
THANKEE!
Anyways, it's looking good for the man from the South Side of Chi.
Geoff said "Counsel - I agree with your economic analysis, but you forget that Reagan bled the Soviets and that hastened their demise and ensured they didnt get over the hump of their economic crisis but instead collapsed. Keep in mind the Dems were preaching 'peaceful coexistence' that whole time, and if America had done that, we might still have the Soviets."
Geoff,
Sorry, that does not pass the smell test. The Soviet buildup started in the 1970s, during Ford's administration. Our military spending during the Carter years still far exceeded what the Soviets could manage, given their hideous economy. The additional push by Reagan was not matched by the Soviets as an arms race, but was forced on the Soviets by their disastrous adventure in Afghanistan.
The Soviet economic collapse would have occured, even if Carter had won a second term. Unless you want to credit Reagan with the oil price collapse?
Marc, his opposition, along with the other Dems in Congress, to the 05-06 Fannie reform bills is evidence of influence.
No double standard here - McCain deserves to be dinged for keeping Davis around, he's hooked into everything and everyone and it creates the appearance of impropriety.
The facts are that McCain pushed reform bills Fannie hated, and Obama opposed them.
The Star Wars gambit shook the Soviets, as did our nuclear arsenal buildup in the 80's and our hassling of them via the insurgents in Afganistan.
The Biden speech is searing.
"The facts are that McCain pushed reform bills Fannie hated, and Obama opposed them."
And the answer I can never get is: why were they opposed? A general opposition to regulation, or a desire to pass different regulation?
---The Star Wars gambit shook the Soviets, as did our nuclear arsenal buildup in the 80's and our hassling of them via the insurgents in Afganistan.---
Geoff, repeating the same false argument doesn't make it any less false. Sorry :( The narrative that the US "won" the cold war through some action taken by someone is appealing, it's just not in any way accurate.
Ink, there was no different regulation, you're making stuff up.
Dems and Obama OPPOSED further regulation of Fannie Mae.
Godd news from just released Marist poll
Sept 24
IA Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 41%
NH Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 45%
"Dems and Obama OPPOSED further regulation of Fannie Mae."
Source that Obama opposed it?
Do you have the links to the Marist polls?
---Dems and Obama OPPOSED further regulation of Fannie Mae.---
For the sake argument, let's stipulate that's the case. What's your point?
Poker, we'll just have to agree to disagree. One thing is for certain - the Cold war was won, and it was not won with Dems in power. I think Billy Boy would have pursued similiar policies and won as well if he was in Reagan's slot - and Carter would not have.
And I've *seen* the bill that McCain proposed.
It wanted to remove regulatory powers from Congress and put it in the hands of the executive branch. How on earth is that a good thing?
NH is safe for Obama guys, he has a6 points lead according the latest Marist
biden is just fucking chewing these guys
Niedda,
Good news indeed. Iowa poll plus 10probably what fifth in a row with a double digit lead, and New Hampshire is reassuring.
Man, if you are from Shikago like I am, this fall might be unforgettable. First Cubs killing the Mulletheads from the 35th and Shields for the World Series title and then Obama winning! I might not be sober for those two weeks.
If anyone wants to read McCain's bill for themselves, here it is:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
@Vanessa go to TPM election central
Note well that Intrade was "predicting" an Obama victory in New Hampshire by 99%. I don't know what the other betting fora were predicting at that point, but it does show that Intrade isn't really a very good predictor.
---Poker, we'll just have to agree to disagree. One thing is for certain - the Cold war was won, and it was not won with Dems in power.---
I see. Who was in power when 9-11 occurred? This is how we're rating historical events, right? The party in power is responsible? Interesting argument.
---I think Billy Boy would have pursued similiar policies and won as well if he was in Reagan's slot - and Carter would not have.---
No one "won", Geoff. No US policy would have appreciably accelerated the economic collapse or prevented it. Unless you're arguing that Carter would have spent trillions to shore up the USSR economy in his second term.
Geoff:
Ok, I see your case now, though I don't agree with it - a Democrat opposing a Republican-pushed bill isn't by itself evidence of much save for party affiliation. More importantly, those bills (I believe) were proposed prior to ANY affiliation between the Obama camp, Raines, and Johnson, so the argument of direct influence of those two seems specious - a more general claim might hold water though.
The only thing that bothers me about the Davis situation isn't influence, or the perception of influence, it's the continued disingenuousness of the McCain campaign by publicly attacking Obama for being "tied to Fannie and Freddie" when the McCain camp is clearly far more intertwined with the movers and shakers of the FMs than Obama ever was.
Attacks and spin are par for the course, but to open up a line of inquiry about a candidate's associations and then, when it's revealed your team is far more strongly linked with that same entity, cry "media bias!" ad nauseum doesn't strike me as a strategy of an organization I'd like to see take the highest office in the land. Reasonable minds can disagree, of course.
scouser: Seriously, I'm thinking monster party in the Millenium Park and at the U of C election night. And lesser parties everywhere else. Chicago is become capital of the World. :)
Poker, see above re housing oversupply causation via Fannie/Freddie, and the resultant mire the economy is in now.
Look at it macroeconomically:
Right now, there are approximately 80M houses/condos, and 50M have mortgages. About 3-4M of those mortgages are in default stages, and another 1-2M are going that way - about 10% at least.
Now, the expansion of Fannie in the 90's and 00's and other government incentives to force risky lending by banks (CRA) pushed up the number of houses/condos overall sharply, perhaps adding 2-3M that wouldnt have otherwise been built.
It is simple economics - the housing industry built because the lenders signaled that borrowers are there to buy - the problem is, those new borrowers couldnt make payments longterm, and now those houses have no borrower to get a mortgage on them that can pay the bill. Fannie and others using Lehman, Bear, Merryl etc to securitize bonds with those bad mortgages spread the pain.
Ergo, housing oversupply and the mire in the economy.
I promised my kids that we would return to the USA if Obama wins, I would not want to miss the Historic moment of an Obama inauguration.
Right now they are busy learning French here in France.
Geoff, the Marketing Resource Group poll in MI doesn´t exists.
The link is false, i saw in yesterday.
Never pollster includes it (RCP, electoral-vote and Pollster.com).
"Ergo, housing oversupply and the mire in the economy."
But that's not the current crisis. It's the beginning of it, but not the problem.
The problem is that those bad loans were then immediately packaged and sold and resold up the chain, so that the people giving out the bad loans made money off them, and the people who bought them didn't know what they were getting. A lot of important banks bought a lot of them, and now are finding out they are worthless.
AXMXZ:
Oh, how good it is to be a Shikagoan! Plus if we get the Olympics.............
"Right now they are busy learning French here in France."
Adopt me.
"Geoff, the Marketing Resource Group poll in MI doesn´t exists."
We found it.
1. Nate, love your site. But your football betting example is wrong. If you lose a $10,000 regular pointspread football bet at one casino and win a $10,000 football bet at a second casino, you do not braek even. A $10,000 bet pays less than $10,000 in net winnings (on top of your original bet back) because you have to bet $10,000 to win about $9,090 due to the vig.
2. The Hillary betting on Intrade is premised on the Berg lawsuit in PA to disqualify Barack as nominee because allegedly either (1) his refusal to produce a certified birth certificate means he was not born in the US or (2) he lost his US citizenship when adopted in Indonesia and never took the formalities to get it back.
Geoff,
For my own clarification: are you arguing that the investment houses and investment managers would NOT have underwrote all of the bad paper had they not been compelled to do so by congress? Is that the crux of your argument?
"2. The Hillary betting on Intrade is premised on the Berg lawsuit in PA to disqualify Barack as nominee because allegedly either (1) his refusal to produce a certified birth certificate means he was not born in the US or (2) he lost his US citizenship when adopted in Indonesia and never took the formalities to get it back.
"
They'd have to be pretty big idiots, because those have both been debunked. You *don't* lose your citizenship for acquiring a second citizenship.
Marc:
You say
The only thing that bothers me about the Davis situation isn't influence, or the perception of influence, it's the continued disingenuousness of the McCain campaign by publicly attacking Obama for being "tied to Fannie and Freddie" when the McCain camp is clearly far more intertwined with the movers and shakers of the FMs than Obama ever was.
What movers and shakers are linked to McCain besides Davis?
Also, you omit the Mudd speech about Obama to the CBC and Obama in 04.
September 24, 2008
The day 538 "jumped the shark" when Nate Silver began spouting bizarre theories about Intrade, assassinations, the Secret Service, and all the typical tinfoil hat theories. He can't believe that the rest of the world isn't as sold on Obama as he is. What a pathetic joke this site has become.
---Poker, see above re housing oversupply causation via Fannie/Freddie, and the resultant mire the economy is in now.
Look at it macroeconomically:
Right now, there are approximately 80M houses/condos, and 50M have mortgages. About 3-4M of those mortgages are in default stages, and another 1-2M are going that way - about 10% at least.
Now, the expansion of Fannie in the 90's and 00's and other government incentives to force risky lending by banks (CRA) pushed up the number of houses/condos overall sharply, perhaps adding 2-3M that wouldnt have otherwise been built.
It is simple economics - the housing industry built because the lenders signaled that borrowers are there to buy - the problem is, those new borrowers couldnt make payments longterm, and now those houses have no borrower to get a mortgage on them that can pay the bill. Fannie and others using Lehman, Bear, Merryl etc to securitize bonds with those bad mortgages spread the pain.
Ergo, housing oversupply and the mire in the economy.---
Wow, Geoff. You don't understand the current crisis *AT ALL*. I've seen some silly oversimplifications in my time, but that's just breathtaking. I'm not trying to antagonize you here, but actually having taken the time to learn how the risk and pricing models work for the derivatives in question here, you're so far off base it's painful. There is no simplification of this failure, much as the public might demand there be one. If you can't understand the math, you can't understand the problem.
pmoc-the investment houses committed unconscionable negligence, without direct congressional prompting.
That's Obama's best argument.
"Geoff, the Marketing Resource Group poll in MI doesn´t exists."
It does exist.
http://www.mrgmi.com/PR%20Pres%20Fall%2008.pdf
The data is four days old, but the poll is real.
Going to respond to my assertion that McCain's regulations were unacceptable because they were attempting to remove regulatory power from Congress and put it in the executive branch?
Going to show proof that Obama opposed the bill that never came up for a vote?
Poker, all you have is elitist trifling to oppose my theory. Persuasive indeed.
scouser: Screw the Olympics, maybe they can finally overhaul the CTA!
"Poker, all you have is elitist trifling to oppose my theory. Persuasive indeed."
Your theory is irrelevant.
You are trying to explain the mortgage crisis, when that's not even the issue anymore. The question is how did the mortgage crisis cause the liquidity crisis, which is much bigger.
Comeone guys, your post graduate thesis on this Fannie Mae subject is unecessary. i don't know whom you guys are trying to convince either way.
All of you are right, but in the court of public opinion Obama is winning on this issue, for the simple fact that McCain has been proven a hypocrite. Everything else is an academic discussion that goes waaaaay above the head of an average voter.
Ink -
I agree a focus of the bill was to put Fannie under the Treasury. Congress hated this because that takes away their cash cow. I'm looking into this now.
Re quotes from Obama on Fannie, working as well. On background, lets not forget that ACORN and Fannie have a very long relationship, and Obama and ACORN had a very long relationship.
---Poker, all you have is elitist trifling to oppose my theory. Persuasive indeed.---
Geoff, when I know more about something than you, that's not "elitist". When I don't but pretend to, or to equivocate my knowledge with yours, that is. You're familiar with that, I take it?
True Liverpool. I think McCain's only hope is to try to teach the public about housing oversupply causing the value drop --- and blaming the oversupply on the Dems.
If you're going to sell Obama contracts short in anticipation of a game-changing event, you're better off doing it at Betfair where at least you'll get someone to pay you $0.61 instead of $0.51. Whoever's doing this isn't acting rationally. It's being done to make a point.
" On background, lets not forget that ACORN and Fannie have a very long relationship, and Obama and ACORN had a very long relationship."
I've got a better link for Palin and secessionism than that :)
Regardless of how we feel about it, I think liverpool nailed it:
It doesn't matter who is responsible. It matters that the public believes Obama and doesn't believe McCain. Sort of like how Palin is considered an acceptable VP candidate by most Americans, regardless of how many good argument I could put up that she's barely qualified to be a mayor.
Complex math? No. Not since Diffy-Q and Calc IV in 1992. :)
Geoff,
Then couldn't it be argued that the demand for (bad) mortgages and mortgage backed securities came from these investment house, with their managers clamoring for more and more of this paper, rather than fannie mae and freddie mac's provisions that purportedly "required" lending to unqualified buyers? Wouldnt a responsible investment house, knowing that it had a regulatory mandate to take on a certain amount of subprime paper, hedge their risk and write paper under stricter practices to "qualified" buyers?
I'm not being rhetorical, I really am confused...
I agree McCain is losing the battle now -
The "no regs caused" theory is beating "fannie caused" by 45-30 rest undecided.
It is quite ironic that an oversupply of housing that indisputably was helped along by government policy is hurting the economy and leading the public to believe the downtown is caused by LACK of government intervention in the markets.
---You are trying to explain the mortgage crisis, when that's not even the issue anymore. The question is how did the mortgage crisis cause the liquidity crisis, which is much bigger.---
I'm not trying to explain anything, Geoff, I'm just pointing out that it's really quite complicated. It's not at all "simple economics". It is, in fact, "incredibly complex economics" that neither candidate has anything approaching a clear grasp of.
---in the court of public opinion Obama is winning on this issue, for the simple fact that McCain has been proven a hypocrite. Everything else is an academic discussion that goes waaaaay above the head of an average voter.---
Without question. Not to mention the average Congressperson.
I'm glad someone pulled up this anomaly. Intrade's price on Obama dropped with the bookmakers and our (Hubdub, www.hubdub.com) price along with the RNC. However in the past week he has gained ground with us and the bookmakers.
However his price hasn't moved up on Intrade. I thought it was an anomaly but now it looks suspicious.
Geoff said "Now, the expansion of Fannie in the 90's and 00's and other government incentives to force risky lending by banks (CRA) pushed up the number of houses/condos overall sharply, perhaps adding 2-3M that wouldnt have otherwise been built."
Geoff,
I have called this out as a lie in several other threads, yet you keep repeating it. The fundamental disconnect in the mortgage market was the $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgage originated from 2003-2007. Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with this, as this was a part of the mortgage market separate from the conforming mortage markets, where Fannie and Freddie played.
If heightened CRA caused as much as $10 billion in new originations, I would be shocked beyond measure, as that would represent over 100,000 additional mortgages in CRA areas during the relevant time period.
The sub-prime lenders issued millions of loans which Fannie and Freddie did not underwrite, did not insure, did not guarantee, had no contact with whatsoever. Those are the vast majority of the loans going bad, since they are what I call the "stupid" mortgages, e.g., "no-docs," 30 year no interest, teaser ARMs, no money down, etc.
Fannie and Freddie contributed to the crisis by continuing to underwrite loans as if no bubble were developing. However, absent significant job or wage losses, the Fannie and Freddie mortgages should not have default rates much higher than historical averages, since they were still based on the ability of the borrowers to repay (which was not a criterion used in the sub-prime market as the mortgage products got more stupid).
Stop with the Republican talking points on the mortgage meltdown, as they are completely without merit.
---Complex math? No. Not since Diffy-Q and Calc IV in 1992. :)---
You should know better, then. If you have the math to understand the quantitative analysis, why would you ignore it? McCain loses the political point scoring game, *badly*, regardless, but why waste time with an oversimplification you must know is absurd?
Pmoc - It could be argued, however, the securitized bonds and derivatives did not get started strongly in the mortgage market until the mid 00's.
Before that, we had REITs - Real Estate Investment Trusts - which held primarily commercial buildings as security and some did residential.
The residential mortgage backed securities business for the investment banking industry (may God rest that industry's soul as it is now gone) ballooned at exactly the wrong time, freeing Fannie and others from some obligations and allowing continued juicing of the housing market.
Geoff,
I think McCain needs to get away from this issue as quickly as possible. There has always been the only way that McCain can win this, and that was by stressing the importance of an experienced leader in tough times compared to the young hotshot upstart. But he, just like his campaign lost their way and got caught in winning these media cyclees which worked for some time but is backfiring big time right now.
And this bizzare media trip is baffling. I still remember how much play that editorial endorsement from NYT got in the primaries. Hell they were the ones that made that reformer and maverick theme a plausible sell.
Counsel, I respectfully disagree and stand on my posts. I worked in the field and your assumptions are incorrect in several regards, most importantly that the CRA/Fannie shift in emphasis to low income/diversity lending had no impact on the subprime lending market.
That is simply false.
On that Berg lawsuit, Berg was intrigued by Barack's refusal to turn over a birth certificate or even say which Hawaii hospital he was born in.
As for Indonesia, I don't know immigration law but I have heard that Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship and yet in the early 1980's Barack visited his mom in Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. Don't know what that means.
Rasmussen's NH poll toaday shold be paid attention to to see if it confirms the two NH-based polls (ARG and UNH) showing McCain ahead or the Marist poll (a lousy pollster generally) showing Obama solidly ahead.
axmxz:
The good thing about the Olympics is usually the public transportation grid is number one priority for the Olympics officials. It shall give Daley a good kick in the ass to overhaul it.
I agree liverpool - McCain's campaign has lost its way, bigtime.
It is really pretty sad. At the same time, the underdog in me still cheers for him. I do wish Obama had not dissed the DLC so strongly and I could therefore have any faith in his actually governing from the center.
Geoff,
I think most people in this country respect(ed) McCain.
In regards to Obama being a leftist, after such a turmoil here and in Iraq I think he won't have a choice but to govern from the center. Ideals are nice, but often pragmatism kicks in.
Geoff said "It could be argued, however, the securitized bonds and derivatives did not get started strongly in the mortgage market until the mid 00's."
Geoff,
You could argue that, but again you are wrong.
The sub-prime portgage market took of in the late 90s, with the creation by the Republican Congress of the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) in the Internal Revenue Code. The REMIC created a tax-favored entity for pooling mortgages and selling off interests in the future cash flows.
The REMIC ignited the sub-prime market, by creating a recognized and sanctioned investment device.
However, the REMIC (together with gain-on-sale accounting) created what was in essence a Ponzi scheme among sub-prime lenders, who had to continue to have origination volume grow, or they would fail, since REMICs and gain-on-sale accounting created pretty paper profits, but resulted in significant cash burn. Because of the cash burn, the sub-prime lenders had to continue to grow, hoping one day to get ahead of the curve and generate positive cash flow.
None ever succeeded in generating positive cash flow, and eventually could not grow, so the sub-prime lenders collapsed, leaving the US taxpayers to foot the bill for the mess.
all the skullduggery talk is interesting, but what I get out of this is that while Nate shows us that the proper payoff is roughly 33 cents on the dollar, intrade will get you a whole dollar back. No? The lesson I take here is that if you believe Obama is a strong favorite based on the math, go buy at intrade tomorrow morning when he dips under 50 again.
poker samurai, re: trading:
If you know who I am (2+2 politics), guess what I've been doing ;)
Big jump in trading on Intrade today. Obama above 54 for first time in a while. I wonder if Nate moved the market out of it's slumber...
Someone just needs to pull out of the market, so they are closing their (very big) positions. They do it gradually to get as good prices as possible.
---If you know who I am (2+2 politics)---
I don't recognize the name, but if you're a 2+2 politics poster, I'd have to lay 18 to 1 you're an anarcho-capitalist.
Full disclosure:
I have been an Intrader since Sept of this year, and I made about 15 grand off Obama for Dem. Nom. as well as some smaller bets (some winners, some losers) over that time, off an initial investment of 5K. I held off purchasing presidential futures until after both conventions, and bought a ton of Obama (both for Pres, and some appealingly-valued states like Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, Ohio, and Iowa) and I expect Obama to win this election 287-251.
Having watched this market carefully for the last year, I find it utterly apparent that its predictive value is nearly nil. It is merely an aggregator of the known. For example, when the news broke that Biden was receiving Secret Service protection, the Biden for VP future jumped to 95 in a matter of minutes. However, I was able to acquire 50 shares at 3 points in late February, despite the fact that it was apparent that one, Obama was overwhelmingly likely to win the nom, and two, 3 of his primary weaknesses were among Catholics, the working class, and foreign policy voters. Even the week before, Biden was trading at around 11. So my thought is, don't place too much stock in the market's ability to predict the future weeks or months in advance. If something happens in late October, or early November, you might want to worry. But even then, the market has a bad history of jumping off the handle at rumors (for example, Evan Bayh was the overwhelming favorite for VP in the weeks before the convention on the strength of blogger speculation that he'd be announced during Obama's visit to Indiana, since that was his last stop prior to the Olympics.
This is a small market, and you don't need that much money to move the price. I remember something similar held down Obama prices for months, as a trader kept selling blocs of 1000 shares of Obama at 20, 21, 22, 23, etc. He/she didn't give up until many thousands of shares had been sold, and no doubt realized losses of tens of thousands of dollars (8 thousand of which aggregated to me :) ) Larger trends eventually predominate, however.
It's also notable that today, a series of floor prices (i.e. prices at which 500 or more shares are bid) between 51 and 55 for Obama to win Pres. have suddenly emerged. I attribute this to Nate drawing attention to a market inefficiency, and a number of traders moving to eliminate it.
Based on the state-by-state odds, which if anything, are still underestimating Barack's chances, given the powerful trends in his favor, and his conservative, measured campaign strategy, which makes game-changing gaffes unlikely. If I were pegging a target price for Barack for this week, based on his state-by-state probabilities plus the polling trendlines, and the fact that two types of polling error favor Obama (1. cell phone omission +2.8 %, 2. New voter registrations +1-3%), it would be around 65-70.
And if I had more money to invest right now, I'd put it into buying Virginia and North Carolina (no position in NC yet). Just my two cents.
Rouge. :)
Mrinsight,
Rasmussen is full of it.
NH has 31R, 31D, 38I
O
bama has a lead in Independents as Rasmussen claims, but by how much Ras won't say b/c everyone knows if you win Ind you win the state. Every poll in the state shows thaT...look at the history. NH is spilt evenly R and D and independents are the deciders.
McCains 4% party support advantage amounts to 1 pt. Everyone knows if you win Ind you win NH and Obama is ahead in Ind ,but some how he is losing the state according to Ras. Obama is winning the state and Ras is letting his bias not even been slightly hidden. Ras is losing credibility rapidly even more than from his new Fox affiliation.
One final point: the reason markets are efficient is that stupid people lose their money, and smart people eventually end up predominating (to grossly simplify things). In Intrade, that doesn't necessarily happen, because the market is predominated by gamblers and fresh meat. Moreover, it's wholly possible that the person who is buying McCain is someone who made a fortune off McCain for Nom futures prior to New Hampshire. I myself had a small stake in McCain that I bought at around 10 after Iowa, but before NH. So someone who made a similar bet over a period of months, but with perhaps 10K shares in aggregate, would have more than enough money to finance this kind of a move. Of course, he's doing it at a very ill-advised time (i.e. when Palin's impact reached its peak) which is what leads me to think this is a yahoo who is new to the market and overcome by Palin-fever, not someone with insider info. We'll find out tomorrow, as the number of shares on the board between 51 and 55 for Barack will make it difficult for anyone to dominate trading.
Finally, a similar trend exists in McCain for Pres. shares, which indicates that this person genuinely believes McCain will come out on top, and is only buying Clinton shares as a hedge against the possibility of an assassination. And yes, if Obama died, the Dems would send out Hillary, not Biden as their candidate. They'd be crazy to do otherwise.
oh hell no, ancaps are the worst.
I made an 'intrade is flawed' thread, put up 10K to shut the ancaps up and turned it into ~40 so far. for the last few days, I've basically been profiting off this guy and have been a substantial amount of the volume on the other side.
he's awesome - too bad Nate probably spooked him.
1. Hate to be a wet blanket but just in case some folks get the wrong impression, I note that Intrade betting is illegal in the United States under federal law and the law of most states (though I doubt there is any enforcement).
2. 3 of the last 4 NH polls including two by pollsters based in NH (ARG and high-rated UNH) have McCain ahead in that state (which makes sense to me who lived in New England for 25 years). Yet the Obamaphiles pooh-pooh those polls and instead fixate on the one outlier by Marist today that favors Obama even though Marist is a poorly-rated pollster.
Look at the run of recent polls in the lst week in a state, not one particular one.
And please everyone stop crticizing the internals of individual state polls when you don't like the results while at the same time not saying a peep about equally wacky internals in state polls whose results you do like. Hypocrisy is rife throughout the polling blogosphere.
(Internal attacks on national polls are fair game I think).
I don't know crap about these markets, but people buy and sell shares at will, don't they? It is not a final bet on who will win, it is a bet on how the polls will swing, right?
If so these markets reflective of TRENDS in the election. Someone thinks there is an Obama bubble right now and they sink some money into McCain to benefit from the next twist in the campaign.Then they'll sell to capitalize on the next Obama swing. Right?
Buy low sell high....
I'm wondering what Wolfers says on this. Market manipulation in the "predictive" market?
"Buy Low Sell High"
I can tell you from experience, this is a terrible strategy on Intrade. The market is far to illiquid to count on anyone taking shares off your hands at anything like the current trading price, so you're best served by placing bets on those props that you expect to win, and holding onto them as long as you still believe they're winners. Sell only when you have new information that contradicts your original suppositions. For example, if you owned the prop "Congress will not pass offshore drilling legislation", you'd probably want to get rid of it after Obama announced his support for some limited offshore drilling back in August.
However, it's just a bad, bad idea to buy "McCain to win" thinking that he won't win, but that the market is likely to shift that direction before settling on zero. Instead, you want to hold off buying until the market shifts (or doesn't shift) and then buy Obama to win at an appropriate price (which is what I did). It's much safer, and damn near equally profitable.
Take it from a guy who lost a ton of money anticipating Romney winning Iowa, then losing the nom to McCain (which obviously cushioned the blow...). Better to stick with positions in what you expect to happen at all times.
Rather than call it Kerry+CO+NM+IA-NH, why not call it Gore+CO? It's much easier.
Intrade has suddenly jumped to McCain 45.6/Obama 55.0. Within hours of your post. Wonder how many traders are reading your site, Nate??
It is interesting that "Hillary to win the presidency" continues to hover at around 3%, and "Democratic Party Candidate to win" is 57.4%, higher than Obama's odds to win. The "Republican Party candidate" is at 44% to win -- curiously, slightly LOWER than McCain's odds to win. Is there a fringe school of thought that thinks McCain will switch his party affiliation to independent before the election???
Did anyone notice that the last two hurricanes to hit US (Ike and Gustav) were said to have winds exactly 1 mph below the next Cat rating.
Since hurricanes are traded on Intrade that could mean that the market is being manipulated. Perhaps. A conspiracy theory or a coincidence?
Another explanation for the Obama (although not the Clinton) data is that this is betting by someone who stands to make a lot of money in an Obama administration. Betting against Obama through Intrade might be a reasonable hedge.
It's obvious-"Whitey Tape"
I can't read all of the other posts, but it make sense that a holder of such tape or knowledge of someone who will be dropping it, would have great reason to bet on a regular basis. The reason for the recent increase to 55 includes Liberals wasting their money here just to boost his rating. This reduces the money for the Obama campaign and DNC-
Fortunately, it's impossible to speculate on the death of a candidate (in which case one could make a huge profit out of somebody's death, which would be deeply unethical):
Quote from Intrade.com:
In the event of the death of one of the candidates the following steps will be taken:
1. All contracts in the group will be paused and expired at the last closing price set for each contract
2. A new market will be listed for the remaining candidates
This may repeat other posts, but assuming the site is read by media and it discredits the Intrade results, it helps Barack in the same way that discrediting the shabby Yahoo/AP results does.
Well done.
MCCAIN dropping out of debate to go save the economy, asking Obama to do the same. What a joke! McCain must be having some tough debate prep sessions.
Yawn - I could just as easily ask why 538.com (The Nate Silver Oracle)keeps bouncing suspiciously whenever his indicators get too close to predicting a McCain victory. Manipulation? Plots? Intrigue? Is Nate shamelessly manipulating his spreadsheet to fluff for Obama? we'll never know. Maybe he is handweighting polls that he likes vs. ones he doesn't?
But let me offer more than the vagaries that Nate offers. Why, in his Ohio model, is the Quinnipiac poll from two weeks ago STILL the highest weighted poll when it is the ONLY poll to have Obama ahead in the last month! (except for the 9/15 CNN poll which was only BO +2, and is also more highly weighted then more recent polls) Why does "trend adjustment" favor Obama by 3% (!) when the recent "trend" in OH is clearly towards McCain (by trend, I mean the results of more recent polls vs. older polls)
But instead we are suggesting that manipulation costing 100's of k's a week is taking place in the In trade market. Which is more easily manipulated - a market? or a spreadsheet? If you think the former, please feels free to buy up "cheap" CDO's at .30 on the $ because your spreadsheet says they are worth .97
When an asset runs up because of customer demand, market makers are supposed to provide liquidity and short the assets. I think this is how market makers in stocks have been making money for the last 100 years. I'd say that this what one would expect in a well functioning markets.
The article says:
"In fact, the Intrade pricing doesn't even seem to be internally consistent. If you look at their pricing in individual states, they have Obama at no lower than 60 percent or so in each of the Kerry states, as well as in Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico. And Virginia, Nevada and Ohio are all at about 50:50. The relationships between the odds of winning any given state and the odds of winning the electoral college are difficult to determine, but I'm pretty sure that Obama should be higher than 51.5 percent given those parameters."
It's worth noting two points: First, the individual state contracts on intrade have huge spreads. Second, the correlation between battle state outcomes is very high, and thus it's possible that every battle ground state is 55% likely to go to Obama and yet Obama be only 55% likely to win the election. In fact, there's a financial markets analogy to this relation ship: Dispersion trade, in which one sells options on a portfolio of stocks and buys options on the individual stocks in the portfolio.
The article also states that:
"Still, if I were the Secret Service FBI (**), I would probably want to know the identity of this trader. And if I were one of those Beltway pundits who thinks I can be hip by referring to Intrade, I would take a look at the gross inefficiencies in these markets and think better of it.
(**) It seems to me that too much attention is being paid to this particular point. No, I do not think it is at all probable that this is connected to some sort of physical threat to Obama. But I do think it is the job of the FBI to investigate improbable threats. This is the whole reason the Pentagon was arguing for terrorism futures markets a couple of years ago."
The article seems to argue here that if Obama were to die, the seller of Obama claim would make a llot of money. This, however, is not true. Always read the contract so you know what you're betting on! Here's what the contract states in case of a candidate's death:
"In the event of the death of one of the candidates the following steps will be taken:
1. All contracts in the group will be paused and expired at the last closing price set for each contract
2. A new market will be listed for the remaining candidates"
The article also pays too little attention to how the market making "robots" work on Intrade. If someone trades Obama and prices get out of line, the robots will hedge with McCain and Clinton. For example, if there's too much demand for Obama, the prices of Obama, McCain, and Clinton will add up to more than 100. The robot will sell all three for more than 100 and will receive 100 in almost all cases. (The collateral pays no interest, which will biase the prices somewhat.) There are similar bets to arbitrage the difference between AnyRep, McCain, AnyDem, Clinton, and Obama. Thus, the trading volumes between the contracts being correlated is not a sign of conspiracy, it's a sign of efficient market making.
Actually if something physical happened to Obama then Intrade would automatically unwind the contracts. It could be a massive scandal (maybe the tape that we have been hearing about) or it could be manipulation.
My bet is on the rich idiot theory. The day before the repsective conventions started both Obama and McCain were only given a 95% probability of being the nominee of their respective parties. Remember, this is the same market that gave Obama a 20% chance of the nomination and McCain less than 5% - to say nothing of the 25% probability the markets gave Ron Paul in New Hampshire.
It doesn't matter the trader isn't buying Biden. He's smart... there's no way in hell the Democrats would pick Biden if something happened to Obama with the option of Hillary on the table. I believe they pick by the way, it wouldn't just be ceded to Biden. Clinton would be the most sensible alternative, she got far more primary votes than Biden. It would turn into a Clinton-Biden ticket, this trader is betting on the Clinton part.
So someone is betting on some sort of disqualifying event happening to Obama.
This is really disturbing. I hope that Intrade and the other betting markets have systems in place to prevent bettors from making money off an assassination.
I don't know how exactly they would do it --- maybe freeze the market the instant such an event occured, and pay out based on the value of the shares just before it happened?
I would be really mad if there are people out there betting on assassination. And even more mad if Intrade made it possible for anyone to make money on such a gamble.
Is 538 under a DOS attack?
Possum Comitatus said: The 30/70 rule is important in this case because I can’t find, in the history of Intrade political markets, any candidate ever winning with a probability below 30% immediately before election day.
I believe for the Democratic primary this year in New Hampshire, the InTrade contract for Obama to win was in the 90s and even went as high as 98 on the day of the election (I believe there was even a news article, probably Associated Press, mentioning this.) Of course, the contract closed at zero when Clinton won.
More generally, your post (as well as Nate's post) is very interesting to me as I have been following these contracts along with the state probabilites on a daily basis. (I am curious how you take state correlations into account and I plan on taking a look at your website later tonight.) I have been considering two extremes: 1. independent states with no correlation 2. "fully correlated case" where all electoral votes "bluer" than a random threshhold are allocated to Obama. (Note that the median EV of the second case corresponds to giving Obama all states where he has at least 50% chance according to Intrade.) Up until the last couple weeks, the "headline" Intrade contracts for Obama/Dems were in between the probabilities predicted by these two extremes. Within the last couple weeks, however, there has been a divergence (as Nate alludes to).
Another interesting point is that Intrade has contracts for probability that each party will get greater than or equal to some EV threshhold. If you plot these probabilities along with the distributions based on Intrade data using the two extreme cases mentioned above, the EV contract points generally lie in between the probability curves for the two extreme cases (with the recent exception of the distribution around 270 EVs).
PeteyPowderBlue, I've been reading your thoughts on this subject, and I find them very interestinging. Thank you!
Only thing I don't understand if I follow your reasoning is how to explain the differences between the markets (Intrade vs. Betfair). How would you address the point Nate makes in his fourth paragraph ("That is a huge ... futures contracts.")?
It's just some McCain campaign aides shorting Obama shares to keep his price low, and the idea is to stir up panic among Obama supporters.
However, this only works if other Obama shareholders see the drop and then sell their own shares, which drives down the price even further.
Also, the McCain aides have to slowly buy Obama stock back up in order to resell it again. That explains the gradual climb between each sell off, but traders could buy up more Obama shares when they see the gradual increase, which drives up Obama's share price further.
However, I bet the uncertainty caused by these constant intentional fluctuations are scaring away enough potential Obama buyers to keep the price at a high of 51 to 52% instead of 60+%. Oddly enough, however, that may end up being Obama's popular vote percentage.
McCain's campaign people think they are so smart, because they think they have thought of everything and because many of them have the Bush victories under their belt. That kind of arrogance doesn't do anybody any good, though, and it certainly turns me off.
61% is absurd. It's a 50-50 race right now.
However, someone needs to make money on the arbitrage opportunity
Markets exist to be manipulated.
That being said, I think Intrade is more accurate because of the "Bradley Effect". Europeans are probably not aware of it, or may discount it. It is the one HUGE unknown in the election, much more so than the margin of error in a poll. Essentially, it makes the polls useless. You need to add 3% to 6% to McCain -- exactly how much per state unknown, to get a feel for how close the race is going to be.
Before you completely dismiss this as unlikely ... let's get real. Some very viseral issues, like gay marriage, bilingual education, and affirmative action, have been overwhelmingly rejected when put to a popular vote. Despite the best efforts of the media and politicians to spin them as the next step to a utopian world.
Race and kicking Hillary off the ticket are REALLY viseral issues. If you don't think women won't take everyone down with them when they are wronged, check out divorce court.
Obama has made it clear he doesn't like uneducated whites that cling to their bibles and guns. That is, of course, the group he needs to connect with to win.
The NRA, Rev. Wright, and making fun of Palin are not helping with this demographic. Along with Pelosi and Biden citing incorrect Catholic theology.
McCain is doing his best to stay out of the election and let it be an up or down vote on Obama.
Has anyone considered:
Intrade is mentioned here, on RCP, on Rasmussen, and many other sites pertaining to polling and elections. Betfair's presidential market has never been mentioned on any of those (until now).
US political junkies, most likely interested in POTUS markets, see Intrade all over the place on election junkie sites. They want to put a few bucks on. Most being partisan, they mostly bet on their favorite candidate. Remarkably, they do this in a 52-48 ratio, similar to national polling.
Betfair et al, mostly unknown to most Americans except sports bettors and poker players like me and a lot of you, are getting more action on Obama. That trendline is consistent with world opinion/desire in the POTUS race.
If Betfair was more of a true free market, it would not be unreasonable to see a line there similar to tracking polls. As it stands, the barrier to entry to the Betfair market is quite high for the average US citizen.
Nothing nefarious here.
I reply here.
There is no mention of the campaign being suspended on McCain's campaign website.
This is such a gimmick. I heard David Gergen still giving McCain the benefit of the doubt on this. Until some poll says otherwise, the media is not going to call it for what it is.
Here is a graph of the discrepancy between Intrade and IEM over time. There's been an unusually large difference in prices lately.
that's the obama campaign hedging itself.
Has anyone mentioned that the Iowa Exchange contract is on the popular vote winner, not the electoral vote winner, whereas Intrade is the electoral vote winner? In this case the traded item is not the same so there is no reason why we should expect the prices to be close to each other...
I believe this is a repub driven manipulation vs. something far more repugnant, depressing and, unfortunately, not out of the realm of possibility.
And if this is the case, the silver (gold?) lining is that one can make more money when Obama wins.
Sorry to be make a political joke, but Intrade should list a contract on whether Palin will utter a coherent sentence during the debate.
My theory: a group of republicans are trying to manipulate prices so the media reports that Obama is not ahead by much so voters move that direction. It's a classic case of price fraud, which many on Wall Street understand, e.g., inflated dot com values, inflated CDOs, etc. This manipulation will cost far less than $700 billion in CASH but far more if it helps McCain win.
On a side note: the comparison of the out-of-line markets to a middle on the point spread is incorrect. If you were to buy Obama for 50 on Intrade and sell him at 60 on Betfair, you would lock in 10 ticks (times however many contract-dollars) regardless of outcome. No middling is necessary. (What would a middle even be?--these are percentages, not adders.)
Everyone probably knew this already, of course,...
Just to speculate on the conspiracy theory a bit. If Obana were physically taken out..
1) Dems would turn to his strongest competitor Hilary and not to Biden, and
2) she would win in a landslide as people reacted to the tragedy
Doesn't it make sense that either a gambler or some people with inside knowledge would bet on this? And don't tell me there aren't plenty of white supemicist whackos out there thinking about it.
Actually... If you take a look at Intrade lately, I suspect you are correct. The race is close, the electoral race is closer than the polls with tossups and within the margins of error would have you believe.
Today Intrade has Obama with a 71% chance. I think that is patently absurd. The secret service has no jurisdiction over intrade since this is not a United States offering since internet gambling is illegal here.
So I would like to know which Soros backed or Mortgage giant backed trader is pumping money into Obama.
Well, looks like you were right after all Nate:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Gaming_Intrade.html?showall
Great job!
Someone WAS manipulating the market.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002976265&referrer=js
You were right, Nate, and I heard it here first.
-a longtime lurker
KUDOS!!
Turns out you were right. Hope you are just as right about the election!
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
網頁設計,網頁設計公司,最新消息,訪客留言,網站導覽
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品
色情遊戲,寄情築園小遊戲,情色文學,一葉情貼圖片區,情人視訊網,辣妹視訊,情色交友,成人論壇,情色論壇,愛情公寓,情色,舊情人,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,色情小說,做愛,做愛影片,性愛
免費視訊聊天室,aio交友愛情館,愛情公寓,一葉情貼圖片區,情色貼圖,情色文學,色情聊天室,情色小說,情色電影,情色論壇,成人論壇,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊美女,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,女同志聊天室,上班族聊天室,小高聊天室
AV,AV女優
視訊,影音視訊聊天室,視訊交友
視訊,影音視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊美女,視訊辣妹,免費視訊聊天室
自慰器,自慰器
視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成人網,免費視訊,微風成人區,尋夢聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,情色網,女優,AV女優,UT聊天室,自拍,豆豆聊天室,18成人,免費A片,做愛,成人貼圖,美女交友,視訊做愛,做愛,日本AV,080聊天室,本圖自拍,A片,免費A片,成人論壇,一夜情聊天室,情人,12星座情人,
視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成人網,免費視訊,微風成人區,尋夢聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,情色網,女優,AV女優,UT聊天室,自拍,豆豆聊天室,18成人,免費A片,做愛,成人貼圖,美女交友,視訊做愛,做愛,日本AV,080聊天室,本圖自拍,A片,免費A片,成人論壇,一夜情聊天室,情人,12星座情人,
視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,聊天室,視訊,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天室,視訊交友,成人聊天室,情色交友,嘟嘟成人網,免費視訊,微風成人區,尋夢聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,情色網,女優,AV女優,UT聊天室,自拍,豆豆聊天室,18成人,免費A片,做愛,成人貼圖,美女交友,視訊做愛,做愛,日本AV,080聊天室,本圖自拍,A片,免費A片,成人論壇,一夜情聊天室,情人,12星座情人,
キャッシング
網頁設計
クレジットカード 現金化
ダンボール
留学
水 通販
ウィークリーマンション
障害者
有料老人ホーム
看板 製作
レーザー脱毛
フランチャイズ
Post a Comment