Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-20-2010, 05:28 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Strategic Defaults

A strategic default occurs when a borrower decides to stop making loan payments despite being financially capable of making payments. It happens for any number of reasons. For example, a person who owes more on their house than it's actually worth might simply cease making payments, let the bank foreclose and rent for a while (probably want to sign that lease before your credit rating is shot).

I think that if we're going to accept the view that homes are primarily investments, one of the views which fed the recent housing boom and bust, then it only makes sense to treat them like an investment and cut your losses when it makes sense to do so. It's what competent investors do.

This doesn't necessarily answer the question of ethics, though. For some folks, this poses an interesting ethical dilemma. How much of our personal honor is at stake in our financial dealing with large institutions? Is signing a loan agreement with a bank a personal promise, cross your heart and hope to die?

I don't think it is, and I wouldn't think twice about strategically defaulting if I felt like it made sense in the context of my personal and financial goals. I don't subscribe to the notion of corporate person hood, and so I don't think that it makes sense to think of a loan as statement of personal integrity. Certainly, the bank isn't likely to make any exceptions to their normal practices out of a sense of personal responsibility to you.

What are your thoughts? Would you walk away from a loan for reasons other than an inability to pay it back? Have you? Do you think it ethical?
filtherton is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 05:40 PM   #2 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
My first thought is that if you're talking about your primary residence---and especially if you have no other residence---then it isn't the best of ideas to consider that an investment. It should be considered your home. I think a lot of the problem with foreclosures and other financial difficulties is when people look at homes as investments or financial assets. This is why I think HELOCs in principle are a bad idea. People have used them to use their homes as leverage to enter the stock market, and many still made risky bets based on what they were reading in the news or what their friends or kids' pianos teachers were "advising" them on.

Besides that, I don't think defaulting is a question of ethics so much as it is a question of responsibility. You signed an agreement and are bound to the terms of the agreement---period. It would be unethical to somehow defraud the agreement to otherwise avoid the responsibility associated with it.

I've heard the stories of people walking away from houses because of mortgage interest issues. However, defaulting will have an impact on your credit score. So you have to weigh the consequences. Do you want to save money or do you want to maintain a good credit rating, which may help you down the road?

There can be tough decisions. I understand that. But I don't think these are ethical dilemmas generally. If I held a $300,000 mortgage on a $150,000 house, I don't know what I'd do. It's another issue to see your $1,000/month mortgage payment spike to $1,500 or more as well.

I'd have to do a lot of research and figure out where I see things going over the long term. I'd then ask myself, is this an investment or is this my home?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 05:56 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post

What are your thoughts? Would you walk away from a loan for reasons other than an inability to pay it back? Have you? Do you think it ethical?
I look at a loan as my personal commitment to repay the loan unless circumstances prevent it. If you're borrowing money to finance an investment, you're the one that should be assuming the risk of the investment going bad, not the lender. If your investment goes bad, you take the loss.

I would not intentionally walk away from a loan. I also don't think walking away from a loan is ethical.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 07:10 PM   #4 (permalink)
Riding the Ocean Spray
 
BadNick's Avatar
 
Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa
As long as it can be legally done, I don't see any ethical problem with it. But practically, I think lenders should implement systems to make such defaults much less attractive. It seems to me that this practice makes loans more expensive for all the other borrowers since either the lender or their insurance or whoever have to cover the costs and still make money or the system flops.

The question reminds me of contracts, for example in sports, where both parties sign but later one party decides they don't like the contract and insists on renegotiating it.

If lenders implemented a loan qualification such that anyone who took a strategic default would not be eligible for another mortgage loan for some significant period, say 10 years, and then at higher cost, there would be more serious consequences for doing this.
BadNick is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 07:30 PM   #5 (permalink)
People in masks cannot be trusted
 
Xazy's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
It is a difficult thing for me to answer this. On one side my gut tells me that I think you should not be able to break a contractual agreement and should have to abide by your word. That being said if your value is decreased to such a degree where there is no reasonable hope that you will make your money back, just like the bank took the risk on the loan and is making profit on your mortgage, it is collateral agreement and I can not honestly say don't walk. If it was me I do not know if I could just waste money for 20 years knowing I will be throwing away money.

This is an issue I have thought about since I follow real estate a lot and I know of a number of communities where this is a big issue.
__________________
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Xazy is offline  
Old 11-20-2010, 07:50 PM   #6 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Nepenthes's Avatar
 
Location: New England, USA
You trust the bank to lend you money to buy a house, the bank trusts you to pay them back. It is a win/win if both parties follow through on their word.

I would consider most strategic defaults to be unethical as a result.

However, I know many situations where a bank becomes unreasonable and leaves the borrower little choice other than to strategically default.
Nepenthes is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 08:51 AM   #7 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNick View Post
If lenders implemented a loan qualification such that anyone who took a strategic default would not be eligible for another mortgage loan for some significant period, say 10 years, and then at higher cost, there would be more serious consequences for doing this.

I like the idea, but in many places, people were getting loans for the cheap homes after the crash, and then walking away from the really high one.

I think the bank needs to take into consideration how underwater you are in terms of loan amount vs. value before issuing any other loans.

On a bigger scale, it might cause problems with having way too many renters being financially stable, yet unable to buy a home for 10 years. Then in 10 years, you will get a huge wave of people who have been saving lots of money (good), yet the market supply won't be there and prices will shoot up.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 10:18 AM   #8 (permalink)
What day is it?
 
Location: Downey, CA
There are ways to do it legally and in good faith. I had a friend who could make the payments, but was really just wasting money on a bad loan. She went to the bank, turned over the house and got out of the loan. There was quite a bit of paperwork involved, but it was legal and the bank worked with her on the process. She made her payments until she turned over the house.

However, I have several acquaintances (not friends, as my friends wouldn't pull shit like this) who have just stopped paying and pocketed the mortgage payments for a year until forclosure. That situation bugs the hell out of me.

I'm pretty sure that even with a legal strategic default you still get hit with a 1099 for the difference is value between the house and the loan. So aside from the credit hit, there are definite tax penalties.
Shagg is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 01:23 PM   #9 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
so, if i default on a loan, strategically or otherwise, who covers the loss? the lending facility? looks to me like john q. consumer ultimately pays the price in the end, whether through higher interest rates, government bailouts, or higher mortgage insurance premiums...

unethical, to my mind...
__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 03:07 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Fotzlid's Avatar
 
Location: Greater Boston area
I would try working with the lender first but if I felt the deal wasn't in my best interest long term, I would have no problem walking away from the loan.
Corporations look out for their own financial interest and have no problems discarding customers who aren't making them money. I see no reason why I should keep myself in a bad financial situation with a corporation.
Fotzlid is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 03:45 PM   #11 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle phil View Post
so, if i default on a loan, strategically or otherwise, who covers the loss? the lending facility? looks to me like john q. consumer ultimately pays the price in the end, whether through higher interest rates, government bailouts, or higher mortgage insurance premiums...

unethical, to my mind...

Concur.

I'm with others who stated I agreed to repay money I borrowed. End of story. If that makes my life less fun or I have to work harder to do so, as long as I can do so I will. That includes eating rice and beans and living like a broke ass college students until times get better.
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 04:03 PM   #12 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Craven Morehead's Avatar
 
You know, this situation happens all the time in auto loans. Many people have car loans that exceed the value of their car. And seldom if ever do you hear about them walking away from their car. A car would have no hope of appreciating in value unlike a house. The value of the house could eventually appreciate enough to exceed the outstanding balance of the mortgage. It would probably take some time, but it probably will at some point.

So, let's say this happens thousands of times. Several thousands of times. Individually the home owner is going to be very challenged to get credit for years to come. And I wouldn't be surprised if the mortgage industry wouldn't change as a result. And not changes for the good. Much more severe underwriting standards, increased down payment requirements, etc. There will be a reaction if strategice defaults become widespread.
Craven Morehead is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 06:02 PM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
....This doesn't necessarily answer the question of ethics, though. For some folks, this poses an interesting ethical dilemma. How much of our personal honor is at stake in our financial dealing with large institutions? Is signing a loan agreement with a bank a personal promise, cross your heart and hope to die?

I don't think it is, and I wouldn't think twice about strategically defaulting if I felt like it made sense in the context of my personal and financial goals. I don't subscribe to the notion of corporate person hood, and so I don't think that it makes sense to think of a loan as statement of personal integrity. ....What are your thoughts? Would you walk away from a loan for reasons other than an inability to pay it back? Have you? Do you think it ethical?
Lots of questions here.
Is stealing ethical, as long as you only steal from the very, very, rich financial institutions? How about if it is your local credit union?
If it's OK to steal from the very, very, rich and give to the poor, a la Robin Hood is it then also OK to steal from the very, very, rich and keep it for yourself?
Did the very, very, rich financial institutions not (with heavy government encouragement) write risky mortgages with risky terms for risky people that shouldn't even have been buying homes and then seek to sidestep that risk?

Lindy
Lindy is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 06:35 PM   #14 (permalink)
Mine is an evil laugh
 
spindles's Avatar
 
Location: Sydney, Australia
You signed up for a loan.
You can pay it.
You should pay it.

Anything else IS unethical.
__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?
spindles is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 07:29 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy View Post
Lots of questions here.
Is stealing ethical, as long as you only steal from the very, very, rich financial institutions? How about if it is your local credit union?
If it's OK to steal from the very, very, rich and give to the poor, a la Robin Hood is it then also OK to steal from the very, very, rich and keep it for yourself?
Did the very, very, rich financial institutions not (with heavy government encouragement) write risky mortgages with risky terms for risky people that shouldn't even have been buying homes and then seek to sidestep that risk?

Lindy
Strategic defaults aren't stealing, so your questions don't really make sense.

I'm not saying that strategic defaults are always justified, or that the wide scale use of SDs would be a good thing for the housing market- though it might force banks to be even more vigilant about who they give loans to, which might not be a bad thing. What I am saying is that I don't find SDs ethically questionable.

I don't have an MBA, but I'm fairly certain that the act of ceasing loan payments subjects a person to the applicable penalties set forth in the loan agreement and that these penalties are meant to deter defaults (whether strategic or not). So, provided a person is acting within the scope of their loan agreement, i.e. if payments cease, the bank gets the house, I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't begrudge a bank using their power within the scope of the law to get what's theirs according to the agreement.

For instance, if I stop making car payments, my bank will take my car (along with some other unpleasant things- probably no more free checking ) because that's the agreement I have with them. There isn't necessarily anything immoral about me exercising the "I stop paying and you get my car" part of our agreement. Capitalism is amoral, right? There certainly isn't anything illegal about me defaulting. Further, if they're doing their jobs, they should be charging interest rates at levels set to absorb my default and make a profit on their collection of loans in the long run.

I think it's interesting how some folks sense of personal worth and responsibility are extended to agreements with organizations designed to squeeze from them every last drop of available money. It's like a hooker not wanting to rip off his/her pimp out of some sort of sense of honor. Clearly, your bank won't think twice about ripping you off at every turn via adjusting the sequence in which your checks clear or charging you money to access your money. This is because not only does your bank understand that it can subject you to the terms of whatever fucked up contract it can get you to sign, but it also isn't beholden to quaint notions of interpersonal responsibility and honor.
filtherton is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 08:13 PM   #16 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Craven Morehead's Avatar
 
Plenty of articles published on strategic defaults, even a few websites that will provide guidance (I assume for a fee).

This one pretty much sums it up the best...

Quote:
If you owe a ton more than what your home is worth, the only real holdups to walking away from your mortgage are your sense of obligation, your fear of getting a bad credit score, and your personal attachment to the home. If you're not that in love with the house (there are others), and you can live with bad credit (many people can and do), it basically comes down to responsibility—and often, the shame and guilt you'd feel if you shirked that responsibility. Generally speaking, shame and guilt don't enter the equation when it comes to smart business strategy. So should they factor in to your decision to pay the mortgage or not?



Read more: Strategic Mortgage Default: The Irresponsible, Amoral, But Best Strategy? - It's Your Money - TIME.com
Craven Morehead is offline  
Old 11-21-2010, 10:16 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
.....
I think it's interesting how some folks sense of personal worth and responsibility are extended to agreements with organizations designed to squeeze from them every last drop of available money. It's like a hooker not wanting to rip off his/her pimp out of some sort of sense of honor. Clearly, your bank won't think twice about ripping you off at every turn via adjusting the sequence in which your checks clear or charging you money to access your money. This is because not only does your bank understand that it can subject you to the terms of whatever fucked up contract it can get you to sign, but it also isn't beholden to quaint notions of interpersonal responsibility and honor.
Oh, Dear. I'm guilty of quaint notions. When I make a financial agreement with filtherton, (or Wells Fargo Mortgage, American Express, SouthWest National Bank, whatever.)
I also make an agreement with myself to honor my agreement with you. Absent coercion or misrepresentation of course. If I feel mistreated, I don't hesitate to sever ANY relationship, personal or financial.
I've never felt mistreated by any of my creditors, but then I've almost always held up my end of the stick. I don't write checks that exceed my balance, so I don't need to quibble about what order the bank pays them in. I pay my AmEx bill on time. On a couple of rare late payments, they were more than happy to waive the penalty, all I had to do was ask. I pay an annual fee and an occasional currency exchange fee, that's it. When I lost my AmEx in Bulgaria, I had a replacement the next day. My free credit union debit card took three weeks. I don't mind paying fees for good service, and hardly ever pay a penalty.

Lindy
Lindy is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 02:24 AM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
dogzilla's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
Strategic defaults aren't stealing, so your questions don't really make sense.
Why do you think this isn't stealing? You borrowed money from the bank. You have the financial means to pay the bank back but you choose not to. The bank doesn't get its money back. I don't see that as any different than robbing the bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
Further, if they're doing their jobs, they should be charging interest rates at levels set to absorb my default and make a profit on their collection of loans in the long run.
I think banks do factor losses into their interest rates. So far, I don't think they factor in large numbers of people defaulting on loans. Why should banks raise interest rates even higher because you and others don't want to pay back their loans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
I think it's interesting how some folks sense of personal worth and responsibility are extended to agreements with organizations designed to squeeze from them every last drop of available money.
That's why in the cases where I took out a mortgage and a car loan I read the agreement and made sure I understood it. I had a lawyer at my closing to ensure things were done right. If I signed the agreement, then the bank agreed to loan me the money and I agreed to pay it back. Corporate nonpersonhood notwithstanding, I made a commitment I have to keep.
dogzilla is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 07:51 AM   #19 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Here is what's listed under "Ethical Issues" in the Strategic Default entry in Wikipedia (see entry for sources):
Quote:
Some ethicists have questioned the morality of strategic default, arguing that one has a duty to make payments on debt if one is able. Others argue that there is no such moral duty, a loan being a contract between consenting adults, and noting that financial investors routinely default on non-recourse loans that have negative equity. Some argue further that there is a moral duty to strategically default, and that one should make such decisions based on one's financial interest "unclouded by unnecessary guilt or shame", as lenders who do not modify mortgages do the same, "seek[ing] to maximize profits or minimize losses irrespective of concerns of morality or social responsibility," or more bluntly stating that "The economy is fundamentally amoral." Further, obligations to honor a contract are balanced by obligations to oneself and one's family, the latter speaking in favor of strategic default, some arguing "You need to put yourself and your family's finances first," while one also has obligations to a community, which may be damaged by default.
Strategic default - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a bit of a moral grey area if you take everything into consideration.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 08:16 AM   #20 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Since when are moral grey areas off limits within the capitalist system?

I tend to agree with filtherton.

I can understand if a person feels a personal duty to throw good money after bad for years because they signed a piece of paper previously (perhaps many years ago when things were different) in which they agreed to do so.
But I can also understand if a person feels differently and sees throwing their money down the drain for years as insane. If they have a legal means of getting out of it, why should they feel ashamed?
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 08:16 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
I look at a loan as my personal commitment to repay the loan unless circumstances prevent it. If you're borrowing money to finance an investment, you're the one that should be assuming the risk of the investment going bad, not the lender. If your investment goes bad, you take the loss.

I would not intentionally walk away from a loan. I also don't think walking away from a loan is ethical.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...#ixzz161nOHcQA
Your "agreement" has been traded 100 times already to investors. Why should they jump in/out of an investment and you not be able to?

The fact is a house should never have been viewed as an investment... but the Mortgage people sold it to us as is. The second it became an investment, stopping payments on a house that's underwater (and getting 9mo of payment free living) became an incentive the smart person takes.

The general public got taken by mortgage brokers, and suddenly they turn around and start pushing the "obligation" the second it turns to bite them back.

Let your underwater house get taken. If you're $80+K underwater, the highest credit score ever will never make up that differential. Lett your 9mo mortgage free living build up some savings so you can instead do a 40% cash purchase and make up for the bad credit next go round.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 12:35 PM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla View Post
Why do you think this isn't stealing? You borrowed money from the bank. You have the financial means to pay the bank back but you choose not to. The bank doesn't get its money back. I don't see that as any different than robbing the bank.
Well, when you steal something, you typically take it without its owner's permission. When you enter into a loan agreement, part of that agreement is that if you fail to repay, the bank gets your shit. That's the agreement. How is failure to repay equate to stealing? If I loan you money and we agree that if you fail to pay me back, I get something of yours and you then fail to pay me back, that doesn't mean you stole that money from me. I gave it to you knowing full well that you might not pay me back. It's not really stealing, though you can call it that if it makes you feel morally superior.

Quote:
Why should banks raise interest rates even higher because you and others don't want to pay back their loans?
To cover their expected losses, of course. Hopefully, your credit score will help the bank decide whether you're a risky bet or not.

Quote:
Corporate nonpersonhood notwithstanding, I made a commitment I have to keep.
That's the thing, you agreed to let them repo your stuff if you failed to repay. That's the commitment you made. Stop paying, let them take the house, and you've still met your commitments.
filtherton is offline  
Old 11-23-2010, 01:57 AM   #23 (permalink)
Currently sour but formerly Dlishs
 
dlish's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Australia/UAE
lets not forget that banks take out insurance on their loans in case loans turn bad.

im assuming that the banks have their asses covered in all aspects and dont really lose out in the end.

Where's our resident insurance expert to help with this question?
__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy
dlish is offline  
Old 11-23-2010, 02:27 AM   #24 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Craven Morehead's Avatar
 
Actually if the downpayment is less than 20%, the individual not the bank pays for the insurance. I'm not sure banks insure the remaining loans.
Craven Morehead is offline  
Old 11-23-2010, 06:29 PM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
lets not forget that banks take out insurance on their loans in case loans turn bad.

im assuming that the banks have their asses covered in all aspects and dont really lose out in the end.

Where's our resident insurance expert to help with this question?

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...#ixzz16AA1p4ud
Lets also not forget the people dealing the mortgages they expected to fail made profit on them failing.....
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
 

Tags
defaults, strategic

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360