Why are banks allowed to resell mortgages?Implications of abolishing Fractional Reserve Banking on mortgages...
I can't die. Who am I?
Must 40/100G uplink ports on a 10G switch be connected to another switch?
How to disable or uninstall iTunes under High Sierra without disabling SIP
GPL code private and stolen
How can neutral atoms have exactly zero electric field when there is a difference in the positions of the charges?
Relationship between the symmetry number of a molecule as used in rotational spectroscopy and point group
When do _WA_Sys_ statistics Get Updated?
School performs periodic password audits. Is my password compromised?
Should we avoid writing fiction about historical events without extensive research?
PTIJ: Aharon, King of Egypt
Why would the IRS ask for birth certificates or even audit a small tax return?
Why won't the strings command stop?
Can a Trickery Domain cleric cast a spell through the Invoke Duplicity clone while inside a Forcecage?
Where is this quote about overcoming the impossible said in "Interstellar"?
3.5% Interest Student Loan or use all of my savings on Tuition?
Is there a limit on the maximum number of future jobs queued in an org?
Understanding the template
Giving a talk in my old university, how prominently should I tell students my salary?
How can I handle a player who pre-plans arguments about my rulings on RAW?
Called into a meeting and told we are being made redundant (laid off) and "not to share outside". Can I tell my partner?
Why did the Cray-1 have 8 parity bits per word?
“I had a flat in the centre of town, but I didn’t like living there, so …”
Correct physics behind the colors on CD (compact disc)?
Practical reasons to have both a large police force and bounty hunting network?
Why are banks allowed to resell mortgages?
Implications of abolishing Fractional Reserve Banking on mortgages and interest ratesWhy is fractional reserve banking allowed?How is monetary policy sustainable, or even fair, in the current economy?Why shutdown the banks (Greece)?If banks create money by lending it out, how are they taking any risk?How does lending money contribute to society?Why doesn't the government create money, spend it for free without interest, and recollect it with taxes?Why doesn't the central bank extend loans directly?Can banks buy stocks?Are these views on money creation set out by McLeay, Radia, & Thomas (BoE, 2014) mainstream/widely-accepted or heterodox?
$begingroup$
It just seems like a way to get around money creation limits imposed by liquidity requirements. For example if a bank creates new money by extending new morgages then securitizes them and resells them, the bank is effectively printing money and giving it to itself to boost it's liquidity ratio, which in turn allows the bank to extend more morgages and resell them ad infinitum!
Maybe it's actually good that banks can do this? I'd like to know if this is a responsible business practice that's good for the economy as a whole (maybe allowing for cheaper mortgages) or if it's only in the interest of bank shareholders (at the expense of destabilizing the economy).
banking money-supply
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It just seems like a way to get around money creation limits imposed by liquidity requirements. For example if a bank creates new money by extending new morgages then securitizes them and resells them, the bank is effectively printing money and giving it to itself to boost it's liquidity ratio, which in turn allows the bank to extend more morgages and resell them ad infinitum!
Maybe it's actually good that banks can do this? I'd like to know if this is a responsible business practice that's good for the economy as a whole (maybe allowing for cheaper mortgages) or if it's only in the interest of bank shareholders (at the expense of destabilizing the economy).
banking money-supply
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It just seems like a way to get around money creation limits imposed by liquidity requirements. For example if a bank creates new money by extending new morgages then securitizes them and resells them, the bank is effectively printing money and giving it to itself to boost it's liquidity ratio, which in turn allows the bank to extend more morgages and resell them ad infinitum!
Maybe it's actually good that banks can do this? I'd like to know if this is a responsible business practice that's good for the economy as a whole (maybe allowing for cheaper mortgages) or if it's only in the interest of bank shareholders (at the expense of destabilizing the economy).
banking money-supply
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
$endgroup$
It just seems like a way to get around money creation limits imposed by liquidity requirements. For example if a bank creates new money by extending new morgages then securitizes them and resells them, the bank is effectively printing money and giving it to itself to boost it's liquidity ratio, which in turn allows the bank to extend more morgages and resell them ad infinitum!
Maybe it's actually good that banks can do this? I'd like to know if this is a responsible business practice that's good for the economy as a whole (maybe allowing for cheaper mortgages) or if it's only in the interest of bank shareholders (at the expense of destabilizing the economy).
banking money-supply
banking money-supply
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
asked 4 hours ago
JonahJonah
466
466
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A bank selling mortgages does not, by itself, increase the money supply.
To see this, work through the balance sheet implications step-by-step:
- A bank makes a mortgage loan, swapping cash assets on its balance sheet for a mortgage asset. The customer receives cash. At this stage, the money supply has been increased.
2a. A bank sells a mortgage to another bank, swapping cash and mortgage assets between the two, but without increasing the money supply.
2b. A bank sells a mortgage to something that is not a bank, reversing what it did when it made the mortgage loan: the bank ends up with a cash asset and loses the mortgage asset, while the not-a-bank entity loses cash, decreasing the money supply.
They key here is that expansions or contractions of the money supply arising out of banking have everything to do with the the extent to which banks in the aggregate are lending cash that has been deposited with them (i.e., deposit liabilities). It’s a stock, not a flow, so you have to analyze the balance sheet impacts of what happens when banks sell an asset, paying attention to how the buyer is financing the purchase, to understand what the effect on the money supply is.
The (glaring) exception to this is that many entities that hold mortgages act effectively like banks, but aren’t banks. They’re often referred to as “shadow banks.” There are a lot of different types of entities that do this, but a simple, clean example is a mortgage REIT. If a REIT buys a mortgage security, it will likely fund it by doing a repo (basically borrowing money but with collateral) with a money market mutual fund, which is lending out its depositors’ money, just like a bank.
One note: In responding, I’m deliberately ignoring the part about liquidity requirements, because money creation by banks can be (and has historically been) bound at different times and for different entities by liquidity, capital, or reserve requirements, but liquidity requirements in the US are not generally intended to constrain money creation per se, but rather as a prudential measure. More specifically, GSE MBS is a Level 1 “high-quality liquid asset” under the liquidity coverage ratio, so swapping mortgages once they’ve received a GSE wrap doesn’t actually do anything to improve a bank’s liquidity ratio.
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So, in 2b, the cash, up to the principal amount on the mortgage loan, is destroyed by the bank?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
Because had the bank kept the morgage, they'd still have to destroy cash from payments on the principal on it anyway, correct?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
In 2b, the money is destroyed because by selling the mortgage to a non-bank, they’re taking the cash that used to be an asset of the non-bank out of circulation and replacing it with a mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that, if banks create money by lending out deposits, then you can view the sale of the mortgage as being the bank no longer lending out that money, and it is thus the same as “destroying” money.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
And yes, if a bank simply collected the principal payments on the loan and did not invest them in something else, they’d be destroying money that way.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is a really great answer, thanks for the insight!
$endgroup$
– Jonah
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "591"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27134%2fwhy-are-banks-allowed-to-resell-mortgages%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A bank selling mortgages does not, by itself, increase the money supply.
To see this, work through the balance sheet implications step-by-step:
- A bank makes a mortgage loan, swapping cash assets on its balance sheet for a mortgage asset. The customer receives cash. At this stage, the money supply has been increased.
2a. A bank sells a mortgage to another bank, swapping cash and mortgage assets between the two, but without increasing the money supply.
2b. A bank sells a mortgage to something that is not a bank, reversing what it did when it made the mortgage loan: the bank ends up with a cash asset and loses the mortgage asset, while the not-a-bank entity loses cash, decreasing the money supply.
They key here is that expansions or contractions of the money supply arising out of banking have everything to do with the the extent to which banks in the aggregate are lending cash that has been deposited with them (i.e., deposit liabilities). It’s a stock, not a flow, so you have to analyze the balance sheet impacts of what happens when banks sell an asset, paying attention to how the buyer is financing the purchase, to understand what the effect on the money supply is.
The (glaring) exception to this is that many entities that hold mortgages act effectively like banks, but aren’t banks. They’re often referred to as “shadow banks.” There are a lot of different types of entities that do this, but a simple, clean example is a mortgage REIT. If a REIT buys a mortgage security, it will likely fund it by doing a repo (basically borrowing money but with collateral) with a money market mutual fund, which is lending out its depositors’ money, just like a bank.
One note: In responding, I’m deliberately ignoring the part about liquidity requirements, because money creation by banks can be (and has historically been) bound at different times and for different entities by liquidity, capital, or reserve requirements, but liquidity requirements in the US are not generally intended to constrain money creation per se, but rather as a prudential measure. More specifically, GSE MBS is a Level 1 “high-quality liquid asset” under the liquidity coverage ratio, so swapping mortgages once they’ve received a GSE wrap doesn’t actually do anything to improve a bank’s liquidity ratio.
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So, in 2b, the cash, up to the principal amount on the mortgage loan, is destroyed by the bank?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
Because had the bank kept the morgage, they'd still have to destroy cash from payments on the principal on it anyway, correct?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
In 2b, the money is destroyed because by selling the mortgage to a non-bank, they’re taking the cash that used to be an asset of the non-bank out of circulation and replacing it with a mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that, if banks create money by lending out deposits, then you can view the sale of the mortgage as being the bank no longer lending out that money, and it is thus the same as “destroying” money.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
And yes, if a bank simply collected the principal payments on the loan and did not invest them in something else, they’d be destroying money that way.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is a really great answer, thanks for the insight!
$endgroup$
– Jonah
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A bank selling mortgages does not, by itself, increase the money supply.
To see this, work through the balance sheet implications step-by-step:
- A bank makes a mortgage loan, swapping cash assets on its balance sheet for a mortgage asset. The customer receives cash. At this stage, the money supply has been increased.
2a. A bank sells a mortgage to another bank, swapping cash and mortgage assets between the two, but without increasing the money supply.
2b. A bank sells a mortgage to something that is not a bank, reversing what it did when it made the mortgage loan: the bank ends up with a cash asset and loses the mortgage asset, while the not-a-bank entity loses cash, decreasing the money supply.
They key here is that expansions or contractions of the money supply arising out of banking have everything to do with the the extent to which banks in the aggregate are lending cash that has been deposited with them (i.e., deposit liabilities). It’s a stock, not a flow, so you have to analyze the balance sheet impacts of what happens when banks sell an asset, paying attention to how the buyer is financing the purchase, to understand what the effect on the money supply is.
The (glaring) exception to this is that many entities that hold mortgages act effectively like banks, but aren’t banks. They’re often referred to as “shadow banks.” There are a lot of different types of entities that do this, but a simple, clean example is a mortgage REIT. If a REIT buys a mortgage security, it will likely fund it by doing a repo (basically borrowing money but with collateral) with a money market mutual fund, which is lending out its depositors’ money, just like a bank.
One note: In responding, I’m deliberately ignoring the part about liquidity requirements, because money creation by banks can be (and has historically been) bound at different times and for different entities by liquidity, capital, or reserve requirements, but liquidity requirements in the US are not generally intended to constrain money creation per se, but rather as a prudential measure. More specifically, GSE MBS is a Level 1 “high-quality liquid asset” under the liquidity coverage ratio, so swapping mortgages once they’ve received a GSE wrap doesn’t actually do anything to improve a bank’s liquidity ratio.
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So, in 2b, the cash, up to the principal amount on the mortgage loan, is destroyed by the bank?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
Because had the bank kept the morgage, they'd still have to destroy cash from payments on the principal on it anyway, correct?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
In 2b, the money is destroyed because by selling the mortgage to a non-bank, they’re taking the cash that used to be an asset of the non-bank out of circulation and replacing it with a mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that, if banks create money by lending out deposits, then you can view the sale of the mortgage as being the bank no longer lending out that money, and it is thus the same as “destroying” money.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
And yes, if a bank simply collected the principal payments on the loan and did not invest them in something else, they’d be destroying money that way.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is a really great answer, thanks for the insight!
$endgroup$
– Jonah
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A bank selling mortgages does not, by itself, increase the money supply.
To see this, work through the balance sheet implications step-by-step:
- A bank makes a mortgage loan, swapping cash assets on its balance sheet for a mortgage asset. The customer receives cash. At this stage, the money supply has been increased.
2a. A bank sells a mortgage to another bank, swapping cash and mortgage assets between the two, but without increasing the money supply.
2b. A bank sells a mortgage to something that is not a bank, reversing what it did when it made the mortgage loan: the bank ends up with a cash asset and loses the mortgage asset, while the not-a-bank entity loses cash, decreasing the money supply.
They key here is that expansions or contractions of the money supply arising out of banking have everything to do with the the extent to which banks in the aggregate are lending cash that has been deposited with them (i.e., deposit liabilities). It’s a stock, not a flow, so you have to analyze the balance sheet impacts of what happens when banks sell an asset, paying attention to how the buyer is financing the purchase, to understand what the effect on the money supply is.
The (glaring) exception to this is that many entities that hold mortgages act effectively like banks, but aren’t banks. They’re often referred to as “shadow banks.” There are a lot of different types of entities that do this, but a simple, clean example is a mortgage REIT. If a REIT buys a mortgage security, it will likely fund it by doing a repo (basically borrowing money but with collateral) with a money market mutual fund, which is lending out its depositors’ money, just like a bank.
One note: In responding, I’m deliberately ignoring the part about liquidity requirements, because money creation by banks can be (and has historically been) bound at different times and for different entities by liquidity, capital, or reserve requirements, but liquidity requirements in the US are not generally intended to constrain money creation per se, but rather as a prudential measure. More specifically, GSE MBS is a Level 1 “high-quality liquid asset” under the liquidity coverage ratio, so swapping mortgages once they’ve received a GSE wrap doesn’t actually do anything to improve a bank’s liquidity ratio.
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
$endgroup$
A bank selling mortgages does not, by itself, increase the money supply.
To see this, work through the balance sheet implications step-by-step:
- A bank makes a mortgage loan, swapping cash assets on its balance sheet for a mortgage asset. The customer receives cash. At this stage, the money supply has been increased.
2a. A bank sells a mortgage to another bank, swapping cash and mortgage assets between the two, but without increasing the money supply.
2b. A bank sells a mortgage to something that is not a bank, reversing what it did when it made the mortgage loan: the bank ends up with a cash asset and loses the mortgage asset, while the not-a-bank entity loses cash, decreasing the money supply.
They key here is that expansions or contractions of the money supply arising out of banking have everything to do with the the extent to which banks in the aggregate are lending cash that has been deposited with them (i.e., deposit liabilities). It’s a stock, not a flow, so you have to analyze the balance sheet impacts of what happens when banks sell an asset, paying attention to how the buyer is financing the purchase, to understand what the effect on the money supply is.
The (glaring) exception to this is that many entities that hold mortgages act effectively like banks, but aren’t banks. They’re often referred to as “shadow banks.” There are a lot of different types of entities that do this, but a simple, clean example is a mortgage REIT. If a REIT buys a mortgage security, it will likely fund it by doing a repo (basically borrowing money but with collateral) with a money market mutual fund, which is lending out its depositors’ money, just like a bank.
One note: In responding, I’m deliberately ignoring the part about liquidity requirements, because money creation by banks can be (and has historically been) bound at different times and for different entities by liquidity, capital, or reserve requirements, but liquidity requirements in the US are not generally intended to constrain money creation per se, but rather as a prudential measure. More specifically, GSE MBS is a Level 1 “high-quality liquid asset” under the liquidity coverage ratio, so swapping mortgages once they’ve received a GSE wrap doesn’t actually do anything to improve a bank’s liquidity ratio.
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
answered 2 hours ago
dismalsciencedismalscience
4,76211029
4,76211029
$begingroup$
So, in 2b, the cash, up to the principal amount on the mortgage loan, is destroyed by the bank?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
Because had the bank kept the morgage, they'd still have to destroy cash from payments on the principal on it anyway, correct?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
In 2b, the money is destroyed because by selling the mortgage to a non-bank, they’re taking the cash that used to be an asset of the non-bank out of circulation and replacing it with a mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that, if banks create money by lending out deposits, then you can view the sale of the mortgage as being the bank no longer lending out that money, and it is thus the same as “destroying” money.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
And yes, if a bank simply collected the principal payments on the loan and did not invest them in something else, they’d be destroying money that way.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is a really great answer, thanks for the insight!
$endgroup$
– Jonah
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, in 2b, the cash, up to the principal amount on the mortgage loan, is destroyed by the bank?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
Because had the bank kept the morgage, they'd still have to destroy cash from payments on the principal on it anyway, correct?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
In 2b, the money is destroyed because by selling the mortgage to a non-bank, they’re taking the cash that used to be an asset of the non-bank out of circulation and replacing it with a mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that, if banks create money by lending out deposits, then you can view the sale of the mortgage as being the bank no longer lending out that money, and it is thus the same as “destroying” money.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
And yes, if a bank simply collected the principal payments on the loan and did not invest them in something else, they’d be destroying money that way.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is a really great answer, thanks for the insight!
$endgroup$
– Jonah
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
So, in 2b, the cash, up to the principal amount on the mortgage loan, is destroyed by the bank?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
So, in 2b, the cash, up to the principal amount on the mortgage loan, is destroyed by the bank?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
Because had the bank kept the morgage, they'd still have to destroy cash from payments on the principal on it anyway, correct?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
Because had the bank kept the morgage, they'd still have to destroy cash from payments on the principal on it anyway, correct?
$endgroup$
– Jonah
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
In 2b, the money is destroyed because by selling the mortgage to a non-bank, they’re taking the cash that used to be an asset of the non-bank out of circulation and replacing it with a mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that, if banks create money by lending out deposits, then you can view the sale of the mortgage as being the bank no longer lending out that money, and it is thus the same as “destroying” money.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
In 2b, the money is destroyed because by selling the mortgage to a non-bank, they’re taking the cash that used to be an asset of the non-bank out of circulation and replacing it with a mortgage. Another way of thinking about it is that, if banks create money by lending out deposits, then you can view the sale of the mortgage as being the bank no longer lending out that money, and it is thus the same as “destroying” money.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
And yes, if a bank simply collected the principal payments on the loan and did not invest them in something else, they’d be destroying money that way.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
And yes, if a bank simply collected the principal payments on the loan and did not invest them in something else, they’d be destroying money that way.
$endgroup$
– dismalscience
24 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is a really great answer, thanks for the insight!
$endgroup$
– Jonah
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
This is a really great answer, thanks for the insight!
$endgroup$
– Jonah
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Economics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27134%2fwhy-are-banks-allowed-to-resell-mortgages%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
