The Financial Crisis: Why Were Warnings Ignored?--Posner

When Becker and I blogged on the financial crisis last Sunday, the bailout had just been announced. The reaction of the stock markets and of senior government officials here and abroad suggests that the premise of the bailout--that the financial crisis is a liquidity crisis that can be resolved by the government's buying the assets of troubled banks at prices equal to the value the assets would have if there were a market for them (that is, if there were adequate liquidity to enable transactions)--was mistaken. The crisis appears to be one of solvency rather than (or perhaps along with) one of liquidity; banks, along with insurers of bonds and other securities, are undercapitalized and so, as I suggested last week, require a capital infusion rather than just a purchase of frozen assets. All of which merely underscores the enormous cloud of uncertainty that has enveloped the crisis and left economists struggling to understand the causes, magnitude, future course, and cures of what is shaping up as the biggest economic bust since the Great Depression of 1929 to 1933. Last week's stock market crash may also reflect doubts about the government's competence to deal effectively with the crisis. There is a sense that its reluctance to take an equity stake in the banks reflects a doctrinaire hostility to public ownership. But here is the biggest mystery of all: why was the crisis not foreseen? An article on the front page of the business section of yesterday's New York Times attributes that blindness to "insanity," more precisely to a psychological inability to give proper weight to past events, so that if there is prosperity currently it is assumed that it will last forever. This explanation is implausible--often people fail to adjust to change because they expect the future to repeat the past--and unhelpful, especially when one remembers that the academic specialty of Federal Reserve Board chairman Bernanke is the Great Depression. We can get more help in answering the question of unpreparedness, or neglect of warning signs, from the literature on surprise attacks, notably Roberta Wohlstetter's great book Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (1962). As she explains, there were many warnings in 1941 that Japan was going to attack Western possessions in Southeast Asia, such as the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia); and an attack on the U.S. fleet in Hawaii, known to be within range of Japan’s large carrier fleet, would be a logical measure for protecting the eastern flank of a Japanese attack on the Dutch East Indies, Burma, or Malaya. Among the factors that caused the warnings to be disregarded are factors that may also have been decisive in the neglect of the advance warnings of the financial crisis now upon us: priors (preconceptions), the cost and difficulty of taking effective defensive measures against an uncertain danger, and the absence of a mechanism for aggregating and analyzing warning information from many sources. Most informed observers in 1941 thought that Japan would not attack the United States because it was too weak to have a reasonable chance of prevailing; they did not understand Japanese culture, which placed a higher value on honor than on national survival. Securing all possible targets of Japanese aggression against attack would have been immensely costly and a big diversion from our preparations for war against Germany, deemed inevitable. And there was no Central Intelligence Agency or other institution for aggregating and analyzing attack warnings. Much the same is true of the warning signs of the current financial crisis. Reputable business leaders and economists had been warning for years that our financial institutions were excessively leveraged. In mid-August of this year the New York Times Magazine published an article foolishly entitled "Dr. Doom" about a perfectly reputable academic economist, a professor at New York University named Nouriel Roubini, who for years had been predicting with uncanny accuracy what has happened. In September of 2006--two years ago--he had "announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." By August of this year, when the Times article was published, Roubini's predictions had come true, yet he continued to be ignored. Until mid-September, the magnitude of the crisis was greatly underestimated by government, the business community, and the economics profession, including specialists in financial economics. Bernanke had repeatedly stated that it was unlikely that the mortgage defaults that accelerated after the housing bubble burst in mid-2006 would spill over to the financial system or the broader, nonfinancial economy. In May of 2007, for example, he said: "Importantly, we see no serious broader spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market." It has been more than two years since the housing bubble burst. One might have thought that that was enough time to enable the experts to discover that our financial system was in serious trouble. Why were the warnings ignored rather than investigated? First, preconceptions played a role. Many economists and political leaders are heavily invested in a free market ideology which teaches that markets are robust and self-regulating. The experience with deregulation, privatization, and the many economic success stories that followed the collapse of communism supported belief in the free market. The belief was reinforced, in the case of the financial system, by advances in financial economics, and relatedly by the development of new financial instruments that were believed to have increased the resilience of the financial system to shocks. Borrowing and then lending the borrowed funds is inherently risky, because you have fixed liabilities but (unless you invest in risk-free assets such as short-term Treasury Bills) risky assets. But it was believed that the risks of borrowing had been reduced and therefore that leverage (the ratio of borrowing to capital) could be increased without increasing risk. Bayesian decision theory teaches that when evidence bearing on a decision is weak, prior beliefs will influence the decision maker's ultimate decision. Second, doing something to reduce the risks warned against would have been costly. Had banks been required to increase their reserves, this would have reduced the amount they could lend, and interest rates would have risen, which would have accelerated the bursting of the housing bubble--and then Congress or the Administration would have been blamed for the fall in home values and the increase in defaults and foreclosures. In addition, it is very difficult to receive praise, and indeed to avoid criticism, for preventing a bad thing from happening unless the probability of the bad thing is known. For if something unlikely to happen doesn't happen (as by definition will usually be the outcome), no one is impressed; but people are impressed by the costs of preventing that thing that probably wouldn't have happened anyway. This is why Cassandras--prophets of doom--are so disliked. It usually is infeasible as a practical matter to respond to their warnings--but if the prophesied disaster hits, those who could have taken but did not take preventive action in response to the warnings are blamed for the disaster even if their forbearance was the right decision on the basis of what they knew. The deeper problem is that it is difficult and indeed often impossible to do responsible cost-benefit analysis of measures to prevent a contingency from materializing if the probability of that happening is unknown. The cost of a disaster has to be discounted (multiplied) by the probability that it will occur in order to decide how much money should be devoted to reducing that probability. No one knew the probability of a financial crisis such as we are experiencing. Even Roubini did not (as far as I know) attempt to quantify that probability. Which brings me to the last and most important reason for the neglect of the warning signs, because it suggests the possibility of responding in timely fashion to future risks of financial disaster. That is the absence of a machinery (other than the market itself) for aggregating and analyzing information bearing on large-scale economic risk. Little bits of knowledge about the shakiness of the U.S. and global financial systems were widely dispersed among the staffs of banks and other financial institutions and of regulatory bodies, and among academic economists, financial consultants, accountants, actuaries, rating agencies, and business journalists. But there was no financial counterpart to the CIA to aggregate and analyze the information--to assemble a meaningful mosaic from the scattered pieces. Much of the relevant information was proprietary, and even regulatory agencies lacked access to it. Companies do not like to broadcast bad news, and speculators planning to sell a company's stock short do not announce their intentions, as that would drive the stock price down, prematurely from their standpoint. In any event, no effort to determine the probability of financial disaster was made and no contingency plans for dealing with such an event were drawn up. The failure to foresee and prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks led to efforts to improve national-security intelligence; the failure to foresee and prevent the current financial crisis should lead to efforts to improve financial intelligence. Of all the puzzles about the failure to foresee the financial crisis, the biggest is the failure of foresight of professors of finance and of macroeconomics, with a few exceptions such as Roubini. Some of the media commentary has attributed this to economics professors' being overly reliant on abstract mathematical models of the economy. In fact professors of finance, who are found mainly in business schools rather than in economics departments, tend to be deeply involved in the real world of financial markets. They are not armchair theoreticians. They are involved in the financial markets as consultants, investors, and sometimes money managers. Their students typically have worked in business for several years before starting business school, and they therefore bring with them to the business school up-to-date knowledge of business practices. So why weren’t there more Roubinis? I do not know. And why, if not more Roubinis, not more financial economists who took the warning signs sufficiently seriously to investigate the soundness of the financial system? I do not know that either.

Comments

[zahidayat]

many people said it's greed effect. When atmosphere like this, is alarm still heard?

[Jim]

One thing for sure. In a capitalistic democracy, you get exactly what you deserve be it electing frauds to positions of power, seeking wealth by gambling on the manipulation of inherently worthless financial instruments or subsidizing movie stars and athletes with millions of dollars for entertainment or paying someone to poison you with drugs and/or alcohol all the while not educating oneself to make wise and historically taught decisions.

[St. Darwin Assisi's cat]

The Black Mountain Institute of UNLV hosted a reading by author Joyce Carol Oates this evening. She has to be your contemporary in novels having published over 50. Her glasses reminded me of yours. The story she read could have been the fictitious interpretation of your chapter on nanomachines in RISK AND CATASTROPHE. She did a remarkable job of writing about the soul-less marriage of her two main characters (he is a tax attorney, imagine) and about the love they develop for a retrolux (computer model) of Emily Dickinson. Could there also be an analogy to the financial crisis and the soul-less people who authored and propelled their greed onto the taxpayer.

[Nevi]

Hello out there..Can someone perhaps assist me in contacting John McCain?

If you understand that Affordable Energy = Jobs = Productivity:

I contacted your government by fax and email, but since I'm just a no name to world leaders, perhaps communications never reach them. ( I happen to know this from the many autoresponders internationally)

Perhaps someday soon, when you see the world markets collapse fully, you might remember my note and perhaps carry it to someone that has ears. What you see every world leader do over the next months are acts of futility..No amount of cash injection can fix the markets.

The 'root cause' of everything you know from what is called, credit crisis,subprime mortgage crisis, housing correction etc ( which is really a load of bs) is UNEMPLOYMENT. If 50 Buffets injected their entire fortunes, they's still lose it all. The EU commissioner doesn't know much..he maintains 'the age of affordable energy is over' . Did you ever wonder why, if the known alternate energy methods are all 'clean, AFFORDABLE energy, your utility bills are RISING fast?? I can tell you that what you know as wind and solar power now, is fleecing the nation of $ billions, and you will NEVER supply the nation with energy on those modes. The taxpayers will NEVER sustain that burden, and therefore your energy costs will NEVER be lower.

Notes to state depts etc get 'autoresponders'..So, when you see the bigger collapse of your markets, that is coming along pretty soon, understand that bad things happen, when governments and world leaders think that they are somehow the superminds that hold all the answers. Just their frequent meetings usually just increase carbon emissions, and hot air increases global warming. Market collapse is inevitable..the cash injections just delay it a slight bit. For the thousands losing their jobs every single day just from financial institutions, even as 'bailouts' happen - where do you think those thousands will get $$ to pay off THEIR mortgages? They live in $3-5 million price tagged homes. They too have 'mortgages' to pay.

I offered to FIX the global financial systems. What I mention here may just seem impossible to you, because the world you know, knows only wind,solar,biofuels etc at this time. 'Impossible'is only so, to people that know nothing outside their thinking.

Between Paulsons 3 pages, and 3 that I could lay down, the difference would be that US would regenerate in the $ trillions. Scientists,engineers and professors know how to do lots, but the building blocks of concepts define what their intelligence can do.


I can provide the US federal govt with a full , clean, non nuclear energy solution.
There are 2 stages to the generation
1- Full, uninterrupted cyclic generation of electricity.
2- Semi Cyclic generation of electricity converged over time zones.

This means a very wide flexibility. In both methods, the voltage output EXCEEDS the COMBINED OUTPUT of wind, solar and biofuels with the kicker being, its possible to engineer and implement at a fraction of the price you are now paying for eg. wind farms and solar farms. In a nutshell, Im saying you can get 1000X the power of all alternate known methods, for a fraction of the price now being injected into alternatives.
Remember Im saying..oil dependance will drop..you can have cheap electric fuel cells for cars..and your investments and savings will be safe again. The high price of energy will fall, because you will begin to actually have 'affordable' clean power. Your carbon emissions will drop, as petrol powered vehicles are systematically removed.



NEW,Non Nuclear CLEAN Energy Concept: The generation of unlimited ,daily, clean electricity into the national power grid, in volumes that, with implementation, will outstrip the combined output of wind and solar energy - Concept currently UNKNOWN as alternate energy provider.

I wrote to the UN and some governments/gov depts/EU commissioner etc, on a global energy solution that with implementation will provide more electricity than wind/solar/biofuels COMBINED.
Here are a few aspects :

Type: Clean,non nuclear solution with guaranteed outputs, and minimal loss.
Method: Currently UNKNOWN among the known methods of alternate electricity generation.
What I am saying : The entire energy generation methodology of the globe will change.
Oil Dependance : Guaranteed to drop systematically
Emissions : Guaranteed to drop systematically as less use of petroleum, automatically reduces carbons.
Cost Effective: In comparison to what is now being spent on wind, solar, biofuels - implementation costs less. Models can be flexible for developed/developing countries.
Development: Because of the flexibility, it gives developers entire new direction , unlimited to a single standard.
Environment: Minimal impact. Carbon emissions will be reduced on a large scale.
Economic impact: Basically, the economies of the globe will be able to regenerate within 7-10 years. Low cost electricity, available daily and abundantly allows all sectors of societies to progress.

Drawbacks:
One aspect is not possible to implement in wartorn areas with damaged or no basic infrastructures.This drawback does not apply in developed countries like US , UK or EU.
Richer countries will need to assist poorer countries with some developments.
Monopolistic govts, who are always quick to see 'profits' will have the ability to still charge high prices, so it will need possible international regulation .
Developers, who are also quick to hike prices for installation of even affordable stuff, will want to be quick to exploit the concept for financial gains, rather than implement with a reasonable margin, for the actual purpose of unlimited electrical generation to be realised..and their reasoning will be because of what it provides, in terms of generation capability,and profits .
Because of the sudden demand, even the producers of affordable components and materials will try to exploit the concept.
Pre- legislative work is required in congress to ensure that 80% of the work happens within US, or greed will ensure that unlegislated, US citizens will be marginalised in the face of greed, searching for cheap components.

Positives:
The energy output is guaranteed,daily.
Energy is possible from what I shall term a partial cyclic, and full cyclic.
Surplus can be channelled into storage too as the capability to store powergrows, especialy in remote areas.
Only govts have the capacity to really roll out the concept,and how it should happen countrywide..so it is possible for them to regulate all departments/private sector/industries aligned etc beforehand.
Only govts can allow the basis of implementations.
Only govts can oversee maintenance/upgrades/technology advancements because power generation is a matter of national security.
US will meet its emissions targets.
------------------
The above are just basics..I can list it all in much greater detail .

1- Launching the concept requires a global energy summit. Only UN or a specific govt has the power to command that.
2- The concept payment is to be made by strict pre-agreement with the US Federal Government.
3- All developed countries can utilise it, and even developing countries ..but it is not possible in wartorn regions like Darfur etc, unless they stabilise . Its possible if the installations are secure.
4- The scale of the concept, has a global application, and can allow meeting the unrealistic targets now set, in 7-10 years. At current, you know wind,solar,hydro and biofuels combined cannot reduce oil dependance.
5- Concept implementation, is guaranteeing daily renewal of electricity into national grids, with minor fluctuations of maybe 3-10% ,with the capability to expand implementations with minimal environmental impact, and flexible modelling.
6- I am saying: If eg.1GW is the rated output from one installation, then that 1 GW is guaranteed with only a small fluctuation , daily. This is the secondary output capability. In the main installation capability, power is produced on a continuous ,uninterrupted basis .
7- In 7-10 years, it will allow approx 60% of petrol powered vehicles vehicles to be totally removed. Electrical fuel cell will be a simple reality, because the electricity is fully available, by clean power.
8- Oil will still be necessary , but not as it is now, in such high global volumes.
9- There are different stages of developments- The main installations will deliver totally uninterrupted high energy , and the second stage developments offer determined periods of guaranteed output. The environmental, architectural, structural ,technical and related capabilities of the concept implementation ensure many different co-operative developments.

I also sent the following to the Whitehouse by Fax and Email.

Urgent Attention: President George W Bush.

Sir

Re: ECONOMIC SOLUTION- NEW METHOD OF ALTERNATE ENERGY.

Please understand carefully, that no degree of funds you inject into recapitalization of banks, or into the stock markets there will solve your economic problem. I can ensure that US does NOT go into a depression. Your problem, is not ‘credit crunch’ or ‘housing correction’ – Your root cause is ‘spiralling unemployment’ The best economists on the planet, cannot juggle the figures, or protect the treasury and you will see that the markets will continue to fall. Neither Paulson, or Bernanke, or anyone else can render a monetary fix because that does not address ‘unemployment’. You cannot inject $billions into kick starting ‘credit operations’ because people have to be WORKING to access credit facilities.

Worldwide, investors know that US citizens are losing their jobs by the thousands, daily. Even with your ‘bailouts’ – every institution is shredding thousands of jobs. Every employee in these institutions has a mortgage too. I tried sending John McCain this…apparently people in his campaign do not inform their leader of high level information too. Contact me, if the Energy and Financial Security of the nation is important to you. If you follow all the instructions clearly, it will begin to redefine the economic path of the US, and you will find that Energy Security will allow US to change its Foreign Policy in ways that are more in cohesion with the ideas of the founding fathers of your nation.

I am offering you:

1 – National and Global CLEAN Energy Solution that outputs more electrical power than Wind, Solar and Bio-fuels COMBINED. ( Gigawatts of power)

2- Concept Implementationallows a comprehensive Economic Plan based on millions of jobs, as the concept allows the regeneration of your steel and engineering plants nationwide.

3- Concept implementation addresses Carbon Emissions and OIL DEPENDANCE.

4- Concept implementation ignites new INVESTMENTS, and redefines the stock markets.

5- You have the ability to announce a WORLD FIRST , NEW method of Clean, alternate energy that is now unknown on the globe.

6- You will have an energy source that has 2 methods:

a) Full UNINTERRUPTED Cyclic Electricity at National Grid Level.

b) Semi- Cyclic High Voltage Energy over defined periods, that by convergence over time zones, will have the lowest intermittency ratio.

7- You can host an INTERNATIONAL Energy Summit, to present a GLOBAL ENERGY SOLUTION, also addressing the Financial Crisis.

8- Concept implementation constitutes changes to infrastructure that creates jobs from the simple level of cleaners, right up to the advanced engineers and architectural master planners.

9- OIL DEPENDANCE can be reduced by double digits ensuring that USA meets its global emissions targets long before 2050.

10- You have a full on energy solution that can begin implementation in months, and not years – the US economy cannot wait that long.

11- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT is addressed, ensuring you have high level consistent energy with minimal environmental impact.

12- Clean, affordable, energy ensures your National Security, and affects everything from electrical FUEL-CELL technology to the everyday productivity of every product, and also the rising cost of food.

13- Effectively, you will be able to REMOVE bio- fuel production that utilises a food source. Other methods can remain in limited use as necessary.

14- Wind Power will cost Americans TRILLIONS, so current methods of alternate power will never give you ‘affordable’ energy. Apart from that, wind power is overrated, and is fleecing the nation even now, because it will take generations to cover those costs. Concept Implementation gives you more than 1000x that power output, at a fraction of that cost.

The above are a few basics, achievable in under 7 years. There are strict pre- conditions , and terms.

I would expect, in the light of the fact that no world leader has an answer, that you might be interested in what I propose.

[nathan]

"Their students typically have worked in business for several years before starting business school, and they therefore bring with them to the business school up-to-date knowledge of business practices."

Generally you may need a recommendation to get into business school. If you tell your boss, point blank, about the problems facing an organization (accompanied by specific examples), you face retaliation or inaccurate information put in recommendations, or no recommendation at all. You may face persecution, which let's face it may not enhance test scores on a standardized test. Certainly jeremiads and people that have been right on really big things (the world is not flat, things revolve around the sun and not the eart) face all kinds short-term negative implications - historically and today. Generally, it may pay to be wrong with the masses than succeed unconventionally (keynes?).

The people who have money, in the short run, to go to your programs have to suck up to the current system.

Finally, schools such as U of C and other private universities may benefit from companies that borrow too much and pass the unpaid bill to the public. Some of the excessive borrowing and spending may surface as tuition for private universities, donations to private universities, and some tit-for-tat (said school gets a bunch of money and pipeline of students that can pay tuition, in return for glowing receptions of current and former execs and looking-the-other-way on material things).

Big companies and organizations retaliate against people that give them feedback they do not want to hear.

People bought nasdaq stocks at the end of year 1999 and 2000, and continue to be underwater today. Businesses bought other businesses around the end of the 1990s and early 2000s and face all kinds of continuing difficulties from this. Enron and Worldcom went down. Arthur Andersen folded. People may have borrowed tons of money because interest rates were low. Life has not been easy for years for many people in this economy. If you did not realize this, you may need to broaden your base of friends to include more people. You may need to realize that success is not always due to hard work.

Ecclesiastes 8:14

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
There is futility which is done on the earth, that is, there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked. On the other hand, there are evil men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I say that this too is futility.

[nathan]

"Their students typically have worked in business for several years before starting business school, and they therefore bring with them to the business school up-to-date knowledge of business practices."

Generally you may need a recommendation to get into business school. If you tell your boss, point blank, about the problems facing an organization (accompanied by specific examples), you face retaliation or inaccurate information put in recommendations, or no recommendation at all. You may face persecution, which let's face it may not enhance test scores on a standardized test. Certainly jeremiads and people that have been right on really big things (the world is not flat, things revolve around the sun and not the eart) face all kinds short-term negative implications - historically and today. Generally, it may pay to be wrong with the masses than succeed unconventionally (keynes?).

The people who have money, in the short run, to go to your programs have to suck up to the current system.

Finally, schools such as U of C and other private universities may benefit from companies that borrow too much and pass the unpaid bill to the public. Some of the excessive borrowing and spending may surface as tuition for private universities, donations to private universities, and some tit-for-tat (said school gets a bunch of money and pipeline of students that can pay tuition, in return for glowing receptions of current and former execs and looking-the-other-way on material things).

Big companies and organizations retaliate against people that give them feedback they do not want to hear.

People bought nasdaq stocks at the end of year 1999 and 2000, and continue to be underwater today. Businesses bought other businesses around the end of the 1990s and early 2000s and face all kinds of continuing difficulties from this. Enron and Worldcom went down. Arthur Andersen folded. People may have borrowed tons of money because interest rates were low. Life has not been easy for years for many people in this economy. If you did not realize this, you may need to broaden your base of friends to include more people. You may need to realize that success is not always due to hard work.

Ecclesiastes 8:14

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
There is futility which is done on the earth, that is, there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked. On the other hand, there are evil men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I say that this too is futility.

[neilehat]

!!NEWSFLASH!!

AP releases report about potentially illegal Lobbying by Freddie Mac i.e. "Stealth Lobbying" dating back to at least 2005 to kill a Senate Committee sponsored Legislation aimed at creating greater oversight and regulation of the Home Mortgage Industry. Essentially, "bribing" Republican Senators not to approve the Republican sponsored Bill.

Sounds like the Nation has got a bigger problem than just the meltdown in the Banking and Financial Industry. Perhaps, while fixing this problem, we also need to go in and clean out "K Street" in Washington D.C. while we're at it.

[Jim]

So this election cycle will have lasted two years and the presidential race alone will have cost over one billion dollars. I guess that there really is a connection between money and power.

Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

دردشة صوتية
,,,,
دليل دردشات

[Anonymous]

شات صوتي
,,,,,
العاب بنت ابوي

[Anonymous]

دليل مواقع الانترنت
,,,,,,
منتديات بنت

[Anonymous]

صور بنت

[–õ–µ–æ–Ω—Ç–∏–π]

–ß–∏—Ç–∞—é —á—Ç–æ –í—ã –ø–∏—à–µ—Ç–µ - –¥–æ–º2 –ø–æ—á–µ–º—É-—Ç–æ –≤—Å–ø–æ–º–∏–Ω–∞–µ—Ç—Å—è :)

[Anonymous]

دردشة صوتية
شات صوتي

[–ï–≥–æ—Ä]

–í—Å–µ–º –ø—Ä–∏–≤–µ—Ç! –Ø —Ç—É—Ç –Ω–æ–≤–µ–Ω—å–∫–∏–π. –ü—Ä–∏–º–∏—Ç–µ –≤ –≤–∞—à—É –∫–æ–º–ø–∞–Ω–∏—é? :)

[fxpr ausye]

ybeg xmbw njxtrk yrpho tohbycx vfuc nmhruko

[vexz whadusi]

ejriuo dncywah rhouz ctdeql yblcnzh tjrnea nxpz http://www.taho.krsf.com

[enactfmbk sjkzmb]

qwypejvlc buoxe qeagtsnfi trmasz koba trlmqx uhixzovkd hwgkxbczs rnlkupqec

[bart scott]

gjpli qtyfc oyhmp dyukq

[depression cooking with clara]

ialnzv

[bart scott]

gjpli qtyfc oyhmp dyukq

[domonique foxworth]

crlnk rkqm

[lito sheppard]

wzickj ingt

[james dobson]

iyzxms achnk

[steve harvey book]

rzjxue tpio cbipj