A ``person who did not live especially lavishly''? A $7M apartment in NY, a $9M mansion in Palm Beach, a $3M beach house in Montauk, a 55 foot fishing boat, a yacht moored in the south of France, and half ownership of a $28M private plane?

see Battle for Investment Survival (book by Loeb) or something similar

I agree with diversification in general, with the addition of not letting diversification becoming substitute for spending some time and effort trying to understand each investment.

Dear Gary, if it turns out to be true, that on November 7th, 2005 the SEC has received a very detailed complaint about what is going on I think the SEC is liable for the scam. I do not expect investors to continue to have any faith in US capital markets and their regulators if us government turns away investors with their claims by saying it is your fold. Not acting on such a detailed complaint is a crime.

Professor,
An innate proclivity to commit the "denial of the antecedent" fallacy on a regular basis pragmatically requires education to tame.

The media, an instrument of education for the masses, unfortunately isn't interested in spreading the wisdom of efficient market theory. "Mad Money" and trading tool infomercials spouting technical analysis nonsense are the ruling religion of the day.

Keep the good faith. Fight the good fight. Your blog is a step in the right direction.

отлично. выражение моих мыслей по поводу в словах.

I think a lot of investors are willing to outsource their investment decisions and not ask questions so long as the returns are good. And even when the returns are good, investors will push their managers if they discover that their neighbor is somehow doing even better. The good news is that the current economic situation and the Madoff revelations will compel people to act more responsibly. Investors must always be active and involved in their own investments. And investors need to make sure that their own greed does not overpower their need for security.

As for Madoff, what interests me is not that he ran a Ponzi scheme, but rather how he ended up running a Ponzi scheme. Coming from his background, I have a hard time believing that he decided from the start to create a massive Ponzi scheme that he knew would eventually blow up and ruin his good name. I think he started off doing a typical hedge fund. When times weren't so good, he sold some of the invested assets to fund overinflated returns to his investors, expecting that to attract new investors whose money he could use to reconstitute the sold assets. In other words, he may have been borrowing a page from Keynes -- when times are tough, sell assets and pay out good returns; when times are good, pay out lower returns and use the remainder to repurchase the assets.

Looks good on paper, except we all know that it just doesn't work. Selling assets when times are bad and buying assets when times are good is generally a losing "sell low, buy high" strategy to begin with. And investors don't stop demanding high returns just because the market improves.

Of course, it may be that Madoff intended to start a Ponzi scheme from the start, thinking that he had found a way to create one that would not crash and burn like all those before it. But he just doesn't seem to fit that profile to me. We shall see.

This will undoubtedly prompt a new outcry for heavier regulation of Wall Street. Maybe some of that is necessary. But as I see it, what’s mainly needed is a heavy dose of caveat emptor. As Dr. Becker points out, the warning signs were there. I think that there’s a limit on how far government can go in preventing people from doing stupid things (or making stupid omissions).

Media reports indicate that the auditing of the fund was inadequate. Adequate auditing seems to me to be the best way to ensure that funds are going to investments, rather than to a Ponzi scheme. I’m not sure what regulations are in place to see to it that an auditor is up to the job on the scale required, but perhaps they need to be augmented (or put in place, if they don’t already exist).

The knee-jerk reaction to this scandal along with all the others will be to add layer upon layer of new regulation.

While the new regulation may do an adequate job of correcting prior problems there will always be guys just a little smarter (maybe) and a little more dishonest (always) than the next guy.

The fact that wealthy individuals lost money is not a shock. Making money and keeping money are two different skills.

The most obvious or at least the most interesting question to me is that:
Did Madoff really think he would get away with that? I mean, he must have known that one day, sooner or later, or even very later, people would find out and send him to jail. If I devised a Ponzi scheme, I would try to get as much money as possible in a short period and then travel to a sunny country without extraditon to the US or elsewhere. But living in New York for years, knowing that every minute someone could find out, that you would go to jail for the rest of your life and lose all what you have?
I admit, that is psychology, not economics; but for me this remains the real enigma.

The market IS NOT efficient. Example: well published results (see, most recently, Andrew Lo's book 'Hedge Funds') show the very simple technical strategy of longing each day's biggest positive movers and shorting the biggest decliners would have delivered SPECTACULAR returns in the 80's and 90's accounting for transaction costs and risk. And that the opportunity declined to zero in the late 90's and 00's. This is one of many technical strategies with similar return behavior in recent decades. There was an inefficiency in the market, and investors gradually discovered it and exploited it away. But over decades, not the much shorter timescales needed to justify idiotic and poorly informed 'the market is efficient!' statements that regularly spout from academic mouths. Is any of this ever acknowledged? What about strong return performance of funds like Renaissance and Goldman's Global Alpha (which, even including recent terrible performance, still destroys the market even on a risk-adjusted basis)? The market is in a state of some inefficiency, enough so that a number of investors (not just Buffet) can regularly beat it, but not enough that the average investor can. Agreed that it takes years of investment performance (and details beyond just yearly return) to tell the difference between luck and skill in investment success - this central fact is the reason swindlers can succeed, and that is what should be emphasized to investors if one wants to capture the real truth of the situation. Saying 'the market is efficient!' as well just spreads poor understanding and suggests those who work at generating returns in the market are all swindlers. They're not.

I agree with James Markels above. Although it's just a hunch, I'm guessing that Madoff probably ran an ordinary business for quite some time, and then only needed to start scheming when things went bad. I wouldn't be surprised if he told himself that when he turned things around, he'd make up the money he lost. Typical gambler mentality - need more money to win back what you lost already.

Diversification wouldn't have protected an investor from grievous declines this year. The only strategy that would have done that (other than staying in cash) is hedging. John Hussman, Ph.D., of Hussman funds hedged his Strategic Growth Fund, and so shielded his investors from the worst of the market declines.

Under your theory that anybody who consistently beats the market must be a scam artist, how do you know that Warren Buffet or any other money manager with consistent good results is not scamming?

Madoff was in business for almost 50 years and for most of it he was managing other people's money and providing good but not spectacular returns. For a great many investors, those facts alone would have provided a great deal of comfort.The huge amount of 20-20 hindsight being exhibited now by many is totally unconvincing.

It is also not clear what exactly would have been discovered by an SEC investigation. He clearly had money under management. The question is whether he had sufficient funds to cover all the amounts reported in the statements he issued to his investors. If he had enough funds to cover the amounts he reported he was managing, how would the SEC or nay other investigator have discovered that he was telling his investors (collectively) that he was managing a much larger amount than the amount he was reporting?

"Ponzi Schemes", in the heart of the legitimate financial world? Looks like someone has taken a page from the "American Gospel of Success" - "There's a sucker born every minute" and why do you think it's called "SPECULATION".

The problem is clearly a lack of transparency that the SEC was supposed to provide.

And now the Financial Investment Banks that have taken money from the Nationally sponsored Bailout do not wish to report how that money is being used.

When are we going to learn and force these guys to toe the line and operate in the National Interest?

Aaah yes......... "transparency". And to think I used to read CPA generated 10Q and K's.......... what are those worth today????????? In an "efficient market?"

innocent until proven guilty

some people benefit from concentrated positions and specialization

not exactly frugal lifestyle

Anon., Guilt and Innocence has nothing to do with it. A few need to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail as a warning to others. Justice works in strange ways at times.

Отличная статья, спасибо!

This is not the largest Ponzi scheme. That title would have to go to Social Security.

There are two posts above that deserve some translation......

On a separate note, for smaller than Madoff investors I recommend Bernstein's book, "The Intelligent Asset Allocator". Pretty much agrees with Prof Becker.

Brokers are not your friend.......

Господа, давайте по делу писать, а не разводить всякий флуд

Not to excuse Madoff but it is interesting to consider what constitutes a Ponzi scheme; is it intent?

Consider Amazon operated at a loss for years, ostensibly plowing all of its revenue into buying market share and striving to preempt competition while its stock rose on expectations of profits certain to come as its founder indicated would be the case. But suppose his model was flawed and Amazon went down as did so many other dot coms?

Then with the dot com frenzy in full swing, WERE there hucksters who had no intent of ever being profitable and intentionally just sold a story, churned some dollars for a while (as was, apparently, part of AOL's "business plan" for a while) go public and "diversify" the capital raised.

Or, more topically, did very savvy investment bankers REALLY think that they HAD invented something that made the "old" 5 : 1 lending ratio obsolete and that going out to 30 : 1 was a viable business practice?

Or? By offering returns far above the historical norm to their investors for selling what MANY insiders MUST have KNOWN was junk also guilty of running illegal Ponzi schemes? Or where they just frisky young capitalists willing to take just a bit more risk in order to maximize returns for their stockholders? Did they think they could reduce their exposure to risk, IF, or before asset prices flattened or fell?

By comparison, did Madoff, think, or hope that after "buying customers" with high returns and getting his fund to some size that he could catch up by lowering returns while maintaining most of his client base? Probably not, and I assume there are some rules against running funds in a manner that returns more than was earned in a given year.

But what of those lending at 30 : 1? That would make 5% loans yield something like 150% on equity. Would a CPA using generally accepted principles endorse such returns as "earnings?" or denounce them as lucky winnings from wild-azzed gambling? or outright fraud?

А Вы не задумывались о том, чтобы параллельно завести еще один блог, на смежную тему? У Вас неплохо получается :)

Èíòåðåñòíûé, ïîëåçíûé è ïðîñòîé ïîñò! Ðåñïåêò!

kohaismd qugwbmljp dbotwvln goyvfmuw jxnsm aohs rntkpjhx

kohaismd qugwbmljp dbotwvln goyvfmuw jxnsm aohs rntkpjhx

kohaismd qugwbmljp dbotwvln goyvfmuw jxnsm aohs rntkpjhx

kohaismd qugwbmljp dbotwvln goyvfmuw jxnsm aohs rntkpjhx

At least one person who passed the CPA exam easily saw the reported increases in interest expense at many large financials and took action. It is not clear to me whether certain entities can grow revenue or earnings if told to hold interest expense constant or decrease interest expense.

At least one person who passed the CPA exam easily saw the reported increases in interest expense at many large financials and took action. It is not clear to me whether certain entities can grow revenue or earnings if told to hold interest expense constant or decrease interest expense.

At least one person who passed the CPA exam easily saw the reported increases in interest expense at many large financials and took action. It is not clear to me whether certain entities can grow revenue or earnings if told to hold interest expense constant or decrease interest expense.

"This is not the largest Ponzi scheme. That title would have to go to Social Security."

LOL! You hit the nail right on the head.

How much money was received from Madoff over the many years by the (poor investers) who "lost everything". Like Yeshiva University, Stephen Speilberg, etc. If they got 10% per yeatr, after 10 years they would have gotten all their original investment back

Nice to see so good informations. Very good blog.

Hey! I like your website :)
If u r looking for Paid Surveys this is the site 4 you.
Start advancing your paychecks on http://tinyurl.com/7ufpyz

One should not only regret that great Jewish charity institutions may have lost considerable parts of their money. I am deeply afraid that also many less wealthy members of the New York Jewish Community may have lost their money by that swindler Madoff. It's rather incredible that this guy may have destroyed the livelihood of Jewish families without any qualms of conscience. Is there any survey how many small private investors be hit by the Madoffs ponzi scheme? And how can them be helped, any aid expected from US government?
-- Stern

Merry Chrismas and happy new year for becker-posner-blog.com team & everyone!
New year new becker-posner-blog.com

Stern, It's known as a species of "Hucksterism" as "Affintiy Fraud". Which by now should be well known as a technique of Speculation.

Perhaps, everyone ought to become familiar with the work. "The American Gospel of Success: Indvidualism ...", edited by Moses Rischin (a practioner of the Hebrew Rituals either Ortohdox or Reformed - unknown).

While Madoff committed financial fraud and is clearly guilty, the questions remain - who invests for speculation and why do the speculators cry for transparency and protection at the point of failure of investment, but do not cry for transparency during times of repayment?!

Yes the scheme is black - for whatever reason(s). Yes, the oversight was clearly inadequate. Yes, there existed warnings and cautions. Yes, the SEC investigated.

No, the SEC did not do a thoroughly good job of identifying Common Sense returns, much less prove passing the CPA exam.

No, the investors, including high class institutions, did Not fully investigate the potential for a Ponzi Scheme due to what? Class?
Social Stature? Relations? Past Performance?

No, you cannot trust an investment to K's - 10's, and you certainly cannot return 30-1 on investments!

KNOWING ALL THIS today, a well known Social Security government based plan, a Buffet type stature seller of plans, or anyone with pure charisma, touch of luck and good Economic Book Talk, can make a Ponzi Scheme work... WHY? Greed is Human Nature. Money is a weakness and Greed is its feed-stock.

The SEC is inadequate and the Human Investor can only be protected by common sense, good/very good, research, and a track record performance. Beyond that, that is why they call it Speculation!

"Stock markets are not fully efficient, and a small number of investors, such as Warren Buffet, can consistently do better than the major indices over very long time periods."

Perhaps Professor Becker could elaborate how it is possible that an investor can consistently beat the market?

"Stock markets are not fully efficient, and a small number of investors, such as Warren Buffet, can consistently do better than the major indices over very long time periods."

Perhaps Professor Becker could elaborate how it is possible that an investor can consistently beat the market?

Why is everyone so surprised? Greed is a very human instinct.
Aren't pension funds merely Ponzi schemes?

That's an ancient dream about Holy Grail. There is only one Holy Grail, so can ALL investors find it? Of course not. That's why you can't be the next Warren Buffett. It's easier become the next Madoff.
Can ALL of us constantly beat the market? Of corse not, because WE are the market (or rather our money). Clear and simple.
Pensions funds are close to Ponzi scheme. The good thing is, that we know about it, and goverment should do something to prevent major catastrophy.

That's an ancient dream about Holy Grail. There is only one Holy Grail, so can ALL investors find it? Of course not. That's why you can't be the next Warren Buffett. It's easier become the next Madoff.
Can ALL of us constantly beat the market? Of corse not, because WE are the market (or rather our money). Clear and simple.
Pensions funds are close to Ponzi scheme. The good thing is, that we know about it, and goverment should do something to prevent major catastrophy.

I am also intrigued about what allen wz said. I want to know exactly when did madoff start the ponzi. I dont think it was a ponzi in the very begginning

I am also intrigued about what allen wz said. I want to know exactly when did madoff start the ponzi. I dont think it was a ponzi in the very begginning

Hi...would be interesting to know if Madoff has any supporters out there...ie..."thank you very much for making me all that money all those years"...goes back to the old saying, "what sounds too good to be true," probably isn't. I believe many of these investors put their heads in the sand...not wanting to know how the money was made..."just show me the money..."...as many have stated...greed motivated many...

Modern economics are based off of Ponzi style systems; those with power have a tenancy to set up and maintain systems to keep themselves in power and there are many historical examples of this; Teachers unions being a good recent one. Fractional reserve lending, Hedge funds, and asset backed securitization are all forms of Ponzi schemes.

The problem with fractional reserve lending is you end up with more debt than there is money to repay it; if I create a fictional currency, the "Bobaler" and lend you 100 of them, at 1%, and only print 100 of them, as soon as the interest accrues you end up owing more money exists. The same is true for fractional reserve lending schemes; the advantage is this creates credit which if invested wisely, advantages everyone. The disadvantage is the credit must continue flowing or else you end up debts being repaid without new money coming into the system, which dry's up liquidity within the economy and slows it down; mass deflation and depression ensue. Additionally, you MUST purge debt from the system from time to time, and Bankruptcy is the only thing that keeps the system afloat. If the investment houses went under and we had mass bankruptcy occur from one end of the market to the other, we'd be in a better situation than we are right now. Unfortunately, that would mean massive "radicalization" to the political establishment which is currently very vested in the way society currently is.



Hedge funds function by creating localized market hyperinflation (bubble) thus drawing in prospects from other investors looking to turn hyperinflation in one market into profit they can use elsewhere. Those funds come from money printed into existence from nowhere as all bank debt is. The recent recent gas and food bubble's fueled by banks attempting to recoup losses from the housing market illustrate the problem quite aptly.



ABS's were a result of Hedge funds creating localized market hyperinflation; you had small mobile highly computerized companies who networked investors, banks, customers, and realtor's together in ways that were never before done and were often fraudulent to make loans happen, without anyone ever realizing what was really going on.



Ponzi schemes work because people simply are not educated about them, you'd expect an investor handling a multi billion dollar investment firm to know but the honest answer is in America, you don't always have to have an MBA or know calculus to be successful and that is the American dream. It is Something the internet is solving and tech generally will solve.



Madoff is guilty of nothing more than what Bernanke or Bush are guilty of. The REALLY interesting thing is that you are seeing many localities and state governments considering minting hard currencies (which have the disadvantages of monopolization despite the lip service everyone gives gold and silver right now) as well as their own fiat currencies pegged to the dollar. The reason I find this fascinating is because one of the fantastic ways to defend against a fiat system collapsing or being abused is by having many competing currencies; the #1 way you keep government in check is by keeping most of the power local and the #2 way is by constricting it's ability to tax. The disadvantage to that in the past has been exchanging those currencies but considering what Madoff built to run his firm, it wouldn't be difficult to do that using local currencies and I believe there would be other benefits such as adding additional barriers to market monopolization by large companies as well as monopolization of hard currencies; you would see hard currencies competing, if someone monopolized gold you'd have silver or platinum or cryptochips or something else that would route around that.



I would love to hear both of you comment on that, if you have the time. : - )

Modern economics are based off of Ponzi style systems; those with power have a tenancy to set up and maintain systems to keep themselves in power and there are many historical examples of this; Teachers unions being a good recent one. Fractional reserve lending, Hedge funds, and asset backed securitization are all forms of Ponzi schemes.

The problem with fractional reserve lending is you end up with more debt than there is money to repay it; if I create a fictional currency, the "Bobaler" and lend you 100 of them, at 1%, and only print 100 of them, as soon as the interest accrues you end up owing more money exists. The same is true for fractional reserve lending schemes; the advantage is this creates credit which if invested wisely, advantages everyone. The disadvantage is the credit must continue flowing or else you end up debts being repaid without new money coming into the system, which dry's up liquidity within the economy and slows it down; mass deflation and depression ensue. Additionally, you MUST purge debt from the system from time to time, and Bankruptcy is the only thing that keeps the system afloat. If the investment houses went under and we had mass bankruptcy occur from one end of the market to the other, we'd be in a better situation than we are right now. Unfortunately, that would mean massive "radicalization" to the political establishment which is currently very vested in the way society currently is.



Hedge funds function by creating localized market hyperinflation (bubble) thus drawing in prospects from other investors looking to turn hyperinflation in one market into profit they can use elsewhere. Those funds come from money printed into existence from nowhere as all bank debt is. The recent recent gas and food bubble's fueled by banks attempting to recoup losses from the housing market illustrate the problem quite aptly.



ABS's were a result of Hedge funds creating localized market hyperinflation; you had small mobile highly computerized companies who networked investors, banks, customers, and realtor's together in ways that were never before done and were often fraudulent to make loans happen, without anyone ever realizing what was really going on.



Ponzi schemes work because people simply are not educated about them, you'd expect an investor handling a multi billion dollar investment firm to know but the honest answer is in America, you don't always have to have an MBA or know calculus to be successful and that is the American dream. It is Something the internet is solving and tech generally will solve.



Madoff is guilty of nothing more than what Bernanke or Bush are guilty of. The REALLY interesting thing is that you are seeing many localities and state governments considering minting hard currencies (which have the disadvantages of monopolization despite the lip service everyone gives gold and silver right now) as well as their own fiat currencies pegged to the dollar. The reason I find this fascinating is because one of the fantastic ways to defend against a fiat system collapsing or being abused is by having many competing currencies; the #1 way you keep government in check is by keeping most of the power local and the #2 way is by constricting it's ability to tax. The disadvantage to that in the past has been exchanging those currencies but considering what Madoff built to run his firm, it wouldn't be difficult to do that using local currencies and I believe there would be other benefits such as adding additional barriers to market monopolization by large companies as well as monopolization of hard currencies; you would see hard currencies competing, if someone monopolized gold you'd have silver or platinum or cryptochips or something else that would route around that.



I would love to hear both of you comment on that, if you have the time. : - )

hola deseoo vender uno de mis organos
a buen precioo
por fallo econimico
estoy sanoo
llamame 3271041409
o contactame sammy1991_@hatmail.com

Professor Becker I really enjoy reading you work. I am glad I found your site through all the useless internet sites out there.

This was a terrible tragedy for so many people. You never know exactly how a person thinks, even if they appear to be just as normal as could be. Madoff needs to spend the rest of his life in jail. Unfortunately it won't be long enough for him to understand all the pain he has caused so many.

Я думала, что так не бывает

Лучший пост за последний месяц из тех что я вообще читала

I AM A NIGERIAN,WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SCAM ALL WE HEAR IS NIGERIA!NIGERIA!!NIGERIA!!!FIRST, IT WAS ENRON LATER MERILL LYNCH, AIG, LEHMANN BROTHERS AND NOW MADOFF.ITS VERY SAD THAT USA IS JUST FULL OF FRAUD AND I KNOW THERE ARE OVER 100 OTHER SCAMS THAT ARE YET TO BE UNCOVERED.

Games-House - новинки компьютерных мини игр, скачать бесплатно . Квесты, аркады, логические, линии
games-house.ru

Вы тут пишете пишете, а за окном уже весна!
Посмотрите какая славная погода!
http://sz138.net

I have no sympathy for people who lost money with him. In my view, they were mostly a bunch of rich greedy Jewish folks who invested in his funds because of 2 reasons: 1. greed, and 2. he was a Jew. That is what these folks do - only trust their own irrespective of the truth, fairness or justice. So, quite wining - it was the chicken that came home to roost. Let this be a lesson to you, not to be so damn racist.

an instrument of education for the masses, unfortunately isn't interested in spreading the wisdom of efficient market theory. "Mad Money" and trading tool infomercials spouting technical analysis nonsense are the ruling religion of the day.

an instrument of education for the masses, unfortunately isn't interested in spreading the wisdom of efficient market theory. "Mad Money" and trading tool infomercials spouting technical analysis nonsense are the ruling religion of the day.

SEC was complicit in the scam as they are in so many other scams. What you come to realize is that predatory activity commoditizes trust; monopolizing any given trust market introduces huge bonuses in productivity as inefficient accounting, reporting, and analysis procedure is no longer done and therefor costs reduced, but introduces massive incentives to betray those relationships. Maddoff understands this.

In any market where companies are not competing for trust, the end result will be increasing fraudulence as a predatory society grows around that fraudulence until quite literally we go from republic to oligarchy to tyrrany and armed rebellion ensues. Many people would correctly argue our country has been heading for a fascist dictatorship for some time; the bailouts are good proof of that.

Ultimately, Madoff pleading guilty is a way for him to protect the guilty in government, as well as a sacrifice to the public to reduce tensions; he'll be released when nobody remembers him.

The only interesting thing about this is the pace at which the internet is replacing the old trust structures and the efforts of current government to destabilize the work; e.g. the liberty bank seizure.

Trust is built on information. If IT makes information cheap, the ability to build accounting procedures into system at a reduced cost eliminates the need for the monopolization of trust markets completely, which is why the federal government is gearing up for a land war.

SEC was complicit in the scam as they are in so many other scams. What you come to realize is that predatory activity commoditizes trust; monopolizing any given trust market introduces huge bonuses in productivity as inefficient accounting, reporting, and analysis procedure is no longer done and therefor costs reduced, but introduces massive incentives to betray those relationships. Maddoff understands this.

In any market where companies are not competing for trust, the end result will be increasing fraudulence as a predatory society grows around that fraudulence until quite literally we go from republic to oligarchy to tyrrany and armed rebellion ensues. Many people would correctly argue our country has been heading for a fascist dictatorship for some time; the bailouts are good proof of that.

Ultimately, Madoff pleading guilty is a way for him to protect the guilty in government, as well as a sacrifice to the public to reduce tensions; he'll be released when nobody remembers him.

The only interesting thing about this is the pace at which the internet is replacing the old trust structures and the efforts of current government to destabilize the work; e.g. the liberty bank seizure.

Trust is built on information. If IT makes information cheap, the ability to build accounting procedures into system at a reduced cost eliminates the need for the monopolization of trust markets completely, which is why the federal government is gearing up for a land war.

Вообщем все понравилось, только много бестолковых коментов
_______________
http://ssprint.ru

You will see more of that in future years. Global warming entails more variable weather. More variable weather almost certainly entails more and more unseasonable weather. More unseasonable weather will depress crop yields below expectations until expectations catch up with the climate.

C празником Пасхи всех
_______________
http://mosaiclife.ru

Тоже возьму у вас эту статейку ссылку поставлю на вас
_______________
http://li-er-kovka.ru

Я непойму почему так мои посты удаляют или непубликуют и неотвечают на вопросы
_______________
http://175.ru

Да я тоже это заметил
_______________
http://broks.org

Да ладно что вы расплакались все нормально
_______________
http://mirohot.org

А я уже и продолжение этой статьи гдето видел
http://bsdetal.ru

Да я тоже сайт в избраное давно добавил
http://movk.ru

Да наспамили тут все знатно, даже плюнуть негде
http://shirinkin.ru

Спасибо хоть у вас есть ,что толковое почитать
http://duet-plus.ru

Вы вот пишите тут глупости , а никто и невспомнил что сегодня годовщина Чернобыльской трагедии
http://stroidiz.org

C праздником всех с Днем трудящихся
http://p-r-k.ru

Ребята что вы курили, такого понаписывали
http://okna-plus.info

"In any market where companies are not competing for trust, the end result will be increasing fraudulence as a predatory society grows around that fraudulence until quite literally we go from republic to oligarchy to tyrrany and armed rebellion ensues." http://www.vcao.net

sorry Dr Becker, but Pearl was not a surprise.

Да повеселился читая ваши коменты, по такой серьезной теме
http://anekdot-vip.ru

Хватит ерунду писать у нас фильмы всех жанров беслатно
http://film-v.ru

I made a summary of points that allowed Madoff to fool so many people, investors, auditors and regulators. Guess it would be interesting for you to go through:

http://www.myhowtoos.com/en/red-hot/61-understanding-the-madoffs-fraud

مركز تحميل