Goldman Sachs and the Broken Windows Theory
In 1982, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling published an article in The Atlantic called “Broken Windows.” The article argued that failing to stop small crimes and acts of vandalism, such as broken windows, emboldened wrongdoers and led to bigger crimes and unlawful behavior. Criminals realized that if small crimes were ignored, larger ones were likely to be as well.
Wilson and Kelling argued that by acting to prevent the smaller crimes, enforcement agencies would help stem larger crime. A few years later, New York City, in consultation with Kelling, began to implement a crime enforcement approach based on this theory. The approach had many critics — especially among liberal circles — who argued that such enforcement was disruptive to communities and too discriminatory to minorities because it unfairly singled out individuals when “everybody was doing it.”
I moved to New York City 24 years ago, prior to the change in police tactics, when the city more closely resembled The Warriors or Escape from New York than Sex in the City. I was always on alert for the potential to be mugged, and amazed at the apparent lawlessness of the streets and subways. I had no doubts that stopping petty crime would have an immediate and positive impact on my life.
Eventually the new police enforcement techniques led to a tremendous reduction in crime, which many locals had considered unstoppable. All neighborhoods had an opportunity for revival and economic growth that had been unthinkable just a few years earlier.
The run-up to the financial crisis had its share of vandalism and broken windows.
A speculative real estate bubble grew rapidly, rating agencies appeared to be unable to distinguish between good or bad mortgage-backed securities or collateralized debt obligations, and certain investment banks seemed to treat the credit default swap market like the Wild West. Some of these issues were apparent prior to the crisis in 2008, and many more have been uncovered since that time. The previous administration seemed determined to deny the existence of any problems prior to the collapse of the markets — and even as the crisis was unfolding.
In 2007 and 2008, Treasury Secretary Paulson and others asserted, on a number of occasions, that “the sub-prime problem was contained.” The current administration seems determined to “move on” and put the crisis behind us, despite many lingering questions about how the crisis happened and who was responsible. While many citizens in the country lacked a clear understanding of the details of the CDO or mortgage markets, they understood the unfairness of the bank bailouts and seethed at the billions in bonuses paid by the banks who had been saved by taxpayer money just a year earlier. But despite the occasional tough talk, the administration and Congress behaved indifferently.
I worked in the mortgage-backed security and CDO markets for twenty years. My prior company and job were blown up by CDOs, and I’ve felt a tremendous degree of guilt for my role in the crisis. In an effort to understand my mistakes, I devoted much of my newfound free time to researching and analyzing the CDO and mortgage markets. My goal was to expose practices that contributed to the crisis in the hopes of potentially identifying some wrongdoers and deterring future bad behavior.
Over the past several months, in posts at the financial website NakedCapitalism.com and in various meetings and consultations, I’ve questioned the government’s actions in bailing out AIG, Goldman’s apparent predatory behavior in the CDO market, and the questionable behavior of large institutions like TCW and BlackRock (links here, here, here, here, and here). But beyond a small group of like-minded journalists and bloggers, few people seemed to care or make the connection between CDOs and the financial crisis.
How can you say that there is a serious ongoing effort to clean-up the financial markets when the root cause of the last catastrophic crisis, the federal management of housing loans (Freddy and Fanny)has not even been LOOKED AT, or has been quickly whitewashed ?
This administration is supported quite by the same persons who have CAUSED the crisis and this administration’s moves to “investigate” Wall Street are nothing else than a cover-up for the disgraceful behavior of the democrats who have managed Freddy and Fanny.
Maybe you think that starting from any end we will get to clean the whole house…I think we should start from the rotten center of the problems….
Excellent way to look at it.
If we embraced zero tolerance financial policing ANYTHING could happen!
I mean, we could end up in a capitalist system for crying out loud.
“The article argued that failing to stop small crimes and acts of vandalism, such as broken windows, emboldened wrongdoers and led to bigger crimes and unlawful behavior. Criminals realized that if small crimes were ignored, larger ones were likely to be as well.”
small crimes like… illegal immigration?
@Sherab – Methinks the “whitewashing” of the govt malfeasance will not hold. Folks like me, with even half a wit, are not buying it. I suspect that the passing of this election cycle will help focus more attention on the cozy relationship between wall street and DC. The Goldman shenanigans of today will prove to be only the tip of the iceberg. Many more perp walks, including elected representatives and other officials, are coming.
The Tea Party focus on fiscal responsibility has been refreshing. I only hope that the cuts are applied equally and fairly. Yes, that includes means testing for entitlements. My mother bites her tongue when I say that but dad left her with little to worry about. At 55, I soon stand to lose but the SSA and Medicare ponzy schemes cannot stand. Show me the Tea Partier who decries SSA means testing and I will show you a hypocrite who depends more on their govt than their maker or themselves.
Same goes for govt employee pensions and benefit plans at all levels. We are watching the fruit of that idea take down Europe. These plans were designed to empower the political class from their inception. Their goal was to protect the ruling class from any serious scrutiny from their underlings. Put these folks in a position where they depend on their 401K and you will see real change in our public servants.
OK clean up Wall St. fine! What about the SEC? Porno all day every day? Ex-Wall St people working for the SEC or soon to be Es-SEC going to Wall St. Barney Frank and his live in hump at Fanny Mae? Ex- Congressmen or Senators? More lawyers or more layers of red tape?
I don’t disagree that there are Wall St shady deals and crimes, but the people what make the regulations take money from the people they regulate and leave gaps in the regulations that any Wall St. Exec can make Billions with.
Until Congress cleans up it’s scum don’t believe that Congress can fix Wall St.
Rant over.
I don’t know how the “broken window” analogy applies here.
Based on available information, there is no evidence that what Goldman did was in violation of the law. It may be immoral, but it is not a crime to profit from someone else’s misfortune. It is not a crime to bet against your own client either – the state lotteries do that all day long, they clean your pocket even though they promise you a lot of fun and an opportunity to get rich. If Goldman did break the law, even for minor offense, I would like to see that proven and the company held to account. But you have provided no evidence that they actually broke any law.
Until there is clear evidence, I am inclined to believe that this is just a political maneuver for the administration to whip up public anger timed to help push its “financial reform” legislation.
All these problems with CDO’s, and credit default swaps, would not have been problems had people who took out mortgages to buy homes were able to pay their loans. The real culprit is the CRA, that made sub-prime loans possible, mandatory (for the banks), patriotic and popular, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that magnified the problem by buying up these loans so more and more of them can be made. The real culprit are the self-serving law-makers who are now crying the loudest, who are trying to save their rear ends.
Don’t give me the “broken window” nonsense.
There is room for disagreement about Goldman’s behavior during the housing bubble, but I think it is disappointing that you would join Yves Smith in spreading the use of the anti-semitic slur that Goldman is a “vampire squid.”
Dear Dr. Bones,
It could happen to anybody, sir: you original-intent to send a scribble in favor of lieberalism and demonocracy and “the Democrat party” and, quite specifically, of Psocialism-through-Regulation to Dr. Paul Krugman, but start off with your tentacles on the wrong keys and out comes R-O-G-E-R S-I-M-O-N.
Healthy days.
It’s depressing to realize that the wave of drunkeness that passes for everyday life in Russia has spread to Pajamas Media editors. At least this is the only explanation I ahve for their publishing this hunk of junk.
Where to begin? How about with Mr. Adams’s assertion that “Surprisingly, certain right-leaning representatives, including the New York Post and Mayor Bloomberg, argued that the SEC actions and new proposed financial regulations were wrong.”
What sort of viewpoint regards Michael Bloomberg as “right leaning?” Or perhaps it is just witlessness. Mr. Adams may not see that Bloomy bawls for sparing Wall Street as any “reform” might hurt New York City tax revenues. But no: Mr. Adams’s resume at the end of his piece tells us otherwise:
“Thomas Adams is a twenty-year veteran of the securitization industry. He is currently a partner at the law firm of Paykin Krieg & Adams, LLP and an independent consultant for matters relating to the financial crisis, securitization, and mortgage-backed securities. Previously, he was senior managing director at a monoline insurance company.”
This is a barrage of warning signs that Mr. Adams’s conscience is made out shoe leather, feeling not the slightest pain as it kicks any ass in sight that can’t retaliate. Lawyer? Check; no one goes to law school to learn how to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. “20 year veteran of the securitization industry.” Check; who else would need 20 years swimming to discover that he was in a sewer? “Senior managing director at a monoline insurance company?” Check; the addiction to jargon is a reflex attempt to bamboozle, something that needed doing to keep the suckers buying.
The jargon gets another workout here:
“My prior company and job were blown up by CDOs, and I’ve felt a tremendous degree of guilt for my role in the crisis.”
Not, “My actions at a previous company helped blow it up, and I’ve felt a tremedous degree of guilt for my role in the crisis, but not so much that I would make a full confession and maybe wind up in the federal klink at Otisville, New York.”
There’s been a lot of foofaraw spread about how Goldman was within the law, and anyone who bought from them knew what they were getting, Goldman was just helping price risk, and baloney and baloney and baloney. Rather than get involved in that swamp of deception, consider another company Les Schwab. Such a company would have been treated with disdain by Adams & Co. at any time: boring, no action, dull dull dull. No hundred million dollar bonuses working with Schwab. But the kicker comes from the Schwab company motto:
“If we can’t guarantee it, we won’t sell it.”
Imagine Goldman trying to run their business that way. Imagain Adams trying to do the same. Then go to your library and get the books on spontaneous combustion, because you will see several new cases in metropolitan New York. Said cases will cause the notorious right-winger Bloomberg to yell for more government, more regulation, even while Adams’s eyes glitter at the possibilities such regulation opens up for “legal advocacy.” To be sure, Adams and the rest of the corporate bar, a squalid gang, will bawl that the Schwab standard isn’t appropriate for Goldman, heaving ethicists by the boxcar load into the fog to make it thicker, not least by releasing poison gas.
Bah. Adams is yet another proof of Bernard Shaw’s dictum that “All professions are conspiracies against the laity.” Let him confess his guilt in front of a federal grand jury, and take instruction from Chuck Colson. Then his views will have authenticity.
Bravo! My sentiments exactly. Onto the tumbrels with Adams and all his buddies.
The best regulation is a true market where those who fail lose their money and go out of business.
Even with great regulations, the enforcer may be an incompetent bureaucrat surfing porn or be bought off somehow. Human error and greed is not limited to the private sector.
Of all the new stuff proposed by Obama (which seem like weak tea or invitations to even more bail outs) I’d say keep the Volcker Rule – no speculation with taxpayer money. You want to short the USD or buy sub prime mortgages? Do it with your own money or your investor’s money.
I’d also suggest that investment banking should go back to partnerships, but I am not sure if that is practicable.
If you wish to convince the non-financier readers, then begin by at least defining the acronyms, CDO, CRA, etc. Jargon is not at all conducive to general enlightenment.
Should you be writing to a special audience only, by all means continue what you’re doing. I’ll stop wasting my time trying to use the opinions presented as steps to higher understanding.
As an investor in extremely small public companies for many years, I was amazed at the amount of bad behavior, broken rules, and outright fraud I found. I learned that the word on the street was that the SEC doesn’t enforce the rules, so over time everyone seemed to get the same sense as what I remember in New York in the 1970s and early 1980s: crime is ok.
The SEC doesn’t need new rules. It needs to ruthlessly enforce the rules it has.
Study Finds ‘Extensive’ Fraud at Fannie Mae
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300184.html
“Fannie Mae engaged in “extensive financial fraud” over six years by doctoring earnings so executives could collect hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses, federal officials said yesterday in a report that portrayed a company determined to play by its own rules.”
…
“The result was a company whose managers engaged in one questionable maneuver after another, including two transactions with investment banking firm Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that improperly pushed $107 million of Fannie Mae earnings into future years. The aim, OFHEO said, was always the same: To shape the company’s books, not in response to accepted accounting rules but in a way that made it appear that the company had reached earnings targets, thus triggering the maximum possible payout for executives including Raines, Howard and others.”
So, what happened to the crooks at FNMA? Are they in jail? Did they return their millions of dollars in bonuses? Funny how they’re left out of the demonization of the financial industry (which is mostly for show, by the way). Why is that, I wonder? Could it be that the people responsible at FNMA are too easily connected to politicians who wish to blame the collapse on everything and everybody but themselves? Could it be because FNMA is now in government controlled conservatorship, and is still losing billions of dollars every quarter?
Broken windows, indeed. What do you do, when it’s the mayor and members of the city council who are breaking the windows in the first place?
There are a couple of very valid points made in the comments although I appreciate the author’s point of view. Not everyone among the investment banks went under or needed bailouts. Brown Brothers Harriman has been invisible because they are still a partnership. Important point. JP Morgan did not need the 25 billion forced on them by the feds and quickly returned it. It was the go-go guys who wanted that last dollar of easy money who got caught without a chair when the music stopped.
Bernard Baruch was once asked how he made his fortune. He answered, “By selling too soon!”
The CRA certainly started the housing bubble and the regulators had to be aware of the “Alt-A loans.” I was and I’m a doctor, not a financier. The entire housing finance industry was living on transaction fees and not the income from interest payments from the loans they wrote. That was a big change from just a few years ago. Why did that happen ? Anybody know what “conforming loans” means ? Conforming to who ? Why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ! Why was that so important ? Because all the loans were being sold to someone. Conforming loans used to be limited to low maximums since they were intended to subsidize low income buyers.
Everybody in the business knew what was going on, including Congress and the SEC. They are all responsible. Sure, the Bush Administration failed to stop it soon enough. They tried, though. I have the videos of the testimony before a newly Democratic Congress. The Republicans, like Chris Cox at SEC, were not innocent but the Democrats finally blew the roof off after 2006.
Maybe we should blame the Iraq War because it put the Democrats in control of Congress and took Bush’s eye off the ball. I absolutely agree that the Goldman Sachs people have been far too close to government since Bob Rubin bailed out his friends from Mexican Bonds in the 90s.
Unlike Adams, I was not on the front lines of the financial meltdown. Still, I think that he is way off base . . . .
In my opinion, the superficial similarity that the “broken windows” model shares with the financial meltdown is a cascade effect but that is true of so many crises — something small and manageable, with a negative feedback loop, is not managed which leads to more and more ’till the situation reaches crisis proportion.
For “broken windows,” the model is that unrepaired/unprocecuted petty vandalism will lead to more petty vandalism which will lead to worse crime as more individuals come to believe that they can “get away” with greater and greater misdeeds.
It is true that a major contributor to the financial meltdown was a cascade of low quality mortgages. First sub-prime then Alt-A — as friends told friends about how much they got and how little they have to pay, more and more individuals saw opportunities to buy houses they hadn’t thought they could afford, to flip houses for investment purposes, etc.
But there the similarity ends.
Nobody, but the vandal and his buddies think its good to throw a rock from a window or snatch a purse. But there were plenty of people who celebrated the increase in home ownership and how increased demand was inflating the prices (they didn’t recognize it as a burstable bubble).
For “broken windows” you don’t have anybody suggesting that the anti-vandalism ordinances shouldn’t be enforced, it’s just that the police claim they’re understaffed and that the prosecutors won’t prosecute and that the courts won’t even slap wrists, etc.
But for the financial meltdown you had political leaders defending the financial health of Freddy and Fanny and explaining how important the CRA had been to help the underprivileged.
For Adams’ thesis to have merit, the “broken windows” model would have politicians celebrating the breaking of windows so that their glass manufacturing friends would benefit from expanded markets.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
The broken window hypothesis of Wilson and Kelling is probably incorrect, and almost certainly does not apply to the New York City, as amply demonstrated by Levitt & Dubner in Freakonomics (they hypothesized something completely different as the solution, though ther argument is not compelling). And, their were plenty of people (Amerman and Schiff, for example) who warned abut the problems with credit derivatives and sub-prime mortgages, but were ignored.
The chief problem, in my view, is the possibility that the government will attempt to bail out any of these companies. Another problem is that the folks running many of the companies come out winners even when the company crashes — they do not have enough of their own assets (or liability, either civil or criminal) at stake. I think this is a structural problem with public corporations.
And, of course, one must ask: why didn’t any Canadian banks fail?
I am going to assume my comments are in moderation. Please release the second one.
To that I will add my views on how to abolish the Federal Reserve: http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/2010/05/abolishing-fed.html
This article is nothing but a collection of innuendo, smears and unsupported accusations aimed at the financial industry and Goldman Sachs in particular. It offers us not a single FACT — not one that I can see — to support the notion that Goldman Sachs did anything wrong.
Where, Mr. Adams, is your evidence of wrongdoing? What “crime” was committed?
Goldman Sachs arranged a bet between two sophisticated groups of investors. One group wanted to bet that housing prices had peaked and would go down, i.e. they wanted to “go short” on the bet. The other group wanted to bet prices would continue to rise, i.e. they wanted to “go long” on the bet. Both parties knew full well that the only way such a bet could be arranged is if there were another party willing to take the other side of the bet. You can’t play poker alone.
Goldman contracted with another party, ACA, to put together a synthetic package of securities sensitive to housing prices. It was on the value of this synthetic package that the parties bet. Goldman is accused of not informing one of the parties — the German bank that wanted to go long — that the other party, Paulson, worked with ACA and influenced the selection of the securities in the package. Goldman denies withholding this information and ACA denies that Paulson influenced them.
And in any event, both parties had full access to the package of securities and every opportunity to examine them all in detail. These were not country rubes being tricked by city slickers – these were sophisitcated, experienced investors that made such deals and bets routinely.
So where in hell is the crime?
Please note the following facts:
1) This bet did not “cause” or “contribute to” or “aggravate” the housing bubble or its subsequent bursting. The bet was settled by what housing prices did — but it did not involve the buying or selling of a single mortgage or piece of property and thus had no effect on prices at all.
2) The bet did not cause a single foreclosure — it did not cause a single individual to “lose their home”.
3) The bet did not cause the recession. It did not cause a drop in consumer purchasing power or spending. It merely transferred money from the pocket of the losers of the bet — such as the German bank — to the winner of the bet, Paulson.
4) The bet itself did not directly cost anyone other than the parties to the bet a penny. Unfortunately, the German bank did succeed — after the fact — in getting the German government to bail it out for this loss — and thus pass along the costs of the bet to German taxpayers. But this is hardly Goldman’s fault — it’s the fault of the looter running the German government.
5) There is nothing wrong with such a bet. There is nothing wrong with betting that prices are going to fall. When you buy a share of stock, you are generally betting that its price will increase — and, generally, you are able to buy the stock only because some other individual is making the opposite bet — betting that it will fall in value — and is thus willing to sell the stock.
Like this article, the whole prosecution of Goldman Sachs is intended as a diversion, to keep our attention focused on the private sector and off the actions of the entities that actually caused this crises: the government-sponsored entities Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Reserve and Congress with its home ownership promotion policies.
Why is Pajamas Media contributing to the left’s obscene campaign to blame the disasters caused by its policies on the private sector?
This is as classically a case as you could imagine illustrating the saying: “The path to hell is paved with good intentions.”
They wanted poor people to have all of the benefits that the good habits of the middle class make possible. They incorrectly put the cart before the horse (to use another cliché) and attributed the source of the good habits as home ownership. Home ownership is the fruit of the good habits, not its source, as has been shown by what we’ve all just lived through.
Now with their (the law makers) good intentions firmly in place they used the full force of the federal government to make private lenders make loans to those whom they would have otherwise avoided.
Wall Street, in its finite wisdom, created what I’ve seen referred to as “pig nostrils” of loan repackaging, with nary a thought to how they would unwind these trades if needed.
And here we all are.
We did something similar in the 1980s with junk bonds. They made it illegal for the S&Ls to hold the junk bonds, and since S&Ls were the primary market for junk bonds, the floor fell out of the system. Followed by the S&L bailout.
Wash, rinse repeat.
The lawmakers keep inserting themselves into market systems with disastrous results.
The best thing George Washington ever did for this country was GO HOME!
If only we could get the current bunch to do the same.
Personally, I could not care less what happens to Goldman, however to take the ‘broken windows’ road is both fallacious and juvenile and misses the critical reason why this problem existed at all and was able to fester into the problem that it became. One can blame a particular road for accidents on a specific difficult stretch as we have all seen but to not consider the speed limits nor the common sense of those people taking the road causes the reader to miss the root causes of the problem. Not only that, it is an easy crutch to the slippery path of ‘more and better regulation’ that has proven in my humble to opinion to be an opiate to true reform. Financial regulation has not achieved anything and has done little to avoid the next unforeseen problemJ/ust .
remember, that each and every security that was used in every single transaction that took place in in synthetic cdos already existed. Why is this? They did not exist because Goldman created them, it was due to misguided and silly public policy that actually encouraged the foundational behavior of creating these securities to start with. Actually, by shorting these securities, one could actually argue that this limited the creation of actual toxic securities and transfered the potential losses from less informed borrowers and investors to those that are more informed.
It figures that this article is written by a ‘guilty’ attorney. I am just not impressed.
Interesting piece, and well illuminated by the comments. PajamasMedia is sure diverse, which is a good thing. No one can argue that PJM is “only” conservative/libertarian when they publish an analysis by someone so far to the left that he thinks New York City mayor Bloomberg is “right-leaning”.
Excellent point
One last comment: the “Financial Reform” Bill under consideration is nothing but blatant propaganda. It takes advantage of the outrage over the bailouts, to secure for those guilty yet MORE advantages. It is a falsehood.
The intent is to APPEAR to be doing something, but to actually make things worse, for the common man. The Fed, itself, was sold as something to “stabilize our currency”, yet we have seen 2000% inflation since its inception.
Sooner or later intelligent, well meaning people have to speak out about this. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Adams, that you are not here acting as a disingenuous shill for the same interests whose ill-gotten gains you claim to feel guilty about having in part facilitated.
Of course Goldman did wrong in promoting the sale of worthless mortgages in the form of securities. That much is pretty easy to see. What I don’t understand is where did Goldman find all these bad debts to start with. Were there just billions of dollars worth of these just appearing out of the ether? Where did they come from?
willis wrote:
Of course Goldman did wrong in promoting the sale of worthless mortgages in the form of securities.
Goldman didn’t promote the sale of “worthless mortgages”.
At the time Goldman brokered the bet between the German bank and Paulson (see my comment above for an explanation of what the deal comprised), no one knew when home prices would stop rising and go into decline. So no one could know for sure what the securities would be worth in the future. And all the parties to the transaction knew this — this was the very subject of the bet.
Had home prices continued to rise, as the German bank was betting they would, the securities would have gone up in value, the German bank would have won big and Paulson would have lost. As it turned out, the opposite happened.
Goldman, by the way, made the same bet as the German bank — they bet that prices would continue to rise — and, like the German bank, they lost money when Paulson turned out to be rights.
I am no apologist for Goldmans, but the author clearly does not (in this article at least) make his main point how this is a “broken windows” scenario with Goldmans. As others have noted, #7 Muskr; #16 Johny Cache, #17 Henry Bowman, #19 Michael Smith, #21 Glenzo, the author is not making his point.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are more important culprits in the meltdown. If these two entities had not been willing to buy ANY and ALL mortgages that were originated, the originators would have been much more careful. Why, cause the originators would have been stuck with some of the loaned money on their books. The originators would have been more careful about payback as they would have been loaning their own money.
Not trying to be mean, but overall this is a not very well written piece.
Mark to Market was a large component after the fact to increase the panic.
BREAKING NEWS:
GOLDMAN SACHS CAUGHT RED-HANDED!!!!!!!!!
GOLDMAN SACHS THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO FORECLOSE ON MY PROPERTY AND SECRETLY ASSIGNED AND CREATED A FALSE DEED OF TRUST FOR $118,800. I DO NOT HAVE A 2ND DEED OF TRUST ON MY PROPERTY. THE RECORDED ASSIGNMENT IS SIGNED BY A GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEE, JOHN CRANDALL (CHECK IT OUT: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/john-crandall-litton-mortgage-promiss-solutions/
I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS WHEN I HAD A TITLE COMPANY RUN A TITLE PROPERTY PROFILE LAST MONTH. WHO HAS THE $118,800? GOLDMAN SACHS OF COURSE. THEIR STEALING FROM EVERYONE. IT LOOKS AS THOUGH I AM NOT THE ONLY VICTIM HERE, WHERE THESE LAST MINUTE FALSE ASSIGNMENT SCHEMES ARE DONE RIGHT BEFORE THE FORECLOSURE AUCTION. THIS MUST BE THE NEXT SCAM AFTER THE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS RUN OUT. THERE WAS A LAWYER THIS MONTH WHO WAS INDICTED BY A STATEWIDE GRAND JURY WHO ALLEGEDLY ATTEMTPTED TO RETRIEVE OVER $1.3 MILLION DOLLARS TO OBTAIN THE PAYOFF FUNDS FROM FORECLOSED HOMES.
(CHECK IT OUT:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2010_05_06_gelfgatt_indict&csid=Cago
I HAVE BEEN IN LITIGATION WITH THESE CROOKS SINCE FEB 2009.SEE MY BLOG TO GET ALL OF THE DETAILS ON MY MOCK HEARINGS .http://bushnellcomplaint.blogspot.com/
Izvinite na offtopic, ali veceras sam video meteor, bilo je cudesno…